*/
One judge-led method of saving money and clearing the Crown Court lists has been rejected by the Court of Appeal.
In a judgment of 3 August, the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Crim 1931) disapproved of events at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 and 13 July 2010. Having already told the prosecution, “This country is next to broke, we do not enjoy the luxury of being able to spend two days of a judge and jury’s time on this kind of thing” (the defendant had elected trial by jury), Judge Shorrock indicated during the prosecution case that he would withdraw one count from the jury “whatever happens”, doubting that “a Woolwich jury” would convict. It was indeed withdrawn despite the Crown’s formal indication that it would appeal his preliminary ruling.
On the same day as this trial, the Court of Appeal was coincidentally hearing argument in three conjoined appeals, where Judge Shorrock had quashed the indictment because he did not believe that the matters should have been brought before the Crown Court. Holding that the judge “had no power to proceed as he did”, Lord Justice Leveson ([2010] EWCA Crim 1857) quoted Lord Salmon in Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 that a judge has no power “to refuse to allow a prosecution to proceed merely because he considers, that, as a matter of policy, it ought not to have been brought”.
The Court of Appeal rejected counsel’s argument that judges should not be obliged to “grin and bear it when finding their lists ‘clogged up’”. They were perfectly entitled appropriately to express their views and to encourage the prosecution to reconsider the public interest in prosecution while bearing in mind the fact that Parliament gave the final decision to the CPS (subject to judicial review), and that it is for Parliament to alter the law on what type of case is to be tried by juries.
All four matters have been sent back for trial at Woolwich, before a different judge.
In a judgment of 3 August, the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Crim 1931) disapproved of events at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 and 13 July 2010. Having already told the prosecution, “This country is next to broke, we do not enjoy the luxury of being able to spend two days of a judge and jury’s time on this kind of thing” (the defendant had elected trial by jury), Judge Shorrock indicated during the prosecution case that he would withdraw one count from the jury “whatever happens”, doubting that “a Woolwich jury” would convict. It was indeed withdrawn despite the Crown’s formal indication that it would appeal his preliminary ruling.
On the same day as this trial, the Court of Appeal was coincidentally hearing argument in three conjoined appeals, where Judge Shorrock had quashed the indictment because he did not believe that the matters should have been brought before the Crown Court. Holding that the judge “had no power to proceed as he did”, Lord Justice Leveson ([2010] EWCA Crim 1857) quoted Lord Salmon in Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 that a judge has no power “to refuse to allow a prosecution to proceed merely because he considers, that, as a matter of policy, it ought not to have been brought”.
The Court of Appeal rejected counsel’s argument that judges should not be obliged to “grin and bear it when finding their lists ‘clogged up’”. They were perfectly entitled appropriately to express their views and to encourage the prosecution to reconsider the public interest in prosecution while bearing in mind the fact that Parliament gave the final decision to the CPS (subject to judicial review), and that it is for Parliament to alter the law on what type of case is to be tried by juries.
All four matters have been sent back for trial at Woolwich, before a different judge.
One judge-led method of saving money and clearing the Crown Court lists has been rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen