Procedure in the magistrates’ courts. Factor for the defendant to decide whether to select Crown court trial Flashcards
Accused’s Decision Whether to Consent to Summary Trial
It is sometimes asserted that one advantage of summary trial is that there is a limit on the sentence which the magistrates’ court can pass. However, this advantage is nullified by the power of the magistrates to commit the accused to be sentenced in the Crown Court under the SA 2020, s. 14. (Sentencing Act 2020, Committal to the Crown Court for Sentence)
One potential advantage of trial on indictment is that submissions on the admissibility of evidence can be made in the absence of the jury, with the obvious benefit that the jury do not find out about any matters that are ruled inadmissible.
However, under the Courts Act 2003, sch. 3, a bench of magistrates may give a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of evidence and that ruling binds the bench that tries the case.
Another supposed advantage of trial on indictment is that the defence are entitled to receive copies of the written statements of the witnesses to be called by the prosecution as part of the process whereby the case is transferred to the Crown Court.
However, as a matter of good practice, the prosecution also provide to the defence all the evidence upon which they propose to rely in a summary trial.
Thus, an accused who is to be tried in the magistrates’ court should be in the same position as one being tried in the Crown Court as regards obtaining copies of the prosecution witness statements.
One possible advantage of magistrates’ court trial is that it is shorter and less formal than trial on indictment, and is therefore also cheaper (likely to be particularly relevant if the accused is not legally aided).
The Defence Statement
By the CPIA 1996, s. 5, once the case is sent to the Crown Court and the prosecution case is served, the accused must give a defence statement to the court and the prosecutor. The defence statement is a written statement setting out the basis on which the case will be defended.
The areas that the statement must cover
- the nature of the accused’s defence, including any particular defences upon which the accused intends to rely;
- the matters of fact on which the accused takes issue with the prosecution, with the reasons why;
- particulars of the matters of fact on which the accused intends to rely for the purposes of defence; and
- any points of law which the accused wishes to take, with any authorities relied upon.
It should be stressed that the duty of disclosure imposed on the defence is different to that which is meant by the prosecution ‘duty of disclosure’. In respect of the defence, it is a duty to reveal the case which will be presented at trial (rather than, as in the case of the prosecution, to disclose unused material).
Defence Statements in Cases Tried Summarily
In cases tried summarily there is no obligation on the defence to provide a defence statement. However, once the prosecutor has complied (or purported to comply) with the duty to disclose unused material the accused may give the prosecutor and the court a defence statement.
In the absence of a defence statement, the accused cannot make an application for specific disclosure under s. 8, and the court cannot make any orders for disclosure of unused prosecution material.
As to the use of the s. 8 procedure in the magistrates’ court in the context of breathalyser cases and the need for some evidential basis on which a s. 8 request must be premised.
Where the accused chooses to serve a defence statement this must be done within 14 days from the date on which the prosecutor complies or purports to comply with the initial duty of disclosure.
The court has power to extend this time-limit on the application of the accused.
If the accused provides a defence statement, the requirements in s. 6A as to the contents of the statement apply. The voluntary regime applies to summary trial, whether it is of a summary or an either way offence or even (in the case of a child or young person) of an indictable only offence.
Notwithstanding the absence of a requirement to serve a defence statement, the defence must identify the real issues in a case in accordance with the overriding objective in CrimPR 1.1
Duty to Give Reasons (summary trials)
the court, if it convicts the accused (or makes a hospital order instead of doing so), must give ‘sufficient reasons to explain its decision’.
However, the justices are not required to state their reasons in the form of a judgment or to give reasons in any elaborate form.
If a party wishes to obtain more detailed reasons, a request can be made to the magistrates to state a case.
‘the essence of the exercise in a criminal case such as this is to inform the defendant why he has been found guilty. That can usually be done in a few simple sentences.’ However, great care must be taken when formulating those reasons.
For example,D was charged with the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle. The magistrates convicted him, saying that D ‘did not say anything to persuade us that he did not tamper with the moped’ and they were therefore ‘sure’ that he was guilty. The conviction was quashed. The words used by the magistrates created the impression that they had convicted D because he had not proved his innocence (thus reversing the burden of proof).
If the court acquits the accused, it may (but is not required to) give an explanation of its decision
