summary trial

Default Position (s.11 MCA): Ct may (if under 18) or must (if over 18 and not contrary to interests of justice) proceed in absentia

If Prosecution commenced by summons must be served w/in reasonable time before hearing

Power to adjourn: 

- Ct may set date or unless remands D, leave time and place to be determined. 

Procedure in absentia:

-Ct must give reasons if it does not proceed in absentia if D over 18 and pleaded not guilty. 

- Adequate/reasonable notice of when and where hearing will resume

- P to prove case, calling oral evidence and reading statements served on D (statements admissible in absence of D's objection, no positive consent required)

- If convicted: ct may sentence or in certain circumstances, adjourn to give notice to accused for sentencing 

- where written charge is used to be tried using single justice procedure, s11 doesn't apply

1. s.8A MCA 1980: hear evidence from P prior to trial or Ct considers fitness to plead to make hospital order w/o conviction 

2. Ct rules on admissibility of evidence and any law related question. 

2b. Ruling given only once parties have opportunity to be

Ct power consideration

-compelling reason: changed circumstances and fresh evidence

-circumstances although existing at time of original decision but not drawn to Ct attention 

- necessary for effacious administration of justice to take a strict approach

Ct shall not proceed if acceptable reason for failure to appear. default position: must proceed unless good reason.  If convicted in absentia can appeal decision to CC and can reopen conviction in MC-s.142 MCA

• Ct need not inquire into reasons for failure 
• Ct not obliged to investigate if no reason offered
• Ct to state in open court its reason for not proceeding in absence 
• Ct to consider relaiability of info; date when reasons became known;  what D did thereafter;  that trial in absence can result in acquittal; D convicted can asked for conviction to be reopened in interest of justice e.g.,involuntary absence; and convicted D has right to rehearing appeal to CC

Involuntary Absence:

• D excluded from building for disorderly behaviour is involuntary: misbhevaiour does not justify excluding from own trial: D wanted to be in Ct but prevented
• although exclusion own fault this is different from being own choice 
• D comitted offence on the way to Ct and arrested is involuntary absence 

In CC: can proceed w/o accused but should not, no option to reopen conviction

If properly summoned, can proceed in absence if not present: apply to proceed in absence of accused by reading out CJA 1967 s.9 witness statements that have been served on him 

Issuing arrest warrant instead of proceeding in absentia, provided indictablr offence or Ct having convicted D proposes to impose disqualification 

Requirements:

• summons.requisition served on D within reasonable time before trial; OR
• in case of subsequent adjournment, D present on last ocassion when trial adjourned and date for present hearing was fixed then 

If D evading service of summons/requisition, and offence is indictable: P can start proceedings by seeking arrest warrant 

If D on bail and fails to attend Ct, arrest warrant may, in any event be issued

If delay amounting to abuse of procees of Ct, Ct may refuse to try case and stay proceedings

If delay is deliberate=abuse of process e.g., P delaying in effecting service of summons in order to gain more time in which to decide whether or not to coninue case against D

if deliberate delay cannot be shown, D may nonetehless apply for MC to exercise discretion not to proceed if i)there has been inordinate or unconscionable delaye due to P's inefficiency and ii) prejuidce tp D from delay is either proved or to be inferred 

if delay attributable to D;s own conduct, application unlikely to succeed 

if not deliberate but inordinate and abuse of procees= stay proceedings

D asked to enter plea, if no previous plea. If plead, D asked to confirm plea 

CrimPr 24.3: 

(3) In the following sequence—

(a)the prosecutor may summarise the prosecution case, concisely identifying the relevant law, outlining the facts and indicating the matters likely to be in dispute;

(b)to help the members of the court to understand the case and resolve any issue in it, the court may invite the defendant concisely to identify what is in issue;

(c)the prosecutor must introduce the evidence on which the prosecution case relies;

(d)at the conclusion of the prosecution case, on the defendant’s application or on its own initiative, the court—

