Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Preliminaries to Trial in the Crown Court - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Including the service of the prosecution case
      - The preferring of the indictment
      - The service of a defence statement and the making of any application to dismiss
    - - Where an accused has been remanded in custody and sent to the Crown Court without the prior provision of initial details of the prosecution case
        
        The material which is required for an accused on bail has to be provided at least seven days in advance of the PTPH
        
        Beyond that, the prosecution must have served sufficient evidence by the hearing to enable to court to case manage effectively
        
        It now includes supplementary provisions for the setting of a timetable, in appropriate cases, for the video recording of a witness's cross-examination and re-examination
- - - - If the accused pleads guilty the prosecution are released from their obligation to prove the case
      - There is no need to empanel a jury, and the accused stands convicted simply by virtue of the word that has come from his or her own mouth
        
        The only evidence the prosecution then need call in the ordinary case is that of the accused's antecedents and criminal record
      - Exceptionally, there may be a dispute between the parties about the material facts of the offence
      - If the dispute is serious enough to have a significant effect on sentence, the prosecution must either call evidence in support of their own version at a so-called 'Newton hearing' or allow sentence to be passed on the basis of the defence version
      - However, even in such cases, the prosecution evidence goes to how the offence was committed, not whether it was committed, and the accused remains convicted by his or her own plea whatever the outcome of the Newton hearing
        
        See Padellec [2012] as to the need for the prosecution and court to be cautious about too readily accepting a basis of plea
        
        From Guilty to Not Guilty
        
        Discretion to Allow a Change
        
        The judge has a discretion to allow the accused to withdraw a plea of guilty at any stage before sentence is passed
        
        This was confirmed in Plummer [1902] where the major question for the court was whether D's conviction on a guilty plea in relation to a conspiracy charge could be sustained in view of the acquittal of his five alleged co-conspirators
        
        D was not sentenced until after the acquittal of the others, and, prior to sentence, asked to withdraw his plea
        
        Wright J said (at p. 347):
        
        Whether the court had power to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty
        
        There cannot be any doubt that the court had such power at any time before, though not after, judgment [i.e. sentence] and, as we infer that but for the erroneous opinion that there was no such power the withdrawal would have been allowed, this might of itself be a ground for a venire de novo
        
        Similarly, Bruce J held that the first-instance court clearly had a discretion to allow the change of plea; that, if it had exercised its discretion against the appellant, the appellate court might have had no power to interfere; but, in fact, the discretion was never exercised one way or the other and that had deprived the appellant of a chance of an acquittal, with the consequence that the conviction could not stand
        
        Preliminary Hearings Generally
        
        Where a deferred prosecution agreement is proposed then, under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, sch. 17, para. 7,
        
        A preliminary hearing must occur at which the court will be invited to declare that it is 'likely to be in the interests of justice' that the prosecution and accused enter into a deferred prosecution agreement and that the proposed terms of the agreement are 'fair, reasonable and proportionate'
        
        There is the need to have the necessary consent for prosecution prior to any such hearing Welsh [2015]
- - - - Offering No Evidence
        
        Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 17
        
        Where a defendant arraigned on an indictment or inquisition pleads not guilty and the prosecutor proposes to offer no evidence against him
        
        The court before which the defendant is arraigned may, if it thinks fit, order that a verdict of not guilty shall be recorded without the defendant being given in charge to a jury
        
        And the verdict shall have the same effect as if the defendant had been tried and acquitted on the verdict of a jury
        
        The obvious situation for reliance on s. 17 is if the prosecution have reviewed their evidence since the accused was sent for trial,
        
        And have concluded that they cannot properly ask a jury to convict
        
        Alternatively, offering no evidence on some counts in an indictment may be part of an agreement with the defence under which the accused pleads guilty to other counts
        
        While the plain wording of s. 17 gives the court a discretion to decline to order a verdict of not guilty to be entered even though the prosecution intimate that they do not wish to proceed, in the last resort,
        
