Criminal Solicitor Dot Net RSS Court Forum Feed

Central funds costs

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:17:32 GMT

Court orders costs from central funds - bill taxed but court will not pay
without signed authority from client who has of course now disappeared
- I know that there is a Liverpool case on this which said that it was
wrong of Court to demand confirmation that the client had actually paid
the solicitor before paying costs to solicitor. Anyone know the name of
the case please? I know that it is on Bialli and I thought that it was on
here on the case law updater but despite a frantic search I cannot find
it. All help gratefully appreciated.

Experts - Duties - Ethics

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:44:43 GMT

Hi - Can anyone assist with this?

If an Experts over-riding duty is to the Court - where lies the over-riding duty if the Expert is instructed to assist Counsel with cross-examination preparation, but not actually to appear as a witness?

Where Experts have conversations with Counsel - is the content of that Conversation disclosable to the Client? So for example, if Counsel took oral advice from an Expert but decided not to heed the advice provided - is the client entitled to know that?

Suppose a case were to turn entirely on expert evidence and a conviction resulted - might Article 6 be invoked as an Appeal ground, if a defendant later found out that Counsel had not heeded advice from an Expert on a critical key issue. Is there post conviction, any over-riding duty by the Expert to the Client to identify possible serious flaws in expert evidence cross examination?

Lots of questions I know.. can anyone help? Does anyone know of any Appeal cases where similar issues have arisen<

breach of suspended sentence orders

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:12:36 GMT

Is it correct that if you breach a suspended sentence order for 18 months combined with supervision and various add ons, then the magistrates cannot make the order more onerous by enxtending the length of the supervision order AND the operational period.

My client had breached his order, and the probation service had run out of patience with him for numerous boderline acceptable absences. However they wanted the order to continue, and then to be extended to give him time to restart and complete a probation group course. It sounded ok to me (as opposed to the alternative of custody).

The clerk chipped in by saying that probation can only extend the operational period or the length of the supervision order. Therefore, the court cannot extend the length of the supervision order as it was already at the limit of the operational period.

Was this correct? Not that we're complaining as my client ended up with an extra 6 months on the bender without supervision or having to complete the group course he hated so much.

Where Is Ron Barker

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:32 GMT

I am seeing a lot of posts on here today that Ron would have fielded by now. Seems a bit empty without his long and detailed answers to everything. Does anyone know him well enough to know if this is pause for breath and calm reflection or is he gone, gone never coming back?

Expert on dangerousness

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:35:44 GMT

Does anyone know, or has anyone used, an expert who can give an independent view on this question for sentence?

Our Psychiatrist can assist but, if one exists, a further report may assist.

Views or recommendations welcome.

Thanks

Fox v CC Gwent (HL)

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:18:51 GMT

Does anyone have access to a complete transcript of this case? I have a brethlyser matter that I think justifies the limited exceptions allowed by the House to exclude the evidence, but I'll need to check before I can submit the skele.

Thanks in advance, as always.

Bad Character

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:27:09 GMT

I have jsut written this once, clicked the wrong button and it all disappeared!!

Here is my query. I have raised the case on a previous post but the issues have now changed so i thought i'd start a fresh one.

my client has been served with a S27 notice under Violent Crime Reduction Act. he has refused to leave and been arrested.

The defence is that the police had no grounds to serve the notice in the first place as all the officers agree that at the time, he was doing no wrong.

cleint has numerous previous convictions, including recent ones for public order offences in the same area.

the crown made a bad character application under the propensity gateway whcih was refused by the Magistrates.

The crown are now saying that they shouldn't have made that appliation and that they can get client's previous in anyway. Under the act it states that the question is what grounds the officer had for deciding that the defendant's presence was likely in all the circumstances to cause or contribute to the occurance of alcohol related crime. CPS state that that the officers knowledge of the defendant falls under all the circumstances and therefore his character gets in automatically.

i think that the crown should have made their bad character application under S101(c) which we would have struggled to argue with.

Can anyone tell me if there's anyway to argue this as it seems harsh!!!!

If his previous does go in then ofcourse the bench will convict him!!

Thank you all and i hope this made some sense!

previous convicitons: refusal to disclose

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:57:06 GMT

An unusual situation presented itself today at court and it was one that I haven't had time to properly reflect on yet but I am trying to garner views.

The case involved an assault allegation and the CPS did a PNC revealing no convictions against the prosecutinon witness. We knew he had at least one previous conviction for matters relating to the defendant's immediate family ( this may have been germane to the case issues but the defendant did not attend for the trial so no bad character was ultimately made) and so approached probation who confirmed they had a record of a conviction against the witness. The indictments relating to this conviction were retrieved from the convicting court and I asked the cps whether they would confirm with their witness whether he had any other convictions given that the PNC was blatantly wrong. They indicated that they would not do this.

