May the court conduct a trial without the prosecutor present, and if so, what must have happened first?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
The practice file should hold the papers recording how many times notice of the trial hearing was sent to the prosecutor and proof of each receipt, the attendance record kept at the hearing, and the notice setting out whether the hearing was one at which only judgment would be pronounced.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading gives the provision two situations joined by "or": the court may sit without the prosecutor's attendance where the prosecutor received notice of the trial hearing two or more times and did not appear, or where the hearing is one at which only judgment will be pronounced; in either situation the wording is "may", so the choice is the court's.
Another reading stresses the conditions on the first situation: it turns on notice actually received more than once and on the prosecutor's failure to appear, so the provision leaves open how notice must be given, what proves receipt, and what follows if the court sits without the prosecutor while evidence still has to be taken.
Your judgment
Where the prosecutor appeared at an earlier hearing but was absent later, or notice was given that only judgment would be delivered but the defence still expects evidence to be examined, what in the file determines whether the court may sit?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We revisit this card if the provision is amended to change how many times notice must have been received or to widen the situations in which the court may sit without the prosecutor, or if a court decision explains what proves that the notice was received.