Summary trial procedure. Pre-trial Rulings Flashcards
Pre-trial Rulings
The MCA 1980, s. 8A applies to cases that are to be tried summarily where the accused has entered a not guilty plea.
For these purposes, a pre-trial hearing is a hearing that takes place before the court begins to hear evidence from the prosecution at the trial (or, in those cases where fitness to plead is an issue, before the court considers whether to exercise its power under the Mental Health Act 1983, s. 37(3), to make a hospital order without convicting the accused.
At a pre-trial hearing, the magistrates may decide any question as to the admissibility of evidence and any other question of law relating to the case.
Such rulings may be made only if the court has given the parties an opportunity to be heard and it appears to the court that it is in the interests of justice to make the ruling.
If the accused is unrepresented, he or she must be given the chance to apply for legal aid.
Pre-trial rulings may be made on the application of the defence or prosecution, or of the court’s own motion.
Under s. 8 B (1), a pre-trial ruling is binding until the case against the accused (or, where there is more than one, against each of them) is disposed of.
The case is disposed of if the accused is acquitted or convicted, or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case, or the case is dismissed.
However, under s. 8 B (3), the court may (on application by a party or of its own motion) discharge or vary a pre-trial ruling provided it appears to the court that it is in the interests of justice to do so, and the court has given the parties an opportunity to be heard.
A party can apply for the ruling to be discharged or varied only if there has been a material change of circumstances since the ruling was made or, if there has been a previous application under s. 8B (pre-trial ruling), since that application was made.
In R (CPS) v Gloucester Justices MacKay J, considering the power of the magistrates’ court to vary the pre-trial ruling of its own motion, made the point that it is difficult to accept that it could be in the interests of justice for the court to annul or discharge its own ruling without a compelling reason to do so, such as changed circumstances or fresh evidence;
it is not sufficient that a different bench reaches a different conclusion on the same material.
‘Once a decision has been made after proper inquiry and consideration of all relevant factors, it cannot be reversed merely by re-examining the case afresh on the same material’.
review of a decision ‘will be permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken’ or ‘if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court.
it is ‘necessary for the efficacious administration of justice to take a strict approach to the power of a lower court to revisit and revoke an order earlier made by itself’ but that ‘there must be some power to do so in the interests of justice ; that power arises where there is ‘a change of relevant circumstances’ but ‘cases in which an earlier existing circumstance, not drawn to the attention of the court at the first hearing, would justify the court in later overturning its first decision would be most infrequent’.
the common-law rule remains, but would be relevant only to those cases where ss. 8A and 8B do not apply (those sections ‘bite’ only once the decision has been made that a summary trial will occur).
There is no provision for appeals against rulings under s. 8A. However, an error of law in such a ruling could form the basis of an appeal by way of case stated once there has been a final determination of the proceedings in the magistrates’ court
