Criminal Solicitor Dot Net Criminal Solicitor Dot Net

 
] ] ]
]
Welcome Guest ] ]
Name:
Pass:
Auto Login
Add me to Active Users list
Yes  No

Forgot password? | Register
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Search Box ] ]
Search the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site

Results per page: 
Match any search words
Match all search words
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Site Navigation
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Online Activity ] ]
People Online: 5
Guest(s): 2
Member(s): 1
Spider
Robot(s): 2
Googlebot, Inktomi
Memberships: 5629
The Newest Member is bizzylizzy
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Member(s) Visited ] ]
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Google Ads ] ]
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Calendar Events ] ]
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
Bookshop ] ]
]
] ]

   
Magistrates Courts
 Criminal Solicitor Dot Net»Magistrates Courts
Subject Topic: Charges Post ReplyPost New Topic
Forum Jump  
] ] ]
]
Author
Message Prev Topic | Next Topic 
Bloggs
Newbie


Newbie

Joined: 27 March 2009
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Posted: 05 February 2010 at 08:13 | IP Logged Quote Bloggs

A charged with ABH of X and B charged with ABH of X. Assuming the ABH is found suitable for summary trial, A can still refuse consent and be committed for trial in the Crown Court while B can remain in the Mags.
 
What's the position (for adults) if the charge states that A and B jointly did ABH to X? If A elects for Crown Court trial, must B follow or can B remain in the Mags?

Regards
Back to Top Printable version View Bloggs's Profile Search for other posts by Bloggs
 
notts chris
Senior Member
Avatar

Senior Member

Joined: 17 October 2006
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 186
Posted: 05 February 2010 at 09:42 | IP Logged Quote notts chris

B would follow to the Crown Court. otherwise there would be 2 different trials in 2 different courts.
Back to Top Printable version View notts chris's Profile Search for other posts by notts chris
 
Professor
Groupie


Groupie

Joined: 01 May 2008
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 81
Posted: 07 February 2010 at 17:10 | IP Logged Quote Professor

My impression is that each defendant has a seperate right of election despite the danger that there might be seperate trials.
Back to Top Printable version View Professor's Profile Search for other posts by Professor
 
Kelly S. A.2
Senior Member


Senior Member

Joined: 11 December 2008
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 410
Posted: 08 February 2010 at 03:15 | IP Logged Quote Kelly S. A.2

Definitely each defendant has the separate right to elect.  I think the case is Liverpool justices.  I have had this happen.  2 trials, one in Mags and one in CC
Back to Top Printable version View Kelly S. A.2's Profile Search for other posts by Kelly S. A.2
 
Ron Barker
Super Member


Super Member

Joined: 20 March 2005
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 4033
Posted: 08 February 2010 at 07:49 | IP Logged Quote Ron Barker

Grant, R (on the application of) v Bradford Magistrates' Court [1998 EWHC Admin 1087 (25th November, 1998) The applicant challenged a decision of the Bradford Justices that following the start of a summary trial, they purported to exercise their powers under section 25 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to revert to the role of examining justices and thereafter they committed the applicant for trial at the Crown Court. The applicant, advanced the following propositions.

First, that where there are a number of co-accused jointly charged, each has an absolute right to elect mode of trial, that right being unaffected by any election made by the co-accused. That proposition rests on the speech of Lord Keith of Kinkel in R v. Brentwood Justices, ex parte Nicholls [1992] 1 AC 1 and in particular at page 7F.
Secondly, the applicant submitted that principle applies where a co-accused has made his election as to mode of trial on an earlier occasion and it is unnecessary for all co-accused to be before the court at one time. For that proposition, he relies on R. v. West Norfolk Justices, ex parte McMullen [1993] COD 25.
Thirdly, he submited that, particularly in the light of ex parte McMullen , following the speech of Lord Keith in ex parte Nicholls , section 25 of the 1980 Act is not to be used as a device to circumvent the individual accused's right of election.

Held: Those propositions are unanswerable.

Back to Top Printable version View Ron Barker's Profile Search for other posts by Ron Barker
 
Bloggs
Newbie


Newbie

Joined: 27 March 2009
National Flag of United Kingdom United Kingdom
Posts: 19
Posted: 08 February 2010 at 08:23 | IP Logged Quote Bloggs

Thanks all - very helpful!
Back to Top Printable version View Bloggs's Profile Search for other posts by Bloggs
 
]
] ]
Forum Jump  

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post ReplyPost New Topic

] ] ]
]
  ] ]
Printable version Printable version
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
]
] ]

] ] ]
]
About | Contact | Privacy Policy | Newsfeeds RSS Newsfeeds | Sitemap Powered by SOOP Portal Raven 1.0
]
] ]