Jury Trial

Question 1

What is the principle as far as the attendance of the accused in the crown court?

Answer 1

Must be present.

Bail should not be awarded by mags if they are satisfied that they will not attend.

If they are bailed and do not attend, a bench warrant can be issued.

Question 2

What is one key reason for this principal that the accused must be present?

Answer 2

Accused must be present at the start of the trial to plead.

Question 3

What are the exceptions to the general principle that the accused must be present?

Answer 3

Misbehaviour of the accused

Absence is voluntary

Accused is too ill to attend

death of the accused

Question 4

What is the overarching principle that grounds these exceptions?

Answer 4

The fairness of the trial

Question 5

What should be taken into account when considering whether to continue with the trial?

Answer 5

All the circumstances of the case.

Including:

Nature of the accused;s behaviour
Whether an adjournment would help
The likely length of the adjournment
Whether the accused is represented
The extent to which reps can present the defence
Extent of disadvantage to the accused in not being able to give evidence
Risk of jury reaching an improper conclusion from the absence
Public interest
Effect of delay on witness memories
Whether trials can be fairly severed where there are more than one accused

Question 6

What should not be considered by the court when deciding whether to proceed in the accused’s absence?

Answer 6

The seriousness of the offence

Question 7

What kind of behaviour may lead to the judge ordering an accused to be removed from court and to continue in their absence?

Answer 7

Shouting out
Intimidating witnesses or jurors

Question 8

What else can the judge do to try and manage unruly behaviour?

Answer 8

Warn
Contempt of court

Note - an accused should not be handcuffed in the dock unless their is a real risk of violence or escape and there is no alternative to a visible restraint

Question 9

Under what circumstances is it necessary for the accused to consent to the trial continuing in their absence?

Answer 9

when the circumstances of their absence are beyond their control

e.g. illness

Question 10

Who decides whether the accused should be called as a witness?

Answer 10

The accused

Question 11

What should be completed should the accused decide not to give evidence?

Answer 11

A signed instructions document outlining this choice

Question 12

What should the court do where the accused is unrepresented?

Answer 12

Give them any help needed as may be appropriate.

This can include an adjournment where an accused fires counsel but remains open to public funding during a trial (this is not an obligation, but can happen)

Question 13

What should the court advise the accused of after the prosecution case?

Answer 13

D’s right to give evidence in person, to call witnesses, or to stay silent and call no evidence.

Failure to do so can render a conviction unsafe

Question 14

What should be told to an unrepresented accused about staying silent?

Answer 14

They should be told of the inferences that can be drawn

Question 15

What are the restrictions on the way in which unrepresented defendants can interact with evidence in the crown court?

Answer 15

Cannot XX complainants and child witnesses in trials for certain offences

General power for the court to prohibit this should it consider it necessary

There are provisions which allow for an advocate to be appointed by the court for the purpose of those cross examinations

Question 16

What power does the crown court have where proceedings would amount to an abuse of process?

Answer 16

Power to stay proceedings.

The usual effect of which is that the proceedings are permanently stopped.

Question 17

What are the two categories of case which amount to an abuse of process in the crown court?

Answer 17

(i) where it is impossible to give the accused a fair trial

(ii) where it is offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the circumstances of the case

Question 18

Does prosecuting someone against whom the evidence is weak amount to an abuse of process?

Answer 18

Not necessarily - the judge’s power to intervene is limited to situations where the bringing of the case is vexatious or oppressive, not simply weak.

Question 19

Will failures by P render a trial an abuse of process?

Answer 19

Only where those failures have the effect of rendering it impossible for a trial to be fair

Question 20

When does P give an opening speech?

Answer 20

Start of trial - same as mags

Question 21

Can the opening speech employ emotive language to achieve it’s aims?

Answer 21

No - should not strive over-zealously for a conviction

Question 22

Should the opening speech address the law?

Answer 22

Not really - presumption against this.

But can do if mainly to remind the jury that matters of law are for the judge

Question 23

What is the general rule for which witnesses P should call in the crown court?

Answer 23

Normally all witnesses whose statement has been served on D should be called.

However, unlike in the mags, P has discretion not to call witnesses, but this must be properly exercised (i.e. not in an attempt to surprise D)

Question 24

What is the process by which a written statement can be submitted in evidence under s.9 CJA?

Answer 24

Party intending to tender the statement must serve a copy on each party.

If objected to, notice to this effect must be served within 5 business days

Question 25

Under what circumstances are s.9 statements admissible?

Answer 25

If all parties agree

Question 26

Can the maker of a s.9 statement still be made to attend?

Answer 26

Yes - normally where D failed to object but this is due to an oversight

Question 27

Facts can also be agreed and entered as evidence. Under which enactment is this possible?

Answer 27

s.10 CJA 1967

Question 28

What is the process by which s.10 facts are agreed?

Answer 28

They should be written once agreed and provided to the jury

Question 29

Can the prosecution make mention of disputed evidence in their opening?

Answer 29

No - should not mention disputed evidence (unless it's been deemed admissible)

Question 30

What is D's obligation if they dispute evidence which is tendered by P?

Answer 30

Must inform P

Question 31

How is the admissibility of evidence decided?

Answer 31

Either without the jury where there are only submissions Or a Voir Dire trial, where evidence of fact is heard without jury (but is limited to issues of admissibility)

Question 32

Can the judge review a determination of admissibility at a later stage?

Answer 32

Yes

Question 33

Will the jury be told if something is ruled inadmissible?

Answer 33

No

Question 34

What should happen if prosecution statements contain material that is clearly prejudicial?

Answer 34

Prosecution and defence (with the aid of the judge as appropriate) can 'edit' the evidence before it is called.

Question 35

When can D make an application that there is no case to answer?

