NO CASE TO ANSWER.......................................
No case answer refers to a submission made by a defendant or accused in a court, which states that the claim or prosecution is not sufficient for conviction or judgment. The defendant supports his/her submission by pleading that that the case is based on insufficient legal grounds or insufficient factual evidence. A successful no case submission results in the end of a trial and release of the defendant.
No case to answer is heard after prosecution evidence and arguments. In this submission, the accused asks the judge to tell the jury to find that s/he is not guilty.

Home >Indictable Offences >Trials - Indictable Offences No case to answer
When all the witnesses for the prosecution have been heard and the prosecution case has closed, the accused can submit to the judge that there is no case to answer. The jury are not in the courtroom when this is done. In this submission, the accused asks the judge to tell the jury to find the accused not guilty without even hearing from the accused, on the basis that the prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence to support the charge. If the judge agrees, the jury come back into the courtroom and the judge then directs the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict and the jury must do so. The case is then finished. If the judge does not agree, the accused must present her or his case to the jury. - See more at: http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch13s03s06s05.php#sthash.HBwIqJW5.dpuf

5.7.1 - No Case to Answer

1. At the end of the prosecution case, the defence may submit to the judge that there is no case for the accused to answer (CPA 2009 s226).
2. The test for a "no-case" submission is well established:
   [I]f there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague) which can be taken into account by the jury in its deliberations and that evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the jury for its decision. Or, to put the matter in more usual terms, a verdict of not guilty may be directed only if there is a defect in the evidence such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty (Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207).
3. A judge assesses a "no-case" submission by taking the prosecution evidence (including the answers of prosecution witnesses to cross-examination) at its highest and by drawing all inferences that are the most favourable to the prosecution case that are reasonably open (Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410; Case Stated by DPP (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 70 A Crim R 323; R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060).
4. The weight of evidence is purely a question for the jury. The judge is not called upon to determine whether he or she thinks that the accused should be convicted. The test is whether, as a question of law, a jury could lawfully find the accused guilty (May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433).
5. The judge must assume that the jury will accept the prosecution witnesses as credible and reliable. The assessment of witnesses is a matter for the jury and where, on one view of the evidence, the evidence demonstrates the accused’s guilt, a "no-case" submission must be rejected (Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410; R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060).
6. The judge does not need to consider evidence that contradicts, qualifies or explains the prosecution’s case or that supports the accused’s case (R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74).
7. The test for a "no-case" submission is different to the test on appeal for whether a verdict is "unsafe or unsatisfactory". A judge on a "no case" submission must apply the test stated above and may not uphold the submission on the basis that any conviction is likely to be overturned on appeal as unsafe and unsatisfactory (Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410; c.f. M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487).
8. Courts on appeal will not inquire into the correctness of a decision on a "no-case" submission. The court will instead consider the whole of the evidence to determine whether the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory. This will include any evidence led by the accused in his or her defence. The court is not limited to deciding whether the evidence that was available at the close of the prosecution case was sufficient to support the verdict (R v Wood [1974] VR 117; R v Vasic (2005) 11 VR 380; R v Barclay, Unreported, VSC CCA, 13 February 1985).