Criminal law – Procedure. Two appellants, both of whom had been found guilty of common assault, succeeded in their appeals by way of case stated, concerning the use which the court might make of information provided by advocates acting for a defendant as part of case management in the preparation for effective trial (PET) form. The Divisional Court held in respect of the first appeal that, when reaching their verdict, the justices had not been entitled to consider certain questions on the PET form. Concerning the second appeal, the court held that, in the absence of the PET form being admitted in evidence, the justices had not been entitled to rely on it and that, in the context of the case, there had been no basis to admit it or to find a case to answer.