        The prosecution cannot be forced by the court to call evidence
        
        The Form
        
        The information required by the PTPH form must be available to the court at the PTPH, and it must have been discussed between the parties in advance
        
        The prosecutor must provide details of the availability of likely prosecution witnesses so that a trial date can immediately be arranged if there is no guilty plea
        
        The matters of case preparation that are addressed in the form are also addressed in other parts of this book
        
        These include:
        
        Orders in relation to witnesses, such as special measures and witness summonses
        
        Orders as to disclosure , including guidance as to large-scale digital storage issues
        
        and
        
        Outstanding legal issues, including applications under the bad character and hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Once a plea of guilty has been entered, the court may forthwith commence the procedure leading up to the passing of sentence
      - It may, on the other hand, take the plea and then adjourn
        
        Whether to adjourn is entirely at the discretion of the court
        
        Common reasons for an adjournment are to obtain reports on the accused or to await the outcome of other proceedings outstanding with a view to the accused being sentenced on one occasion for all matters (see Bennett (1980) for the desirability of linking up outstanding charges)
      - By virtue of the Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 81(1)(c), on adjourning, the court may either commit the accused to custody or grant bail
        
        Despite having been convicted, an accused who is remanded for inquiries or report at this stage still has a prima facie right to bail under the Bail Act 1976, s. 4,
      - Although in practice bail is usually withdrawn if the accused has pleaded guilty to a serious offence
      - Pre-Trial and Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings
        
        The court's active role in ensuring that, by the time a case reaches trial, all necessary preparation has been completed, and completed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible
        
        'Better Case Management' is a series of complementary initiatives, implementing Sir Brian Leveson's Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings, and given effect under the umbrella of
        
        The parties to proceedings are required to engage fully in court-led pre-trial case management
        
        Which is designed to identify those cases that will not go to trial at as early a stage as possible,
        
        And to ensure the efficient and expeditious dispatch of those that do
        
        The two major Better Case Management hearings to give effect to these objectives are the early guilty plea scheme and the PTPH
        
        Applications for Dismissal
        
        Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
        
        The accused may (after the date when the accused is served with the documents containing the evidence on which the charge(s) are based, but before the date of the arraignment) apply orally or in writing to the Crown Court for the charge(s) to be dismissed
        
        Where such an application is made, the judge must dismiss any charge (and quash any count relating to it in the indictment) if it appears that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient to ensure a proper conviction
- - - - Plea of Guilty to a Lesser Offence
        
        Where the indictment contains a count on which, if the accused were to plead not guilty
        
        The jury could find the accused not guilty as charged but guilty of an alternative (hereafter referred to as 'lesser') offence
        
        The accused may enter a plea to the same effect, namely not guilty to the offence charged but guilty only of the lesser offence (Criminal Law Act 1967, s. 6(1)(b))
        
        If the plea is accepted, the accused is treated as having been acquitted of the offence actually charged and the court proceeds to sentence the accused for the lesser offence (CLA 1967, s. 6(5))
        
        The circumstances in which a jury have the power to return a verdict of guilty of a lesser offence are defined by legislation, chiefly subsections (2) to (4) of s. 6 of the 1967 Act,
        
        Prosecution Options on Plea of Not Guilty or Mixed Pleas Being Entered
        
        Apart from the obvious course of proceeding to a contested trial
        
        There are two options available to the prosecution on the accused pleading not guilty
        
        Namely, to offer no evidence or
        
        To ask that the indictment remain on the court file
        
        Similar responses are possible where an arraignment results in mixed pleas, with either only some of the accused pleading guilty, or with one accused entering guilty pleas to only some of the charges
        
        In addition, considerable guidance has been given, notably through guidelines handed down by the A-G and in the report of the Farquharson committee on the role of prosecuting counsel
- - - - The defence statement should have indicated in advance of trial those parts of the prosecution case which are disputed
        
        Nevertheless defence counsel is still entitled to take advantage of any deficiency in the prosecution evidence
      - (e.g., a witness not coming up to proof) and submit that there is no case to answer, whether or not the element of the offence of which evidence is lacking would otherwise have been contested
      - The only method by which the prosecution may be released from their obligation to prove each essential element of the offence is if the defence have made formal admissions under s. 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, or where a fact is presumed or judicially noticed
        
        Letting Counts Lie on the File
        
        As an alternative to offering no evidence
        
        The prosecution may ask the judge to order that an indictment (or counts thereof) shall lie on the file, marked not to be proceeded with without leave of the court or of the Court of Appeal
        
        Such a course is particularly appropriate where the accused pleads guilty to the bulk of the charges (whether contained in one indictment or several) but not guilty to some subsidiary charges
        
        Leaving the latter on the file avoids the necessity of a trial, but also avoids the accused actually being acquitted on the 'not guilty' counts, which might seem inappropriate if the evidence against the accused is in fact strong
        
        There is no objection to an entire indictment remaining on the file, as opposed to merely dealing with some counts of a multi-count indictment in that way (e.g., in Central Criminal Court, ex parte Raymond [1986]
        
        As a result of D's conviction on one count of a severed 14-count indictment, the trial judge ordered that both the remaining counts of the original indictment and all counts of a completely separate indictment should lie on the file)
- - - - The procedure is that the defence ask for the indictment to be put again and the accused then pleads guilty
      - If the change of plea comes after the accused has been put in the charge of a jury, the jury should be directed to return a formal verdict of guilty
      - This was emphasised in Heyes [1951] where D changed his plea in the jury's presence but they were not asked to return a verdict, and the judge proceeded forthwith to sentence.
    - - It appears that counsel did suggest to the learned recorder that this was the proper course; but the recorder thought that it did not matter
      - It does matter because, once a prisoner is in charge of a jury, he can only be either convicted or discharged by the verdict of the jury
        
        Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings
        
        The major pre-trial Crown Court hearing will be the PTPH
        
        The objective is that normally it should be the only pre-trial hearing. Its purpose, where an accused has indicated a guilty plea either in the magistrates' court at the time his case was sent or where such an indication has been given between that time and the PTPH, is for sentencing to occur
        
        Otherwise, it is to ensure that all steps necessary for the proper preparation of a case for trial have been taken or are properly timetabled for future attention
- - - - If an accused enters mixed pleas on a multi-count indictment and the prosecution are not prepared to accept those pleas
      - Sentencing for the counts to which the accused has pleaded guilty should be postponed until after the accused has been tried on the not guilty counts
      - This is different from the situation of an accused who pleads guilty to a lesser offence,
      - Or where an accused pleads on a factual basis that is not agreed
  - - - Where, however, the accused seeks to change plea from guilty to not guilty more difficult considerations arise, not least because such a change represents an assertion that an accused has realised that he or she did not commit the offence after all
    - - Procedure
        
        The accused may make an oral application for dismissal only after giving written notice of intention to do so (Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
        
        It requires the accused to apply in writing not more than 20 business days after service of the prosecution evidence (and before arraignment)
        
        Copies of the application must be served on the prosecution and on any co-accused
        
        The application must 'explain why the prosecution evidence would not be sufficient for the defendant to be properly convicted';
        
        Ask for a hearing, if the accused wants one (and, if so, explain why a hearing is needed);
        
        Identify any witnesses whom the accused wants to call to testify; and identify any material that the accused thinks will be needed to determine the application
        
        If the prosecution wish to oppose the application
        
        They must serve notice to that effect not more than ten business days after service of the accused's notice
        
        Explaining their grounds of opposition, explaining why a hearing is needed if the prosecution are seeking one and identifying any witnesses and relevant material
        
        The court may determine the application at a hearing (in public or in private) or without a hearing
        
        The court may shorten or extend the limits imposed
        
        If the intention to make an application to dismiss is raised at the PTPH, the accused will not be arraigned, and a timetable will be set for service of the written application