Auld outlines blueprint for criminal law

We set out the fundamentalelements of Lord Justice Auld's plans for criminal law reform, published this weekCourt structureMagistrates' courts and the Crown Court should be unified into a single structure consisting of three divisions: the Crown Division (constituted as the Crown Court is now), the Magistrates' Division (constituted as now) and a new, intermediate District Division, constituted by a professional judge and two lay magistrates.

Cases would be allocated by the court to summary jurisdiction, jury trial or to the District Division according to their seriousness.

The District Division would deal with cases which could attract a sentence more severe than that which could be handed down by the summary court (at present six months' imprisonment) but which were not likely to attract a sentence of - perhaps - more than two years.

A judge and two lay magistrates would deal with District Division cases as equal partners in reaching verdicts, though the judge would deal with points of law, and sentence.The judge would usually be a district judge but could be higher for complex cases.Cases would be handled wholly by one type of court - the concept of 'committal', including committal for sentence, would disappear.

The court would determine where 'either-way' cases should be heard, subject to appeal.

Defendants would no longer be able to insist on trial by judge and jury.

The District Division, with appropriate level of judge, would hear all youth cases above the summary level.Alternatives to trialThere should be greater use of fixed penalty notices subject to a right of challenge in court, for example, for television licence evasion and road traffic offences.

There is no compelling case for any specialist courts, in particular, drug or domestic violence courts.

Consideration should be given to the wider use of conditional cautioning or 'caution-plus' alongside other restorative justice schemes, for which a national strategy should be devised.Preparatory work should be undertaken with a view to removing all civil debt enforcement from criminal courts.Trial preparationThe Crown Prosecution Service, not the police, should determine the charge in all but minor, routine offences or when a holding charge is necessary.Changes should be made to the scheme for disclosing prosecution material to the defence, including making prosecutors responsible for identifying all potentially disclosable material.

There should be encouragement, through professional conduct rules and otherwise, for adequate defence statements.Early communication between defendants and advocates should be facilitated.

Consideration should be given to changing the structure of public funding to reward adequate and timely case preparation by defence lawyers.

There should be standard timetables and written or electronic 'pre-trial assessments' of the parties' readiness for trial.A graduated scheme of sentencing discounts should be introduced relating to the time a guilty plea is made.Trial proceduresAt the start of a jury trial, the jurors should receive an agreed written summary of the case, and the issues which need to be decided.

This 'case and issues' summary would be prepared by the prosecution and defence advocates and agreed by the judge.

Juries would reach verdicts by answering a series of structured questions which the judge would identify - replacing the existing form of summing up.EvidenceThere should be a general review of the law of criminal evidence with a view to moving away from technical rules of admissibility to trusting judicial and lay 'fact finders' to give relevant evidence the weight it deserves.

The recent Law Commission report, which seeks a more coherent and consistent scheme for the admissibility of misconduct evidence on the part of both defendants and witnesses, should be given full consideration.

The rules of expert evidence should be clarified and formalised.

It should be easier for witnesses, including police officers, to refer to their previous notes and statements in court.JuriesThe scope for being excused or exempted from jury service should be limited; entitlement to, rather than actual, entry on an electoral role should be a criterion.

Provision should be made to enable ethnic minority representation on juries where race is likely to be relevant to an important issue in the case.The law should be declared, by statute if necessary, that juries have no right to acquit defendants in defiance of the law or in disregard of the evidence.Alternatives to jury trial for certain cases should be considered.

The defendant should always be able to request trial by judge alone in cases above the summary level.

In serious fraud cases, an alternative to jury trial might be for the judge to be able to direct the trial by himself, sitting with lay members drawn from a panel.Serious cases against young defendants should no longer be heard in the Crown Court but by a youth court composed of a judge of an appropriate level and at least two youth panel magistrates.Double jeopardyIn the Court of Appeal, the Law Commission's recommendation for statutory exceptions to the 'double jeopardy' rule should not be limited to murder and similar offences but should extend to offences punishable with life or other specified long terms of imprisonment.

Re-opening of an investigation would need the prior, personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.AppealsStreamlining the appeals system and improving the procedures of the Court of Appeal to enable it to manage its caseload more efficiently.

There should be the same tests for appeal against conviction and sentence respectively at all levels of appeal, namely those applicable for appeal to the Court of Appeal.

There should be a single line of appeal from the Magistrates' Division and above to the Court of Appeal in all criminal matters.CodificationThe law covering offences, court procedures, evidence and sentencing should be consolidated and codified as changes from this review, and from the work of the Law Commission and the sentencing review by John Halliday are implemented.Managing justiceTo provide a clear sense of national direction, there should be a new Criminal Justice Board with an independent chairman as part of the central management of the criminal justice system.

The judiciary would not be represented on the board but would play a major role through a parallel consultative group.

There should also be a major restructuring of the present interlocking network of national and local committees.A Criminal Justice Council, chaired by the Lord Chief Justice or senior Lord Justice of Appeal, should replace existing advisory and consultative bodies.Information technologyThe potential of information and communication technology needs to be addressed at all points of the trial process.

The legacy of under-investment in information and communication technology and the need for their integration should be addressed, including through the introduction of single electronic case files, managed by a new criminal case management agency.The consultation period ends on 31 January 2002.LINKS: www.lcd.gov.uk/whatsnfr.htm