About
A free weekly collection of criminal law links - for practitioners, law students, and anyone with an interest in the criminal justice system of England and Wales.
Curated by Sam Willis, a barrister at 5 King's Bench Walk.
News
Coronavirus: 'Lower priority crime cases put on hold'
Suspected fraudsters and gangsters should not be charged during the coronavirus outbreak to avoid "clogging up" courts, new guidance recommends. Cases involving serious organised crime and major fraud are among those dubbed "lower priority". The guidance will apply to courts in England and Wales for several months.
The National Police Chiefs' Council and Crown Prosecution Service document also advises that some people charged be released on bail for long periods. Cases in this category include certain types of domestic abuse, serious violence, and terrorism where there are no national security considerations. The aim is "to allow the current crisis to pass" and is likely to be needed until social distancing restrictions, imposed due to the virus, are lifted.
The guidance can be found here.
Coronavirus: Early Release from Prison
Risk-assessed prisoners who are within two months of their release date will be temporarily released from jail, as part of the national plan to protect the NHS and save lives.
Prisoners who pass the stringent criteria for release will be subject to strict conditions, and will be electronically monitored, including with GPS tags, to enforce the requirement to stay at home. They can be immediately recalled to prison for breaching these conditions or committing further offences. The releases will be phased over time but can start from next week. Public protection is paramount. No high-risk offenders, including those convicted of violent or sexual offences, anyone of national security concern or a danger to children, will be considered for release, nor any prisoners who have not served at least half their custodial term. Additionally, no offender convicted of COVID-19 related offences, including coughing at emergency workers or stealing personal protective equipment, will be eligible.
Coronavirus: Temporary Release for Pregnant Prisoners
Pregnant women in custody who do not pose a high risk of harm to the public will be temporarily released from prison within days to protect them and their unborn children from coronavirus. Prisoners in Mother and Baby Units meeting the same risk assessment will also be released with their children. Prison governors will be able to grant their release on temporary licence once they pass a risk assessment and suitable accommodation for the women has been identified.
Coronavirus: Interview Protocol
This guidance is intended to assist investigators and prosecutors in deciding whether suspects should be interviewed as part of a police investigation during the Covid-19 pandemic. This guidance will be reviewed monthly as from 1 April 2020 and is intended for use only during the period of the Covid-19 crisis.
'81% of chambers will fold within a year, Bar Council survey finds'
Over half of barristers’ chambers will not survive the next six months without financial aid if the pandemic persists, while 81% will collapse within a year under the current pressures, the Bar Council says today.
According to the representative body, a survey shows that 55% of all chambers cannot survive six months without financial aid if the current circumstances continue, and 81% cannot survive 12 months. The 145 heads of chambers who responded said their main concerns are interrupted court work, an inability to generate income to pay future costs and a lack of cash to pay current costs.
A summary of responses to the survey can be found here.
Coronavirus: CPS Upfront Payments
The Crown Prosecution Service has agreed to pay barristers £500 upfront to reduce the impact of coronavirus on the criminal bar in a series of interim measures announced today. Rebecca Lawrence, CPS chief executive, proposed an upfront Covid-19 fixed fee of £500 for prosecuting barristers in cases that have been previously adjourned for trial and have yet to have a main hearing because of the lockdown. The money will be deducted from the main hearing fee paid at the end of the case.
The temporary fee is due to be introduced in May and payments will be applied to cases chronologically based on the date of their existing original trial listing. Payments are likely to be made over eight weeks.
Cases
'Woman fined £660 for refusing to tell police reasons for travel to have wrongful conviction quashed'
A woman who was fined £660 had been wrongfully charged with a crime under new coronavirus laws, police have admitted. Marie Dinou, 41, had refused to give police officers her name, address or reasons for travel. They questioned her because she was “loitering between platforms” at Newcastle Central station on Saturday.
She was convicted of an offence under the Coronavirus Act 2020 at North Tyneside Magistrates’ Court on Monday, despite not being present at the hearing. A judge fined her £660 and ordered her to pay a £66 victim surcharge and £85 in costs.
Following concerns raised by legal professionals, the conviction is to be quashed and police admitted it “shouldn’t have happened”. British Transport Police (BTP) said it had conducted a review with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that “established that Marie Dinou was charged under the incorrect section of the Coronavirus Act 2020”.
R v Horne [2020] EWCA Crim 487
It was the prosecution's case, therefore, that the appellant had conspired with Ryan Parry to persuade Liam and Barry Roberts either to alter their evidence or to avoid testifying altogether... Finally, the Crown, with the leave of the judge, introduced (only towards the end of the trial) evidence of Ryan Parry's guilty to plea to conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice as some support for the truthfulness of Liam and Barry Roberts. This was admitted pursuant to section 74 (1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:
In essence, it is submitted by the appellant that the judge erred in admitting the evidence of Ryan Parry's guilty plea, given this was alleged to have been a "closed conspiracy" consisting solely of the appellant and Ryan Parry. In those circumstances it is submitted that it was inevitable that the jury would have concluded, however the judge directed them, that Parry's plea demonstrated the appellant's guilt.
We have no doubt that the introduction of Ryan Parry's plea would have tended significantly to close down the central issue relevant to this count, namely whether the appellant entered into this conspiracy with Ryan Parry, which was the charge he faced. The latter could not have been guilty of this offence unless the appellant was also guilty, and, considered with a degree of realism, Parry's involvement entirely depended on the participation – indeed, the direction – of the appellant. There would have been no sense in Parry taking these steps unless the appellant considered them necessary in order to enable him to present a false defence. Furthermore, once the conviction was admitted into evidence, it was not admitted as a mere plea of guilty but instead it included all the detail in the count. Notwithstanding the judge's directions in which he sought to limit the evidential impact of this evidence, there was a high risk that the jury would have drawn the conclusion that Ryan Parry's admission that he had conspired with the appellant meant inevitably that the appellant had conspired with him. Given the fact on which the conviction was based was that Ryan Parry and the appellant conspired together—and it takes at least two conspirators to make a conspiracy—then the conviction proved just that: Ryan Parry and the appellant were both guilty of conspiracy.
Other
'COVID 19: Everything you need to know at the Criminal Bar during the Pandemic'
Charlotte Newell QC and Phoebe Bragg have put together this useful guide to proceedings within the CJS during the ongoing Coronavirus crisis.