This is an extract of our Prosecutorial Discretion & Review, The Plea, Burdens, Indictment, Jury document, which we sell as part of our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
& REVIEW, THE PLEA, BURDENS, INDICTMENT, JURY
• Governed by Indictment Act 1915 (rough framework) & Criminal Procedure Rules Pt 10
• s.3 IA 1915: every indictment shall contain & be sufficient if it contains a statement of specific offence(s) with which D charged, together with particulars as necessary
• r10.2 CPR: indictment must be in form of Practice Direction & must contain in a para called 'count': a) statement of offence charged with a) describes offence in ordinary language b) identifies any legislation that creates it a) and such particulars of conduct constituting offence
make clear what P alleges
• Indictment important - explains clearly to D what charges are
• Needs be sufficiently detailed in order to allow D make defence/plea
• How much precision required?
• Hodgson 08: Ds in violent altercation - charged with attempted murder then indictment amended to add 'inflicting GBH under s.18 OAPA' but 'inflicting' is in s.20! CA criticised but couldn't lead to quashing
• Ds admitted their intent & had enough notice of what being charged for conviction be safe - seems technical issues can be overlooked as long as fair overall
• Bear in mind Art 6 ECHR probability
• A6(3)(a): everyone charged with a crim offence has the right be informed promptly,
in language he understands and in detail, of the nature & cause of accusation against him
• There is a general rule against duplicity
• Duplicity: 2 different offences in 1 count or 2 distinct allegations of the same offence in 1 count
• Governing concern: each possible offence should be treated separately - even if a no. of counts relating to the same occasion
• Is because judge needs be sure that jury were all agreed on the same matter
• Marchese 08: 2 instances of same offence in 1 count - question was about whether
AR/MR would line up - was bit problematic but CA said conviction safe - a matter of form rater than substance
• Then -> change in the rules - 10.2 CPR: more than 1 incident of same offence may be included in count if, taken together, amount to course of conduct having regard to time/place/purpose
• overwhelming shift away from technicalities towards overriding justice (Stark)
• Marchese would now be ok
• Dhupar 15 D accused of fraud by abuse of position against elderly lady - appealed saying trial unfair because counts bad for duplicity - CA held: no reason why not put the many small transactions of same type against same V into same count was rational & comprehensible - case divided manageably for jury & summing up v clear -> underlying issue is fairness - no prejudice to D here - condition safe
• Joinder: charges for more than 1 misdemeanour may be joined in same indictment
• 10.2(3) CPR: the indictment may contain more than 1 count if all the offences charged a) are founded on same facts; or b) form some part of a series of offences of same/similar character
Page 1 of 17 CPE
FOUNDED ON SAME FACTS
• Barrell & Wilson 79: charged with affray & ABH, W offered V £ to change story, so added charge of 'perverting course of justice' to indictment
• CA held founded on same facts because only 'prevented' due to assault etc - said need a 'common factual origin'
• contrast McGrath 13: D charged with 11 offences of dishonesty - could vandalism in cell be added? Dishonesty did give D opportunity vandalise but said Barrell doesn't stretch this far! Not about causation - is about reasoning - dishonesty didn't give M
reason to vandalise but assault did give W a reason to 'pervert'
II) FORM/ARE PART OF SERIES OF OFFENCES OF SAME/SIMILAR CHARACTER
• Ludlow v MPC 71: said would be same/similar character where there was a 'factual or legal nexus' - here attempted theft in 1 pub, then different day alleged robbery at diff pub within 16 days - sufficient
• Marsh 86: sometimes legal similarity enough if not factual & vice-versa
• Baird 93: indecent assaults on 2 diff boys 9yrs apart - CA said similar in nature &
legally identical thus valid
• Mutually contradictory counts - Bellman 89 says can be on same indictment (validly joined)
• B either tricked people into giving him £ to import drugs or he agreed to go to US
& get drugs
• Thus was either conspiracy or obtaining money by deception - ok to join as long as
P can present prima facie case on both - up to jury decide which
• How many counts on 1 indictment?
• General concern to avoid trivial counts - keep the focus on serious offences so as to not distract jury/wear them down/prejudice D - jury may see lots of offences and jump to conclusions!
• Ambrose 73: indecent assaults & damaged cell door (crim damage) - CA criticised P
for latter - may influence the jury - might also think being treated too harshly so let off - trivial!
• Clark 96: need avoid over-bading injury & causing prejudice - sample/specimen counts can be used (isolate examples) but must give judge adequate sentencing powers if D convicted - need get balance because uncharged conduct cant be sentenced
• s.17 Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 04: sample counts can go before jury but judge considers others - allows adequate sentencing w.o prejudice
• show if put all counts before jury, would last too long, cost too much & give rise to prejudice
• samples must be representative & in interests of justice
• but is it ever in interests of justice have trial w.o jury?!
• McGrath 13: counts joined inappropriately won't necessarily mean successful appeal against conviction - the incorrectly joined count was quashed (crim damage) but to quash the other, would need to show the crim damage counts prejudiced him for dishonesty charges
• Co-defendants: can counts relating to separate Ds be joined in same indictment?
Yes - efficient!
Page 2 of 17 CPE
• 2 ways: Joint counts (X & T did crime A) or Separate counts founded on similar facts (X did crime A, Y did crime B)
1) Joint counts: multiple Ds on same count/s:
• e.g joint enterprise, aiding, abetting, procuring
• doesn't mean they all need be convicted/acquitted - jury has consider accounts against each D separately
• DPP v Merriman 73: HL said Ds accused of GBH could be joined because avoids duplicity evidence, juries reaching diff conclusions in same circs - just need consider each separately & be sure who was who! (primary & secondary)
• Also said any/all can be convicted on basis they acted independently from other(s)
• Generally in interests of justice have 1 trial of all Ds; separate trials ordered a) In exceptional cases (Moghal 77), or b) If there are lots of Ds (Thorne 78) - 14 too many!
• On facts of Moghal is easy see why courts not keen order sep trials - increases chance of D being able lie (unchecked) to jury & prevents them from getting overall picture
• M's gf S had been severed to a sep trial on her own, everything unravelled!
2) Separate counts: multiple Ds on diff counts
• Matter of court's discretion, but need linking factor between offences to justify joinder on 1 indictment
• e.g Assim 66: both worked in night-clubs & assaulted customers in sep incidents no involvement - CA said generally should try diff allegations on 1 but interests of justice required it here
• Same type of attack within similar time/place
• Even if properly joined, judicial discretion whether then severed for a separate trial (Johnson)
• Note can have some counts against both & some separate as long as some proximity
• If have 6 indictments don't necessarily sever into 6 but could go into 2/4 etc
• Another possibility for existing indictment to be amended is to add a new D
(s.5(1) Indictment Act 15)
• Can be done unless injustice caused
• Booker: not wrong per se to join later found D, even if disadvantages one of original Ds
• When should severance be allowed?
• If prejudice caused to D1 by presence of D3 e.g Townsend D3's defence was hostile to D1 - conviction on that count unsafe
• note solution would've been to allow the joinder but then sever D3 to be tried separately!
• Walker 16: court refusing extension of time on basis no prejudice of having trial with co-D in a murder
• Williams 17: court has little time for technicalities relating to joinder - unless can show real prejudice won't quash for technicalities!
• As having witness statements from young/elderly etc can't just quash and say do it again - needs be sufficiently prejudicial
• Can validly joined counts be separated?
Page 3 of 17 CPE
• s.5(2) where court of opinion (before or during trial) that D may be prejudiced/embarrassed in his defence by reason of being charged with more than 1 offence in same indictment or that for any other reason is desirable direct that the person should be tried separately for any 1/more offences charged, court may order separate trial of any count(s)
• note must be validly joined in 1st place! Follett 89: severance not allowed where improperly joined (but P can apply to start again with fresh indictment)
• essence is, if these counts heard together, will D have fair go at running his defence? e.g where 1 count v shocking (like child sex) & other is dishonesty, can understand 1 w.o other so separate trials fair - jury could be prejudiced because of child sex e.g
• Blackstock 79: charged with 2 separate robberies - argued should sever counts to avoid confusion - CA said trial judge discretion - if gave clear directions, wouldn't interfere
• takes some explaining - don't use evidence from count 1 in count 2 etc
• D 03: 2 sex offences - judge didn't make 1 clear so convictions unsafe
• but in these cases risk is that diff juries may reach diff conclusion thus prejudice/embarrassment need be at v high level
• Can Ds on the same indictment ask for separate trials? Only if validly joined - same test of prejudice/embarrassment
• B(C) 04: Ds tried together on same indictment of sex offences against same V
• but in diff circumstances - D1 wanted bring evidence of D's conviction for incestprejudice alleged - CA said should be tried separately - wouldn't be able bring that in sep trial
• CJA 03 wouldn't necessarily allow now anyway!
