The Indictment Notes

Indictment: formal document w/ list of charges against the accused to which he pleads guilty/not guilty at the beginning of the trial.

Sources of law are primarily the Indictments Act 1915 (IA) and Crim PR Part 14.

• Offences set out in separate counts, each count containing 1 offence.

  • Indictment might contain 2+ counts against accused

  • 2+ accused might be charged in a single count if the prosecution argue they acted together to commit the offence

  • 2+ can be charged in a single indictment even though not alleged to have committed a single offence together – generally where all offences in same incident.

• Rules on preferring the draft indictment

  • Should be preferred within 28 days of committal etc. (Crim PR r.14.1) but in practice rules allow Crown Court officer to extend 28 day period even after expiry.

• What charges may be included

  • Drafter not bound by the offences for which D was committed by the magistrates in committal proceedings.

  • Can include any counts for indictable offences he considers to be disclosed by the evidence.

    • But power to include count for offence mag court expressly refused to commit should be exercised exceptionally – Dawson.

Contents of the count

• Statement of the offence, giving short name, the statute contravened if statutory, and the particulars of the offence.

• s.3 IA – ‘such particulars as may be necessary for giving reasonable information as to the nature of the charge’.

  • & crim PR r.14.2(1) – any legislation and the particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offence making clear what prosecution allege.

• Guidance from case law:

  • Include name – error in name not good grounds of appeal unless D couldn’t be identified from it.

  • Date of offence – also not necessarily grounds of appeal.

  • Mention elements but don’t need to say them all in full.

  • If property involved, the owner of the property

  • Place should be mentioned if the offence requires it to have been committed in particular place.

Rule against duplicity – Indictment can contain several counts but each count can only allege one offence.

• if 2+ offences alleged in 1 count, D can bring motion to quash

• e.g. “A murdered or unlawfully killed B” – bad for duplicity.

• Applied practically, so ‘A stole a dress belonging to S on 1 January and a coat belonging to M on 5 January’ wouldn’t be okay, but one saying ‘A stole a dress and coat a belonging to S on 1 January’ would be.

• Crim PR r14.2(2) – acts must amount to a course of conduct to include more than one incident in a count.

• When count is not bad for duplicity since it only alleges 1 offence, but pros evidence shows it was more than one activity, correct remedy is to ask judge to amend and split into several counts.

  • Failure to amend = grounds for appeal.

General deficiency cases – where person suspected of having, for example, stolen from V on number of separate occasions but specific dates + amounts not specified. Can allege one count that accused stole x amount on day/days unknown during whole period over which the offences must have occurred.

Sample/specimen counts – person accused of systematic course of criminal conduct, prosecution case can use specimen or sample counts (eg. Series of indecent assaults in child abuse cases).

Example of where you can do it – DVCVA s.17.

Course of conduct:

Crim PR r 14.2(2) – “More than one incident may be included in a count if those incidents taken together amount to a course of conduct having regard to the time, place or purpose of the commission”.

Joinder of Counts on Indictment

• Circumstances in which several counts against D can be put in one indictment – Crim PR r.14.2(3).

  • “if those charges are founded on the same facts, or form or are part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character”

  • Mansfield: could join counts for arson at 3 different hotels + murder for deaths in one of the fires.

• “Founded on the same facts” = factual nexus

  • Simple application where D does one thing and it gives rise to several offences, and where he commits several offences in continuous course of conduct.

  • Don’t need substantial contemporaneity – can be far apart but if one would not have happened without the other then on same facts.

  • Barrell and Wilson: W indicted for assault and affray at a club and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    • Pros argued W tried to bribe witnesses not to testify against him, which was after the incident at the club but would not have happened if he was not being prosecuted.

    • CA held that time-lag did not prevent charged being founded on same facts.

• “Charges form part of a series of offences of the same or similar character” = factual and legal link

  • Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: charges for attempted theft (L seen emerging from window of pub) and robbery (2 weeks later, L paid for drink in pub then took money back and punched the barman) in separate counts.

    • HL said they were of sufficient similarity to be joined in one indictment – seems odd because it was incidental that they were both in pubs, though they did have elements of theft in them.

    • So only need a slight similarity in fact to satisfy r.14(2)(3)(b) it seems.

  • “series” – need some limit as to time

• Requirements not that strict but sometimes do limit joinders

  • Harward: indictment containing a conspiracy count and a count of handling...

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