Skip to main content

Committal hearings to be scraped

The Government are to do away with committal hearings, although it's worth saying that this policy was announced about 16 trillion years ago but nothing seems to have happened since 2001 when committal hearings were abolished for indictable only offences.

I am aware that some of my readers may not have the first clue what I'm on about, so I'll explain a little - if you know what a committal hearing is then skip this paragraph.  All criminal cases begin life in the magistrates court.  Some cases can be tried in either the magistrates or Crown Court, these are called "either-way offences".  If the magistrates decide the case is too serous for them to handle, or the defendant chooses to have his case heard by a jury then the case is committed for trial.  This means that the prosecution are given several weeks to photocopy their witness statements and produce whatever evidence they intend to rely upon.  At a committal hearing the papers are served upon the defence and the court.  If there is a case for the defendant to answer (what is known as a prima facie case) then the case is formally committed to the Crown Court and the defendant will appear there at some point in the future where he will enter a plea and a trial will be heard some months after the first appearance in the Crown Court.

My first ever appearance in court was a committal hearing.  It lasted approximately 30 seconds, I nodded once to indicate I was content for the case to be committed and asked that legal aid be extended to cover the Crown Court hearing.  It was painfully obvious to me that these hearings are pointless, cause delay and expense for everybody involved, including the defendant, court, prosecution, defence solicitors, police and victim (victims don't attend but the committal stage does delay when they get to have a trial and tell their side of the story).

From my first experience in court nothing has changed my view that committal hearings can and should be abolished.  In theory, the committal hearing allows the defence to challenge prosecution cases that lack any evidence against the defendant.  In practise, the committal stage is used by the defence and court to punish ill-prepared prosecutors who fail to get their papers in order prior to the hearing date.

The committal hearing is there to ensure that there is a case for the defendant to answer and so they are, quite rightly, very biased in the prosecutions favour.  Committal hearings remain important because there is no way of easily challenging a case once it has been committed except by taking it to trial.  However, this is easily solved.  Simply allow the defence to have the right to make an application to dismiss at the first hearing in the Crown Court.  The overwhelming majority of cases will remain unchallenged.  Those that are challenged should suffer no delay because the hearing in the Crown Court should come around much faster without the 4-6 week adjournment prior to the committal hearing that defendants currently experience.

The Times reported today that, "... the move will lead to concerns among some solicitors, who fear that efficiency reforms threaten to compromise the interests of justice."  I suspect that the Times is trying to create some controversy over this change.  In reality, I think most solicitors will realise that this is a win/win situation.  Defendants and victims win because their cases are resolved more quickly.  Solicitors win because they haven't been paid to conduct committal hearings for some time now and so they'll no longer have to do massive amounts of pro bono work on every single case they take (bear in mind a standard Crown Court trial fee for a two day burglary trial is now £386.54, which currently covers at least two hearings in the magistrates court, at least two hearings in the Crown Court, the time spent reading the papers, attending on the defendant, taking any witness statements and preparing the various documents that are required before a trial can take place), so removing the committal hearings will effectively give solicitors a small increase in the potential profit on each case, which I can tell you is non-existent as nobody can make a profit on fees that small for that much work.

In short, this is one good thing that this or the previous government have done to the Criminal Justice System for a very long time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…