This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Prosecutorial Discretion & Review, The Plea, Burdens, Indictment, Jury Notes

Updated Prosecutorial Discretion & Review, The Plea, Burdens, Indictment, Jury Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence

Approximately 325 pages

A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes available in the UK this year. This collect...

The following is a more accessible 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:

the indictment

Governed by Indictment Act 1915 (rough framework) & Criminal Procedure Rules Pt 10 (detailed)

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

identifies any legislation that creates it

and such particulars of conduct constituting offence o 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 (IA s.4)

10.2(3) CPR: the indictment may contain more than 1 count if all the offences charged

  1. are founded on same facts; or

  2. form some part of a series of offences of same/similar character

    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’

    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!

    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...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes.