Issue 194  

News

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.

5kbw.co.uk

Nightingale Courts Closure and Loughborough Super-Court

Three Nightingale courts hosting criminal cases will shut by the end of June, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed, despite calls for more court capacity. Chester Town Hall, Lancaster Town Hall and Birmingham Theatre and Library – which handle Crown court cases, magistrates’ work and non-custodial crime work – are scheduled for closure. According to local news reports, Chester Town Hall has already heard its final case. Last month, the government revealed that 12 of the 30 make-shift court buildings currently in operation have hire agreements which expire in June. However, the MoJ said it has now negotiated extensions to 14 courtrooms and remains ‘in close contact with the landlords of all existing venues’.

Justice minister Chris Philp also told the House of Commons this week that a ‘super-court’ dedicated to Crown work will open in Loughborough in the late summer to accommodate large multi-hander trials.

lawgazette.co.uk

'Rape victims: Calls for pre-recorded evidence to be used in trials'

Rape victims in England and Wales should be able to pre-record evidence and cross-examinations so that they do not have to face perpetrators in court, the victims' commissioner has said. In a new report, Dame Vera Baird has called for the practice to be rolled out "as soon as practically possible".

The law in England and Wales says that under "special measures", witnesses who are classed as vulnerable or intimidated are eligible to pre-record their initial evidence and cross-examination. This practice was rolled out for all vulnerable witnesses - which includes all children - last year. However, it is not currently used for intimidated witnesses, which includes those who allege sexual offences.

The full report can be read here.

bbc.co.uk

'Pre-sentence report pilot in 15 magistrates’ courts'

As highlighted in the Sentencing White Paper, published in September 2020, there was a significant decrease in the number of PSR’s being requested by the Judiciary between 2010-2018. The PSR pilot was launched in response to this government recognising the vital role that PSR’s play in the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and the Probation Service has developed an Alternative Delivery Model designed to improve the quality of information presented to court at each of the pilot sites. The pilot will evaluate whether this alternative approach will improve offender outcomes, Judicial confidence and the administration of justice. The pilot launched on 22 March 2021 and was rolled out across 15 magistrates’ courts in 4 phases over 8 weeks. It is now live in all 15 magistrates’ courts.

The Alternative Delivery Model comprises three components:

  • Encouraging and monitoring a before plea PSR process (set out in the nationally available PSR before plea protocol) - seeking to identify defendants earlier in the criminal justice system
  • Maximising the capability of the National Probation Service to deliver higher quality reports on the day through targeted training and development
  • Delivery of short format written reports for three priority cohorts that are understood to have more complex needs. These are: Female offenders, Young adult offenders (between 18-24 years of age), Offenders who are deemed to be at risk of custody
www.gov.uk

'Government strengthens Post Office Horizon IT inquiry with statutory powers'

The government has strengthened its independent inquiry into the Post Office Horizon IT dispute, putting it on a statutory footing to ensure it can establish the truth about what happened. The move will give the inquiry new powers to compel witnesses and demand documentary evidence. Parties who fail to comply with the new inquiry or take actions to hinder it could face a fine, imprisonment, or both. The inquiry’s Terms of Reference will also be changed to clarify that it can investigate the Post Office’s decision-making in pursuing prosecutions of postmasters.

www.gov.uk

Cases

R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731

Is a conclusive decision made for administrative purposes by the Single Competent Authority (part of the Home Office), on written materials applying the balance of probabilities, that a person is a victim of modern slavery admissible in evidence in a criminal trial? The second issue is whether expert evidence of Craig Barlow commissioned by the appellant should have been admitted at trial. The judge excluded both...

... In respectful disagreement with the Divisional Court in DPP v M we do not consider that case workers in the Competent Authority are experts in human trafficking or modern slavery (whether generally or in respect of specified countries) and for that fundamental reason cannot give opinion evidence in a trial on the question whether an individual was trafficked or exploited. It is not sufficient to assume that because administrators are likely to gain experience in the type of decision-making they routinely undertake that, simply by virtue of that fact, they can be treated as experts in criminal proceedings. The position of these decision-makers is far removed, for example, from experts who produce reports into air crashes for the Air Accident Investigation Branch of the Department of Transport which are admissible in evidence in civil proceedings: see Rogers v Hoyle [2015] 1 QB 265. Moreover, none of the requirements of CrimPR 19, designed in part to ensure that the person giving evidence is an expert, understands he or she is acting as such and understands the obligations of an expert to the court, were complied with...

The judge was right to exclude the conclusive grounds decision, the Annex attached to it and Mr Barlow's evidence. We grant leave to appeal on these evidential grounds but dismiss the appeal.

bailii.org

International

'Ban on Non-Unanimous Verdicts Is Not Retroactive, Supreme Court Rules'

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that its decision last year banning non-unanimous jury verdicts in cases involving serious crimes did not apply retroactively, dashing the hopes of thousands of inmates for new trials. The 6-to-3 decision split along ideological lines, with the court’s six Republican appointees in the majority and its three Democratic ones in dissent. Last year’s decision, Ramos v. Louisiana, struck down a provision of the Louisiana Constitution that allowed convictions if 10 of 12 jurors agreed... The Ramos decision applied only to defendants whose convictions were not yet final. The question for the justices in the new case, Edwards v. Vannoy, No. 19-5807, was whether the decision should also apply to inmates who had exhausted their appeals in the two states that had allowed non-unanimous verdicts, Louisiana and Oregon.

nytimes.com

No spam, ever. We'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time.