Monday, November 05, 2012

Yeah, Right!

The Government has put out a breathless announcement about the abolition of most committal proceedings. We blogged about it here.

The rather over-excited functionary who wrote the piece says:-
Criminals will face justice far more quickly as court committal hearings are abolished in dozens of areas of England and Wales from today.
Scrapping the hearings will help the courts run more efficiently and ensure they provide a better service for users.
Far more quickly? Far more?

A 6(2) committal rarely takes more than five minutes and we don't often do more than two or three in a day in the remand court. As we have said, it's a small piece of tidying up to get rid of a procedure that has passed its sell-by date -  but don't overdo it, sonny. People might become cynical and we don't want that now, do we?.

21 comments:

  1. Sorry, but what is a 'sending hearing' per the press release ? How does that differ from a committal hearing ? And if all the either-or cases are going to the Crown Court from now on, then is that not just sending the clog slightly further down the pipe ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In answer to Tony's question, Sending to the Crown Court is for indictable only offences (ones which only the higher court can hear), while Committal to the Crown Court is for either-way offences which we have decided our powers are not great enough to deal with, or the defendant has elected for trial by jury.

      Delete
  2. Surely it will avoid the six-to-eight week adjournment for committal papers to be prepared? I presume that the bench will send the defendant for trial in the Crown Court as soon as the Plea Before Venue procedure has resulted in an "upstairs" verdict...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's more the six-week wait for committal that causes the delay rather than the 30 second hearing itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The work still has to be done, it's just that it will now be done by the Crown Court. Let's see how that goes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Certainly not fewer hearings because the venue for trial has to be decided. This is done in the Magistrates' Court though, in most cases, it is a straightforward decision not taking much time.

    There are very few committal hearings nowadays under section 6(1). Those that exist are dealt with usually by DJs(MC) and the question is usually a point of law.

    The end of committal hearings marks the passage into history of what was once a very significant role undertaken by magistrates. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 1967, old-style FULL committal hearings took place in Magistrates' Courts in relation to ALL indictable offences. This involved a hearing of the prosecution case including witnesses and the bench had to decide whether there was a case to answer (a prima facie case). Over the years, the whole process has become reduced to the formality which it now is. With this reform, the preparation of case papers etc. will be done whilst the defendant is in the charge of the Crown Court rather than the magistrates.

    However, just spare a little thought for the passing into history of what was a core role for the magistracy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Certainly not fewer hearings because the venue for trial has to be decided. This is done in the Magistrates' Court though, in most cases, it is a straightforward decision not taking much time.

    There are very few committal hearings nowadays under section 6(1). Those that exist are dealt with usually by DJs(MC) and the question is usually a point of law.

    The end of committal hearings marks the passage into history of what was once a very significant role undertaken by magistrates. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 1967, old-style FULL committal hearings took place in Magistrates' Courts in relation to ALL indictable offences. This involved a hearing of the prosecution case including witnesses and the bench had to decide whether there was a case to answer (a prima facie case). Over the years, the whole process has become reduced to the formality which it now is. With this reform, the preparation of case papers etc. will be done whilst the defendant is in the charge of the Crown Court rather than the magistrates.

    However, just spare a little thought for the passing into history of what was a core role for the magistracy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least justices will still make bail decisions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. for now....

      Delete
    2. Having just attended LASPO training, I don't share your faith.

      Our hands seem to be being tied tighter and tighter re: bail : and all because of prison numbers rather than risk.

      Delete
    3. My thoughts exactly B!

      Delete
  8. 60,000 less court dates, will save a bit of cash in prison to court transfer costs. - If not on bail.

    Oh and you get to go to coffee a few minutes earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why not fewer hearings? Should the first hearing in the Magistrate's court for a not guilty plea to an either way offence not result in either a sending (or the setting of a summary trial date)? Contrasting to the present situation where the first hearing in such a case would result in a six-to-eight week adjournment for the preparation of committal papers, and another hearing for the formal committal hearing, which is at present necessary even for undisputed committals.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Piece meal fiddling with the system just moves the delays from one place to another. The State of our statute law is shocking, its a hotch-potch of quite unfathomable provisions. The whole system needs an enema to clear out the rubbish that is lodged in the bends.We need a simple straight forward way of allocating cases to the right level. We also need to beef- up the Mags court so it deals with more business and leave the Crown Court to deal with the really serious stuff and trials.

    This new anouncement is just another load of bollocks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janet Street-Porter has just the expression for this type of stuff in her Independent on Sunday column: 'official bollocks'

      Delete
  11. Criminals or Political prisoners? You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two in Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert the Biker7 November 2012 at 09:08

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert the Biker7 November 2012 at 10:51

      You really don't like contrary opinion any more, do you?
      Neither offensive nor untrue, but obviously touched a nerve.

      Delete
  13. Friend of Dorothy7 November 2012 at 12:08

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert the Biker7 November 2012 at 12:59

      Is this the royal We then? I may dislike your opinions, I sometimes have, but I would not dream of simply blowing you off due to 'unacceptable views' or something of that order. Still, this proves my point made in the comment exactly; offence is taken more seriously that physical harm.

      Delete
  14. I read from the official MOJ release that things will "be sped up". The writer appears to demonstrate the same degree of familiarity with the English language as he or she has with court proceedings.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.