(i)may acquit on the ground that the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict, but

(ii)must not do so unless the prosecutor has had an opportunity to make representations;

(e)the justices’ legal adviser or the court must explain, in terms the defendant can understand (with help, if necessary)—

(i)the right to give evidence, and

(ii)the potential effect of not doing so at all, or of refusing to answer a question while doing so;

(f)the defendant may introduce evidence;

(g)a party may introduce further evidence if it is then admissible (for example, because it is in rebuttal of evidence already introduced);

(h)the prosecutor may make final representations in support of the prosecution case, where—

(i)the defendant is represented by a legal representative, or

(ii)whether represented or not, the defendant has introduced evidence other than his or her own; and

(i)the defendant may make final representations in support of the defence case.

Purpose is to explain briefly ehat case is about

e.g. Where case adjourned for a month, and P asked to give second speech to remind them of evidence Justices struggled to remember evidence.

^^^Nothing unfair in P being asked to rmeind Ct of evidence already given, subject to safeguard that D should invariably be asked to adress Ct in reply, correct any errors or draw attention to any differences of recollection 

D may be invited immeaditaley after P's speech to concisely identify what is in issue. May be unnecessary as D will declare issues in PET form prior

P witness giving evidence in summary trial, P will be obliged to call witness to give evidence if D requests or at least tender for ** 

P serves bundle of witness staterments prior to summary trial, P must call people whose statement served as witnesses in trial, unless CC exceptions applicable 

Ct cannot compel P to call witnesses. H/o, if Ct satsfied that P conducting case so thar D cannot obtain fair trial, Ct has power to dismiss case as an abuse of process. 

J's may call witnesses themselves but unlikely in light of impartiality of J's.

A Party may wish to tender written statement as evidence at summary trial rather than calling maker of statement: medical documents, police officer statement, documents etc

s.9 CJA: Requirements of a s.9 witness statement: 

•  Statement purports to be signed by the person who made it;  

• Contains a declaration e.g., true to the best of his or her knowledge;  

• Before the hearing, the statement is served on each of the other parties; and 

• None of the other parties within the relevant period (minimum of seven days or number prescribed by CrimPR) serves a notice proposing objecting to the statement  

• S.9(4): The person who receives a copy of the statement may call that person to give evidence and the court may, of its own motion or by an application, require that person to attend court. 

Where party introduces evidence of fact admitted by another party or jointly admit a fact, a written record must be made of the admission, unless Ct directs otherwise.

s.10 CJA: summary of facts formally admitted by all parties and included in written record and accepted as evidence by Ct to be relied upon in decision 

D may choose to obejct at pre-trial hearing: If D objects to P's proposed evidence in summary trial raises difficulty to Mag J's as jiudges of fact and law: must learn anture of evidence to determine admissbility and may have difficulty in ignoring it when reaching verdict 

MC has discretion on stage of trial at which it rules upon admissibility of evidence. Special Considerations:

• Dekaying determination of admissbility of confession till after P's evidence heard may be unfair to D as D cannot give evidence about irregularities until she testifies
• D counsel ought to know whether crucual evidence such as confession is part of case against accussed

Where confession is main evidence aginst D (without it might not be a case to answer) interests of justice dictate that admissbility should be determined as a preliminary issue

s.78: Ct obliged to hear evidence about the obtaining of confession, as P have to prove that confession was not obtained in a forbidden manner under s.76. Application to exclude must be made before P's evidence is heard. 

• Where admisbility of P evidence is considered under general exclusionary powers of s.78, Ct has discretion to hear evidence on the issue of admissibility but not obliged to do so. 
• impossible to lay down any general rule, rather object should always be to secure a trial which is fair to both sides 

It is better for MC to hear all P evidence. (inc. disputed evidence) before considering an application to exclude evidence under s.78)

s.76: D objects to admissibility of confession under s.76, Ct shall not admit confession unless satisfied that its not obtained by opression or words or conduct likely to render a confession unreliable

MC obliged to hear evidence on the obtaining of the confession

After D has adduced evidence and rebutted P's evidence, P may make final representations in support of P's case of: 

• If accussed represented or
• (irrelevant of representation) has called evidence other than own testimony .