What are peoples views on this? If you get a PNC that shows no pre cons recorded against a witness which you suspect to be wrong how can you elicit from the witness confirmation of any convictions in the past if the CPS refuse to do this citing that they have used all their resources to discover any pre cons recorded.

Can you ask the prosecution witness in cross whether he has any previous convictions without making a BCA your justification being that until you know the details of the character of the accuser how can you make a decision over whether to apply for non defendant's BC to be admitted.

I appreciate that if a defence case statement is served that a S8 application could be made but let's assume that no defence case statement is served, what can the prosecution be forced to do and by what provision?

Form B

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:22:12 GMT

Anyone able to tell me if this form is reqiured in all CC cases,or just those where the Court has the power to make an RDCO?

Thanks.

Youths - delay before trial takes place

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 16:07:13 GMT

I know that there is a Scots case that deals with the issue of delay
before a youth court trial and that (i think it was a conjoined appeal with
that of a police officer) and also that HL may have overturned Scots
equivalent of div court on appeal - BUT can anyone help with name of
case? I have completely forgotten it!

Magistrates and Youth Court Trial Rules

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 15:50:00 GMT

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published an invitation to comment document proposing amendments and consolidation of the current Magistrates Courts and Youth Court trial rules contained in Part 37 of the Criminal Procedure Rules:

9. The proposal is that a new Part 37 (trial in a magistrates’ court) should replace the current Parts 37 and 38, leaving Part 38 to be discarded. Though the sentencing powers, in particular, of a youth court are distinct, the procedures in such a court are not so dissimilar to those that apply in magistrates’ courts dealing with adults as to require a distinct set of rules, it is suggested. Moreover, where an adult defendant is of limited understanding it is already the case that adult courts are required to proceed in much the same way as youth courts proceed: see paragraph III.30 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction.

10. The proposed rules are intended to preserve current practice and procedure. They incorporate the provisions of the current Parts 37 and 38. Their significant novel feature is that they incorporate other disparate sources of those procedures.

11. The Criminal Procedure Rules contain, in Part 1, an overriding objective – to deal with cases justly – in the light of which all other rules must be read and applied and all the court’s procedural powers exercised. They contain also, in Part 3, general powers of case management, general provisions about applications and directions in preparation for trial and, in rule 3.10, specific provisions for the case management of a trial, all of which are subject to that overriding objective. For that reason the proposed rules contain no requirements, for example, for the court to exercise a discretion ‘in the interests of justice’, or according to some other such formula, because that would be superfluous. Nor do they contain discrete powers of case management.

12. The current Part 37 rules already incorporate the provisions of primary legislation to a very modest extent. Current rule 37.3 (adjournment) incorporates the power conferred by section 10(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The proposed rules would incorporate such provisions to a much greater extent. However, for as long as the relevant primary legislation remains in force, being subordinate legislation the rules must be consistent with it. To the extent that they were not the rules would have no effect. The intention is that the proposed rules should indeed be consistent with the legislation they incorporate. Though expressed, usually, using different words, their meaning is intended to be the same. The Committee recognises the potential for confusion but believes it can be, and hopes it has been, avoided.

The deadline for responses is Friday 19 September 2008.

To download the invitation to comment document by following this link.

Committals

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 15:16:29 GMT

some guidance would be appreciated. I have a client intially interviewed in May 2007 - first appearance in Court is in April 2008- after several months of bail District Judge on last occasion inform Prosecution that committal papers must be ready for next hearing as matter has been going on so long, have just been informed committal papers are not ready.

I intend to make an application for matter to be discharged can anyone point me to case law? or any relevant section that will be of assistance.

Thanks

Driving presumption

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 11:15:10 GMT

I'm fairly sure that there exists somewhere a presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of an accident, but try as I might I can't find it anywhere. I've scoured Blackstones and Wilkinsons, please someone spare me the horror that is Stones and tell me a) where I can find it or (preferably) b) that I made it all up as part of a post-pizza-cheese-fuelled-bad-dream or something.

Ta.

Fail to Provide

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 11:08:50 GMT

Client fails to provide after being seen driving in a car park. The CPS now agree that this is not a public place.

I don't think that it is a defence. It would be to OPL but the police were carrying out reasonable enquiries and could carry out the procedure.

Any opinions? Not to what is a public place I been through that enough times.

I think it's a guilty plea but a discretionary not mandatory disqualification.

Firearms forensic expert

Thu, 01 Jul 2008 05:44:28 GMT

Can anyone reccomend a good firearms forensic expert ?