Answer 35

After the prosecution case has finished

Question 36

Which case contains the test for whether there is a case to answer?

Answer 36

Galbraith

Question 37

What is the test in Galbraith?

Answer 37

The judge must decide whether the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict.

Question 38

What should judges not include in their consideration of no case to answer?

Answer 38

Defence evidence

Question 39

What is the test for no case to answer in the crown court not?

Answer 39

A test of unsafeness - this involves judgment of the veracity of witnesses which is the purview of the jury

Question 40

What could ground a successful application of no case to answer?

Answer 40

The elements of the offence not being made out The evidence being to weak or contradictory that no reasonable person could convict NOT that the witness is lying - this is a matter for the jury.

Question 41

Does the judge have power to call a witness on their own initiative?

Answer 41

Yes

Question 42

How should discussion of the law be dealt with in summing up?

Answer 42

First part is on the law, and is done without the jury present

Question 43

Who speaks first in a summing up?

Answer 43

P, then D

Question 44

What cannot be mentioned in a closing speech by either counsel?

Answer 44

Cannot refer to alleged facts or anything which has not been the subject of evidence

Question 45

What can P not do in a closing speech?

Answer 45

Must remain proper as ministers of justice. Cannot infer that there will be consequences for police officers if their evidence is disbelieved Cannot attack own witness (unless hostile) Cannot comment on a spouse's failue to give evidence

Question 46

What can D not do in a closing speech?

Answer 46

Reference sentencing - it's not for the jury

Question 47

Is D restricted to only putting forward his client's case?

Answer 47

No - can advance hypotheses which go beyond his version of events

Question 48

How is summing up encouraged to take place?

Answer 48

Both orally (as standard) but also in writing

Question 49

What duty does counsel have during summing up?

Answer 49

Duty to the court to draw the court's attention to any possible errors (whether of fact or law). This is slightly more onerous on the prosecution than defence, as they have the duty to prove the case.

Question 50

What should the judge provide the jury to aid their deliberation?

Answer 50

Written directions

Question 51

What are included in written directions?

Answer 51

A series of questions, written legal directions and anything else that is useful for their task

Question 52

Who should see the written directions before the jury?

Answer 52

Counsel

Question 53

What should be covered first in the judge's summing up?

Answer 53

The roles of the judge and jury

Question 54

What else must be in a summing up

Answer 54

Burden and standard of proof Elements of the offence (especially those in issue)

Question 55

What must the judge be careful of where there are multiple counts and multiple D's?

Answer 55

To direct that the jury must consider each separately.

Question 56

When should the judge not include details of s.34/35 inferences in their summing up?

Answer 56

When the accused does not give or call evidence, and has not advanced a positive case When the accused account has changed between interview and trial - this is a matter for comment not formal direction

Question 57

What should the judge include in a s.34/35 inference direction?

Answer 57

Significant facts relied on which were not mentioned when questioned. But should also highlight the reason given by the accused for the silence

Question 58

How should the judge deal with defences in summing up?

Answer 58

Should give legal directions which apply to the defences in question.

Question 59

Is that the accused was unrepresented relevant to summing up?

Answer 59

Yes - judge should remind the jury to bear in mind the difficulties for the accused representing him or herself

Question 60

Can the judge give their opinion of the evidence?

Answer 60

Yes - as long as the jury are directed to ignore opinion, and the opinion does not go so far as to remove the issue of guilt from the jury

Question 61

What should follow summing up?

Answer 61

The jury should be advised to appoint a foreman

Question 62

What is the final stage of summing up?

Answer 62

The jury should be directed to retire and to try and reach a unanimous verdict (a majority verdict direction may be given later if they cannot)

Question 63

What is the basic rule for the jury's retirement?

Answer 63

They should stay within the control of the court and it's bailiffs

Question 64

Can the jury ask questions of the judge during retirement?

Answer 64

yes - normally a note is passed by the bailiff to the judge

Question 65

What should the judge do when he receives the communication?

Answer 65

It is normally appropriate (unless completely unconnected to the trial) for the communication to be stated in open court and the advise of counsel sought if appropriate. The jury should then be brought in to hear the answer

Question 66

When can a majority verdict be accepted?

Answer 66

If they have been considering the issue for such time as the court considers reasonable having regard to the complexity of the case In any event this period is not less than 2 hours. (to account for time travelling to and from room etc, at least 2 hours and 10 minutes is given)

Question 67

What majorities are permissible?

Answer 67

10-2 or 11-1. If one of more jurors have been dismissed: 10-1 9-1 Juries of 9 or less must be unanimous.

Question 68

What should the foreman state if the conviction is by majority?

Answer 68

The size of the majority and the number who dissented. Failure to do so means the conviction cannot be accepted and can be quashed

Question 69

When can the jury find someone guilty of a lesser offence?

Answer 69

When the allegations in the indictment either expressly or impliedly include an allegation of another offence

Question 70

Which crimes are excluded from being eligible for a verdict of guilty of a lesser offence?

Answer 70

Murder and treason

Question 71

Does the judge have to deal with an alternative offence when summing up?

Answer 71

No - only where the possibility of the accused only having perpetrated the lesser offence has been raised in evidence and it is therefore in the interests of justice to do so

Question 72

How is the verdict of the jury delivered?

Answer 72

By the foreman, in open court, in answer to the clerks questions of whether they find someone guilty or not guilty.

Question 73

What happens if the jury cannot agree on a verdict?

Answer 73

The judge discharges them from needing to. This does not acquit the accused, they can be retried by a fresh jury.

Question 74

Who's decision is it to seek a retrial?

Answer 74

P's

Question 75

When will a retrial be sought, by convention, when a jury fails to reach a verdict?

Answer 75

After one failure, a retrial will normally happen. After a second, P will usually offer no evidence. This a convention, not a rule of law.