D may make final reps in support of D's case. Having last word. 

Parties wishing to introduce evidence or make representations after specified opportunity to do so, Ct entitled to refuse to receive any evidence or representations, save in exceptional circumstances 

Authorised Court Officer/ Justice Legal Adviser functions include :

• give advice to justices of peace about matters of law in connection with discharge of duties inc. questions arising when person not personally attending on them 
• bring to attention of justices of peace, at any time it thinks is appropiate, any point of law, that may be inolved in any question so arisin
• drawing Ct's attention, before hearing beings to P's allegations, what is agreed and what's in dispute, what parties have said about how they expect to present their cases;
• provide legal advice needed by Ct to carry out its functions including Adviser may attend members of panel otuside of court but must inform parties of any advice given in private
  • relevant judicial questions binding the Ct
  • process to be followed in order to reach a decision
  • sentencing: range of penalties and matters in line with guidelines 

• adviser must allow parties to make representations on that advice 
• assit court with formulation and recording of reasons for decision 
• make announcements on behalf of Ct (excluding allocation, sending decision, indicating sentence, or verdict)
• adviser must avoid appearance of advocacy for a party rather adhere to principles: making note of oral represnetations
  • independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, competence, diligence and ensuring fair treatment 
• marking inadmissible parts of evidence 

Mc may acquit on ground that P evidence is insufficient/so tenous in its nature or there is no evidence for any reasonable Ct properly to convict. 

• D must make application once P has closed its evidence. 
• No oblgiation on justices to give reasons for rejecting a submission of no case to answer 
• Basis for decision is namely, that no reaosnable court could properly convict, thus whether evidence is such that a reaosnable might convict. Application will succeed if conviction would be perverse so that no reaosnable bench could convict 

Credibility of P Witness 

• In CC, test to be applied from Galbraith: whether P evidence is so tenuous that even taken at its highest a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it. Evidence taken at its highest intends to leaves questions of crewdibility to the jury 
• Some j's may take pragmatic view of hearing D's case even if they have laready formed view that P's so unconvicing that they will not be able to convict. 

P right to reply: P has right to make representations if a submission of no case to answer is made unless Ct decides there is a case to answer, then, merely indicate this fact to P

Ct must give suffficient reasons to explain decision if it convicts. Deciison does not ahve to be in the form of judgment or to give reasons in elaborate form. If party wishes to obtain detailed reasons, request can be made to MC to state a case. 

If Ct acquits, it may but not required to, give explnantion of it decisions 

Ct restricted to reaching guilty/not guilty deicidon on charge before them. 

Exceptions:

• convicting of careless driving instead of dangerous driving: RTOA 1988, s.24 
• vheicle taking contrary to s.12 Theft Act instead of aggravted vehicle taking 

At CC:

in certain offences jury can return lesser offence: e.g. s.18 MR intention to cause serious harm INSTEAD convict of s.20: reckless harm 

If acccused charged with alternative offence at outset and pleads not guilty to both, MC should not convict of both offences. As it is unfair and disproportionate to be convicted twice for single wrong

MC shall adjourn lesser alternative without setting a date so that lesser charge can be brought back if appropiate if accused appeals succefully against more serious offence. 

CrimPr 3.13: 

Power to limit **, eic, re-x of witnesses: power to limit questions---CrimPR 24.3(4)(b): failed to tidentify issue and Ct takes view that you are not acting in the spirit of Criminal procedure rules, Ct can stop asking questions that are inapporpitae for failing to identify with CrimPr rules/restrict Q's or  impose costs if it incurs adjournment. 

In reality does not happen.