Preliminaries to trial in the Crown Court. Pre trial and plea and trail preparations hearings Flashcards
Pre-Trial and Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings
Since the introduction of the CrimPR, a considerably greater emphasis has been placed on case management.
At the forefront of this development is 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 CrimPD ch. 5.
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.
Preliminary Hearings Generally
CrimPD 5.2 provides a comprehensive and detailed guide to the procedure to be adopted as regards case progression and preliminary hearings.
Where a deferred prosecution agreement is proposed then, under the CCA 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’.
Note the need to have the necessary consent for prosecution prior to any such hearing
Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings
Save in cases where a preparatory hearing is required 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.
Material for the Hearing
The time allowed for the conduct of the PTPH must be sufficient for effective trial preparation, 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.
CrimPR 3.21(2) requires the judge at the hearing to be satisfied of the following: (a) the defendant understands that credit will be given for a guilty plea; (b) what the defendant’s plea is or is to be; (c) the defendant understands that if there is a trial, this can take place in the defendant’s absence, and the consequences in relation to bail if the defendant were to fail to attend court.
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.
The Form
The form to be used at a PTPH is available via tinyurl.com/hwf3otl. 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:
(a) orders in relation to witnesses, such as special measures (see D14.1) and witness summonses.
(b) orders as to disclosure including guidance as to large-scale digital storage issues and
(c) outstanding legal issues, including applications under the bad character and hearsay provisions of the CJA 2003
In Diedrick the appeal concerned the actions of the trial judge in questioning D about what he thought was a lie which D had told in the form submitted at what was then a plea and directions hearing. The Court of Appeal observed that what was said at the hearing was not expected to form part of the material for trial, and it would rarely be appropriate to refer to it. Where the trial judge was considering the use of such material, counsel should be allowed to address the judge first.
In Newell the Court of Appeal made clear that matters recorded on the form on D’s behalf should not then ordinarily be used as evidence against D through the exercise of the court’s discretion under the PACE 1984, s. 78, even though it is prima facie admissible as an admission by an agent, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. That was predicated, however, on there having been compliance by D with the CrimPR, and with the ‘cards on the table’ approach to proactive case management now required.
Valiati v DPP upheld that approach. The content of the form was technically admissible, subject to the exercise of the PACE 1984, s. 78, but it was essential that the parties were open in their answers at a hearing such as a PTPH, and that no party ambushed another subsequent to such a pre-trial hearing, and such candour was more likely where the answers given were not liable to be admitted in evidence at a later stage.
