Pre Trial Procedure in Criminal Cases Once a person has been charged with a criminal offence, the next

matter to be considered is how and where that accusation should be tried. Criminal offences are divided for this purpose into three classes. 1) The most serious offences are indictable only, and must be tried on indictment in the crown court. These include treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, riot and blackmail. The magistrate may still have to decide preliminary matters such as venue and bail, but take no part in the trial proper. 2) The least serious offences are summary only and must be tried summarily in the magistrate court. These include common assault, criminal damage valued below 5000 pounds, taking a motor vehicle, driving while intoxicated, and almost all other motoring offences. The magistrates decide guilt or innocence and (if guilty) pass an appropriate sentence; the Crown court IS NOT INVOLVED UNLESS THE defendant appeals against the magistrates decision. 3) A large number of medium-rank offences are either-way offences and can be tried either way. These include assault occasioning actual bodily harm, theft, burglary, fraud, handling stolen goods, arson and sexual assault. Such offences are tried summarily by the Magistrates court if the magistrates, the prosecution and defendant all agree, but must be tried on indictment in the crown court if any one party so request. Where an either-way offence is tried summarily and the magistrate finds the defendant guilty, they can still send him to the crown court fro sentencing powers (a maximum of 12 months imprisonment) are adequate. Some either-way offences are clearly too serious for the magistrate to deal with- a string of burglaries, a million-pounds fraud, or a vicious attack leaving the victim permanently disabled, for example- and the magistrates themselves would send such cases to the Crown Court for trial. But in some cases it is the defendant who refuses to be tried by the magistrates and exercises his historic right to be tried by a jury. Of all the cases sent to the Crown Court for trial, some 18% involve indictable-only offences triable in only that court, 52% are either-way cases sent up because the magistrates are unwilling to try them, and 30% involve either-way offences where the defendant has elected jury by trial. Children and young persons under 18 do not have the right to choose trial by jury, and are normally tried summarily in the Youth Court for all offences except those carrying a possibly penalty of 14 years or more (which would include murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery). The youth court is made up of specially trained and experienced magistrates, and sits in private with less formality than the ordinary court. Even where a young person is tried in the Crown Court (because the offence is a very serious one, or because he is to be tried alongside an adult offender) the procedure is adapted to take account of his age. T & V vs. United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights upheld complaints by 2 boys convicted of murder that their trial in the Crown Court (at age 11) violated their rights to a fair trial; the formality of a jury trial in open court would have rendered the proceeding largely incomprehensible to them. In response to this decision, Lord Bingham CJ issued a Practice Direction reminding judges that the purpose of a trial is to determine questions of guilt and/or sentence, and that the trial process itself should not expose the defendant to avoidable intimidation, humiliation or distress. The trial of a young defendant should therefore be held in a courtroom in which all participants are on the same level, and the defendant should be permitted to seat with his family. Wigs and Gowns should not be worn, and the timetable should take account of a young persons inability to concentrate for long periods. Attendance by members of the public and/or journalists should be restricted if necessary, subject to the publics right to be informed about the administration of justice in the Crown Court. Bail An important pre-trail matter o be decided is whether the defendant should stay in custody while awaiting bail the trial or whether bail should be granted. Therefore, bail can be described as a commitment made (and possibly secured by property for example a passport) to secure the release of a person suspected of a crime, to provide some kind of guarantee that the suspects will appear to answer the charges at some later date. A suspected criminal may be brought to court by arrest or summons. In some 80& of criminal cases triable summarily, a summons is served (usually by post) directing the accused person to appear before the magistrates at a certain time and place to answer certain charges. For indictable and eitherway offences the summons is less common, but it is still used in a significant number of cases. A person who is summonsed is free to go about his normal daily life until he arrives at court at the appointed date and time; if he fails to appear, the magistrates or judge may issues a bench warrant authorizing his arrest even where the offence itself is minor. For more serious offences, where a suspect has been arrested, a decision must be made whether he is to be released on bail or kept in custody until his trail. The police themselves may grant bail pending on the persons first appearance before the magistrates, and the magistrates in turn may grant bail pending trail, reconsidering the matter each time the defendant appears before tem for a further remand. If the magistrates refuse bail the accused has the right of appeal to a judge in the Crown Court. There is clearly a balancing exercise to be carried out, between the protection of the public and the assurance that the defendant will appear in court on the one hand, and the presumption of innocence and the avoidance of unnecessary public expenditure on the other. The Bail Act 1976 creates a presumption I the favor of bail; a person charged with any except the most serious offences is generally entitled to bail unless the court has reason to

believe that he would fail to surrender, would interfere with witnesses or evidence, or would commit another offence. In making its decision, the court may legitimately be influenced by any of the factors listed in schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976. These include the nature of the offence, the likely result of a conviction, the strength of the evidence, and the defendants character, antecedents and community ties. The Act is applied inconsistently, however, and some benches grant bail to a far greater proportion of defendants than do others. R V Nottingham JJ ex p Davis (1980) To avoid a lot of wasted time, the Nottingham bench adopted a policy that on a third or subsequent application for bail they would not hear full argument, but would consider only changes in circumstances or other new matters arising since the previous application. Refusing As application for mandamus directing the bench to hear his renewed application in full, The High Court said the previous finding that schedule 1 circumstances existed was to be treated as res judicta (Latin: A matter that has already been conclusively decided by a court). Bail may be granted unconditionally, or on such conditions as appear necessary to ensure that the accused person surrenders to his bail, does not commit further offences, does not interfere with witnesses or evidence, and is available as necessary for the purpose of the court (such as making of social enquiries). Typical conditions include finding sureties (people willing to risk their own money on a promise to ensure that the defendants turns up), surrendering a passport, living at a certain address, avoiding certain places or people, and reporting regularly to the police. D can appeal against unreasonable bail conditions, but this right is rarely exercised. THE CROWN PROSECTION SERVICE ROLE The main role of the CPS is the prosecution of alleged criminal offenders in England and Wales. This role includes four main functions: Advising the police on possible prosecution Reviewing prosecutions started by the police to ensure that the right defendants are prosecuted on the right charges. Preparing cases fro court Prosecuting cases at the magistrates court and instructing counsel to prosecute, or prosecuting since April 2000 itself, in the Crown Court and higher courts. After the police have investigated a crime and passed the papers to the CPS, one of their lawyers- called a Crown Prosecutor- carefully reviews the papers to decide whether or not to go ahead with the case. The prosecutors decision is based on the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors: Is there enough evidence? Is it in public interest to prosecute?

A case has to pass both these tests before the CPS can start or continue a prosecution. The prosecutor reviews the case to see if there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is not and police say that there is no more evidence or any real prospect of more becoming available, the case will be stopped. If a prosecutors thinks that there is enough evidence to start or continue a prosecution, he or she will then consider whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. This means that the prosecutor must think carefully about all the factors for and against a prosecution, and assess in each case whether a prosecution should go ahead. PRESENTING CASES IN COURT If the prosecutor thinks that there is enough evidence, and that a prosecution is needed in the public interest the case is then presented in the magistrates court. The CPS lawyer will present the facts to the court When cases go on to the crown court, The CPS instructs a barrister (often known as Counsel), or a solicitor-advocate so that he or she can present the prosecution for the CPS. CPS lawyers have only been able to present cases themselves since April 2000, under s37 Access to Justice Act 1999.