A Newton hearing or inquiry is a legal procedure in English law originating in the early 1980s, used where the two sides offer such conflicting evidence that a judge sitting alone (that is, without a jury) tries to ascertain which party is telling the truth.
[1] It is generally used when a defendant pleads guilty to an offence (as in R v Newton itself), but factual issues (relating, for example, to the appropriate sentence) need to be resolved between the prosecution and defence.
If that is not possible, then either The Newton hearing itself operates like a "mini trial", with a judge rather than a jury deciding the disputed points based upon testimony and submissions.
As the Newton hearing takes court time, resources, and perhaps witness testimony, if unsuccessful it will reduce any sentencing credit that might otherwise have been obtained.
The situation appears to be stacked against the defence, to induce acquiescence where arguments may legitimately be taken against the prosecution...These include: In 2008, James Hamilton, then Director of Public Prosecutions, expressed doubt as to whether a Newton hearing would be compatible with the Constitution of Ireland's guarantee of the right to a jury trial.