• Grondowski & Malinowski 46: cut throat defence - argued would be prejudiced - C
rejected said trial judge has discretion - CA only interfere if obvs wrong
• Johnson 95: J was D for 3 counts, V for 3 counts - strong interest (economically) in hearing them together given witness identical but outweighed by fact jury would be confused - severed
• Thornton argues CA's attitude towards trial judge's discretion is too relaxed ->
• current bar quite high - wide discretion & stringent requirements - do rules of joinder provide sufficient fairness?
• CA are lax largely in interests of justice - not wanting quash on technicalities etc
• Can 'errors' on indictment be fixed? s.5(1) IA before/during trial, court can make such order as thinks necessary to meet circs of case, where indictment appears defective unless looking at merits, amendments can't be made w.o injustice
• Johal 73: said further into trial, less likely allow amendment - squares with purpose
• O'Connor 97: D didn't correct until no case to answer - added new count - CA said too late because meant diff causal story
• Gleeson 03: distinguished O'Conor - said no general principle that can't amend after close of defence case - here P's case didn't change - no one had notice error overriding objective of justice
• Love 13: burglary indictment didn't specify dwellings - allowed charge from
'building' - no injustice because allowed plead again
• Can amending 'defects' = adding new counts?
• 10.2(5): indictment may contain (a) any count charging substantially same offence as 1 specified in notice of offence/offences for which D sent for trial, and (b) any other count based on P evidence already served
Page 4 of 17 CPE
• Thompson 11: charged with producing counterfeit goods - found further counterfeit goods, gave evidence to D - could add counts relating to 2nd search
• Must D appear in court in order for trial to take place?
a) Magistrate's Court Act 1980 s.11: where D doesn't appear, can continue if U18 & if
U18+ can continue unless appears contrary to interest of justice
• but won't proceed where summons issued unless serve within reasonable time or
D has appeared on prev occasion (in absence)
• won't proceed in absence if court considers acceptable reason for failure attend
• don't have to enquire as to reasons but if not proceeding must state why in open court b) Crown Court:
• Jones 02: D was going come to plead not guilty but didn't appear - HL said judge has discretion whether continue trial - said must be careful because important to fairness under A6
• Lord Bingham drew distinction between involuntarily failing appear e.g ill &
voluntarily not wanting attend - A6 compatible
• O Hare 06: D didn't turn up - CA said if voluntarily abscond trial can continue enter plea of not guilty on their behalf
• s.6 CLA 67: where stand mute of malice/won't answer indictment directly, your may order plea of not guilty on his behalf - proceed as if plead x guilty
• Various pressures often applied on D to plead guilty - legit?
• Barnes 71: trial judge told D trial waste of time & that defence wouldn't work, so pleaded guilty - quashed! Said such pressure that must have seemed biased!
• decision to plead guilty must be entirely voluntary!
A. SENTENCE DISCOUNTS
s.144 CJA 03: in determining sentence, court must take into account 1(a) stage in proceedings @ which offender indicated intention plead guilty
(b) circs in which this indication given
Sentencing Council gives guidelines - revised 2016 to encourage Ds aware of own guilt enter plea ASAP - aim improve consistency/clarity victims & witnesses spared having appear in court - police/CPS can focus resources on other cases - saves public time/£
currently 33% if plead at 1st stage of proceedings, then after 1st stage, sliding scale of 20-10%
can go to 0 if plead guilty during actual trial has made it a 'steeper line'
but what about innocent people who think jury will never believe them? Over 90%
sentences from guilty plead - but negligible concern with legal advice>
Only 1-2% of all cases prosecuted result in jury trial! Law's focus shifted to pretrial phase by end of 20th C 65% Ds in CC pleading guilty (more in magistrates)
in 2014 up to 90% in CC! 72% pleaded guilty at 1st opp!
B. INDICATIONS OF LIKELY SENTENCE
Page 5 of 17
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes.