Episodit
-
In this episode as we continue with appeals, we hear about how people who have had their case heard in the magistrates’ court can appeal against their conviction and sentence and what actually happens during the process, which you’ll be pleased to hear is far simpler than appealing against a conviction or sentence in the Crown Court.
And we also go into the detail about perhaps the most complex type of appeal from the magistrates’ court, which is known as an Appeal by way of Case Stated and how a man who refused to pay a fixed penalty notice found himself in the Supreme Court.
And what is Judicial Review and how can it be used in a criminal case? In this episode we find out, including how a robbery charge against two youths ended up in front of the Lord Chief Justice.
This is the final episode of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for listening.
We will be back early next year with more interesting and thought-provoking content which shows how, warts and all, the criminal justice system really works.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Content warning. This episode contains details (relevant to the legal issues being considered) of a case concerning the murder of a young woman in terrible circumstances which may cause distress to listeners.
In the vast majority of cases, once you have been sentenced, the prosecution are not entitled to appeal against that sentence, except where the sentence is within a relatively small category of offences which can be overturned by the Court of Appeal as being ‘unduly lenient’. In this episode we look at how this process really works.
And there are also situations where the prosecution can, following an acquittal, seek to clarify a point of law by appealing to the Court of Appeal (an Attorney-General’s reference), but whatever the outcome, it will not affect the defendant’s not guilty verdict.
Contrast this with the situation where the prosecution can seek to appeal against what is commonly known as a ‘terminating ruling’ by a Crown Court Judge (i.e. a legal ruling which usually has the effect of bringing the case to an end, such as the judge agreeing with a defence submission of no case to answer) where the Court of Appeal can set that ruling aside (sometimes very quickly) and the defendant, instead of believing that his or her case was at an end, must now see the trial through to its logical conclusion and await the jury’s verdict.
Thanks for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Puuttuva jakso?
-
Withdrawing a guilty plea and appeals following a plea of guilty.
What do you do if you have pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, but now realise you were not in fact guilty? In this episode we find out how the courts deal with applications to withdraw or vacate guilty pleas, and on what grounds you can appeal against your conviction based on your own plea of guilty.
I hope you enjoy this episode and thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Is there such a thing as an appeal against a verdict of Not Guilty?
In this episode we look at the law on what is commonly known as double jeopardy, the idea (entrenched in law for many hundreds of years) that once you have been lawfully tried for an offence and a verdict entered, that is the end of it, even if you are acquitted.
In this series I have looked at numerous examples of when people are wrongfully convicted of a crime, and the various grounds of appeal that might be available to quash a wrongful conviction.
But what about when it can be shown that someone has been wrongly acquitted? Can their Not Guilty verdict be quashed and can they be tried all over again for the same offence? In this episode we find out.
I hope you enjoy this episode and thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
In this episode we go to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to hear the appeal of Aidan Johnson against his conviction for the murder of Daniel Clarke.
Seeking to overturn the conviction on the grounds of fresh evidence and material non-disclosure, Gabriella Hadden - Aidan’s barrister - is confident in her approach, but sometimes hearings in the Court of Appeal can be less straightforward than you anticipated!
I hope you enjoy this episode and thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0099-judgment.pdf
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
In this episode, we take a deep dive into disclosure, that is how disclosure in criminal cases should actually work and why it is of vital importance in every criminal trial.
What do the rules actually require of the prosecution? And can the defence ever be satisfied that disclosure has actually been carried out correctly?
What can the defence do to ensure (as best they can) that full disclosure is provided? And what happens when things go wrong?
I hope you enjoy this episode and thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
Disclosure
R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 10, House of Lords (forerunner to the Supreme Court) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040205/hc-1.htm
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (section 23(1)) Code of Practice https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-procedure-and-investigations-act-1996-section-231-code-of-practice
Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/attorney-generals-guidelines-on-disclosure
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1987] UKHL 12, [1989] AC 53 https://knyvet.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1987/12.html
National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Guidance on Retention, Storage and Destruction of Materials and Records relating to Forensic Examination https://www.fcn.police.uk/node/142
Conrad Jones [2014] EWCA Crim 1337 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/1337.html
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Identification, science and non-disclosure as grounds of appeal in criminal cases
Warning: this episode contains a criminal appeal case in which limited reference is made to sexual violence. Listener discretion is advised.
In Episode 5 of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, we move on to another case which depended considerably on eyewitness evidence, and how the Court of Appeal dealt with it, and that is the case of Andrew Malkinson, a case where advances in scientific evidence came to his aid, albeit many years after his conviction.
This was a case in which the grounds of appeal also raised clear failures by the prosecution to act in accordance with its duty of disclosure, so we’ll look at that too, and also why non-disclosure was at the heart of the multiple miscarriages of justice in the Post Office appeals.
I hope you enjoy this episode and thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
Malkinson [2023] EWCA Crim 954 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Malkinson-v-the-King-070823-judgment2.pdf
Hamilton and others v Post Office Limited [2021] EWCA Crim 21 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Hamilton-Others-v-Post-Office-judgment-230421.pdf
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Today we turn to grounds of appeal, i.e. the reasons why it is said that the jury's verdict is unsafe. And we look at a number of common grounds of appeal and the cases where they have been considered.
We cover judicial bias, lawyers’ incompetence, the admissibility of evidence, the rules on producing fresh evidence in support of your appeal, appeals based on the refusal of a submissions of no case to answer, material irregularities in the course of a trial, appeals based on changes in the law, as well as on errors of law and the special need for caution in eyewitness identification evidence.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
Bias
Cole [2008] EWCA Crim 3234 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/3234.html
AA [2018] EWCA Crim 2191 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/2191.html
Incompetent representation
Coombes [2024] EWCA Crim 188 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/188.html
Ekaireb [2015] EWCA Crim 1936 https://knyvet.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1936.html
Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-farooqi-others.pdf
Admissibility (confessions)
Paris, Abdullahi and Miller (1993) 97 Cr App R 99 (Cardiff 3 appeal). (No full transcript publicly available)
Campbell [2024] EWCA Crim 1036 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Oliver-Campbell-judgment-11.09.2024.pdf
Fresh Evidence
s.23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/23
Jury misconduct
Haji [2024] EWCA Crim 955 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/955.html
Yussuf v Governor of HMP Belmarsh [2024] EWHC 692 (Admin) https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/yusuff-and-others-v-the-governor-of-his-majestys-prison-belmarsh/
Identification
Turnbull [1977] QB 224 (CA)
PACE Code D - Code of Practice for the identification of persons by Police Officers https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pace-code-d-2023
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
How do appeals against conviction from the Crown Court really work?
In episode 3 of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, we delve into the appeal process and exactly how you can seek to turn around a wrongful Crown Court conviction.
As we’ll find out, there is no automatic right to appeal against a Crown Court conviction, so what is the process of getting permission to appeal, and then if successful arguing your case in the Court of Appeal?
If you are successful, what powers does the court have and will there always be a retrial? We’ll find out.
And we’ll also look at the case of Tony Martin and how he overturned his conviction for the murder of a burglar who broke into his isolated Norfolk home.
Bear in mind that appealing against a Crown Court conviction is different in almost every way from appealing against a magistrates’ court conviction, and we’ll look at the appeal process from the magistrates in a later episode.
I hope you enjoy this episode and I look forward to you joining me again for episode 4 and the rest of Series 2.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
The ‘safety’ test for an appeal against conviction is laid out in s.2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/section/2
Application for Permission to Appeal against Conviction (form NG Conviction + Guidance Notes) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-appeal-office-form-ng-conviction
Notice of Application for bail (Form B)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-application-for-bail
Guide to Proceedings in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guide-to-proceedings-in-the-court-of-appeal-criminal-division-2/
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Aidan Johnson is sentenced for the murder of Daniel Clarke.
DESCRIPTION
In episode 2 of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, Aidan Johnson is sentenced for the murder of Daniel Clarke.
From discovering the ins and outs of life sentences for murder and other crimes in Episode 1 of this series, we now join the sentencing hearing for the one and only defendant to be convicted of the murder of Daniel Clarke.
What exactly is the role of the prosecutor at a sentencing hearing? Is it true, as many people think, that the prosecution suggests what the sentence should be?
And what is the role of the defence advocate? As we find out, the plea in mitigation is one of the most important, and sometimes the most powerful, advocacy that a defence advocate can undertake.
In addition, we look at what a pre-sentence report is, who prepares it, why, and when is it actually necessary? And how do victims of crime have their say in the sentencing process? Again, we have that covered in Episode 2.
And then, we find out what sentence Aidan Johnson receives for the crime he has been convicted of.
And next week, the trial and sentencing process now being all but finished, we join Aidan and his solicitor and barrister again, as we explore his options to appeal. Because for Aidan, the truth is that he has just been convicted and sentenced for a crime he did not commit.
I hope you enjoy this episode and I look forward to you joining me again for the next episode and the rest of Series 2.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
Prosecution duties at sentence:
Cain [2006] EWCA Crim 3233 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/3233.html
Pre-Sentence Reports and Victim Impact Statements:
Criminal Practice Directions 2023 (Direction 9) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023.pdf
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
When do judges impose life sentences, how do they decide on the minimum term, and when does life really mean life?
DESCRIPTION
Please note: in this episode some of the content contains descriptions of cases of murder and other forms of serious violence, so listener discretion is advised.
Today, in the first episode of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, Aidan Johnson faces sentencing for the murder of Daniel Clarke.
To understand life sentences, we look at when judges can impose life sentences, when does life really mean life, and when it doesn’t, how do they decide on the minimum term?
Life sentences are mandatory in murder cases, but discretionary life sentences can also be imposed for defendants who are considered to be dangerous offenders, as well as defendants who are convicted of a really serious offence, but not for the first time. We delve into the detail of how this works.
And when does life actually mean life? In this episode we find out, as well as how judges set the minimum term (the tariff) in other murder cases which, whilst serious, allow a prisoner some prospect of release.
How does the minimum term work and what approach will the parole board take to releasing a prisoner when the minimum term is served?
By the end of this episode, you will have been taking through the various starting points for setting the minimum terms in murder cases, as well as how that starting point can be adjusted up or down depending on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a case, and what these are.
You will also hear accounts from cases that have been through the courts and why judges have imposed particular levels of sentence in a variety of murder cases.
And then you will be ready to fully understand the process which Aidan Johnson is about to experience for himself.
I hope you enjoy this episode and I look forward to you joining me again for the the next episode and the rest of Series 2.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Becoming a member of Defence-Barrister.co.uk gives you access to information on what is covered in this podcast on Life Sentences, as well as detailed guides and information on trials, sentencing and appeals. https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/subscribe
The principal legislation governing the imposition of life sentences is the Sentencing Act 2020 (also known as the Sentencing Code) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/contents
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
Before Series 2 commences on Wednesday 28 August 2024, here is a recap of what happened in Series 1, both as a reminder for everyone that has listened to all previous 14 episodes in Series 1 and also as a help to new listeners who may be short on time.
What will follow in Series 2?
In Series 2, Aidan is sentenced and we will delve into the sentencing process. How does sentencing really work? What approach will be taken by the judge to sentencing Aidan for murder, and what approach will be taken by the judge in sentencing the reluctant witness Ethan Green for contempt of court, as well as for his attack on Bianca.
And we’ll go into detail about appeals against both sentence and conviction and how exactly they work. As Aidan appeals against his murder conviction, we’ll also look in detail at the rules on prosecution disclosure, and how the prosecution should deal appropriately with information which can assist a defendant facing a criminal charge.
And in Series 2 we will also look at the concept of Pleading Guilty which, whilst it may sound simple, actually carries with it a number of complications and considerations for any defendant, a process which becomes even more difficult if you ever want to appeal your conviction after pleading guilty. We’ll look at exactly how that works too.
That just leaves me to say, I hope you enjoy this Recap Episode and I look forward to welcoming you for the start of Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast on Wednesday 28th August, and then available weekly every Wednesday from wherever you get your podcasts.
Thank you and See you soon.
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this podcast series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Get in touch at:
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.
-
In the last episode of Series 1 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, the jury delivers its verdicts in the murder trial of R v Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams.A Not Guilty verdict will lead to freedom, a Guilty verdict will lead to a sentence of life imprisonment, the mandatory sentence for murder.Of course, the nature of jury trials in England & Wales is that we never get to hear exactly what happens inside the jury room, except - rarely - when something goes wrong or things get out of hand, and one juror reports another which prompts an investigation, and in this episode we look at some examples of what can go wrong in the jury room, and how jurors can sometimes do precisely what the judge has told them not to do, as well as - more generally - why the system of jury trial is still held by many in high regard.We also look at what happens when a jury cannot agree on a verdict. When can a jury return a majority verdict, does a Guilty verdict by a majority carry less weight than a jury’s unanimous verdict of guilt, and what happens when there is a hung jury, meaning that they are split and unable to reach a decision?And yes, there will be a Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast which you’ll hear all about at the end of this episode, but save the date for Wednesday 31st July when the next episode will be available wherever you listen to your podcasts.I hope you enjoy this episode and I look forward to you joining me again for Series 2.As ever, thank you for listening.NOTESThroughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.Majority Verdict - S.17 Juries Act 1974 - Majority Verdicts https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/17 Criminal Procedure Rule 25.14(5)(c) - Majority Verdict Procedure https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made Watson Direction -Watson [1988] QB 690, 87 Cr.App.R. 1 CA (not publicly available) - A ‘Watson Direction’ is a ‘give and take’ direction intended to help jurors reach a verdict.The Watson Direction is contained in the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1 at paragraph 21-8 https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/ Juror Responsibilities -‘Your Legal Responsibilities as a Juror’ - the Notice given to all jurors before a trial commences https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fbe9ee0e90e077ed7351b0a/j001-eng.pdf Jury Irregularity -R v Connor and another; R v Mirza (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] UKHL 2 - evidence of jury irregularities https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040122/conn-1.htm Criminal Practice Direction 8.7 - Procedure to be adopted to investigate a jury irregularity https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1-3.pdf Solicitor-General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 - Juror in contempt of court for online research https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1361.html Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin) - Juror in contempt of court for online research https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/156.html R v Young (Stephen) [1995] QB 324 - Jury consulting ouija board for information - case not publicly available but referred to in Kent Live here: https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/pembury-double-murders-drunken-jury-6116526 PLEASE NOTE:It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.Thank you for your understanding.CONTACTEmail: [email protected] https://twitter.com/defencebarInstagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/COPYRIGHTMusic and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
-
In Episode 13, we hear the final closing speech from Ivy Jewell on behalf of Conor Williams, and then the judge sums-up the case to the jury.
As the judge explains, the judge is ‘the judge of the law’ and the jury are ‘the judges of the facts’, their task being to evaluate the evidence and apply the law as they are directed to do.
And as we will find out, even to trained lawyers, directions on law can be complicated, so to ease their task jurors are now given written legal directions and a written ‘route to verdict’, a step-by-step roadmap to follow which - depending on their view of the facts - will lead them to a verdict of either guilty or not guilty in each defendant’s case.
You can see the written route to verdict in our case in the Podcast Legal Notes below.
There are a number of standard judicial directions in every summing-up, as well a number of directions tailored to the specific issues in the case, all aimed at ensuring the jury takes the correct approach to their task and delivers a true verdict according to the evidence.
When the summing-up is finished, the jury in the case of R v Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams will retire to consider their verdict, a verdict which we will hear in Episode 14, the last Episode in Series 1 of the Defence Barrister Podcast.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Summing Up -
Crown Court Compendium, Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/
Criminal Procedure Rule 25.14 - Directions to the jury and taking the verdict
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made
Criminal Practice Directions 2023 - 8.5 Jury Directions and Written Material
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf
R v N [2019] EWCA Crim 2280 (para 19) - the importance of written directions on complex matters of law https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/2280.html
WRITTEN ROUTE TO VERDICT
Concerning the defendant Aidan Johnson:
Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2, if no, the verdict is Not Guilty.
Q2 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure he was not acting in self-defence, go to question 3. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe he was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict is Not Guilty.
Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he intended to cause Daniel Clarke really serious harm? If yes, the verdict is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty.
Concerning the defendant Conor Williams:
Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.
Q2 Are you sure that by his words or actions Conor Williams intentionally encouraged Aidan Johnson to attack Daniel Clarke? If yes, go to question 3. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.
Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure that Aidan Johnson was not acting in self-defence, go to question 4. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe Aidan Johnson was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.
Q4 Are you sure that Conor Williams intended by his words or actions that Aidan Johnson would cause really serious harm to Daniel Clarke? If yes, the verdict for Conor Williams is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
The murder trial of Aidan Johnson & Conor Williams continues. We have now reached the penultimate stage of the trial - closing speeches by the prosecution and the defence - where each advocate will pull together the strands of the evidence and seek to put together a compelling argument with the intention of finally persuading the jury to reach what they say is the correct verdict.
As we will discover, at the heart of a closing speech is good advocacy - the power of persuasion, the ability for each side to make a closing argument when each side has precisely the same material to work from.
When are the prosecution and defence entitled to make a closing speech? And when making one, does anything go, or are there restrictions on what an advocate can say? Listen on to find out.
As you listen to the closing speeches in this episode, you might want to place yourselves in the position of the jury, and if you have followed this case from the outset, to put to one side everything you know about this case that the jury has not heard, remembering that all the jury know is from the evidence that has been presented to them.
How convinced, or otherwise, are you by the closing speeches you hear? Will the prosecution barrister, Keith Lowe, persuade you that either or both the defendants are guilty, and will the defence barrister Gabriella Hadden (for Aiden) persuade you that there is a reasonable doubt in his case, such that you are simply not satisfied so that you are sure of guilt, and your verdict will be Not Guilty.
And after this episode, we will be moving ever closer to the final outcome, to Ivy Jewell’s closing speech for Conor Williams, followed by the judge’s summing-up of the facts and his directions on law to the jury, and from there to the stage when the jury retires to consider its verdict. After that, Aidan and Conor can only wait to hear what their ultimate fate will be.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Closing speeches -
Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(j) - when the prosecution can make a closing speech - and Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(k) - defence are always entitled to make a closing speech https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made
Ekaireb [2015] EWCA Crim 1936 - in this case the Court of Appeal was critical of a practice of personal criticism being made of opposing advocates in closing speeches and made clear that such practice would not be tolerated. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1936.html
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading and further information on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence -https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
The murder trial continues, and we hear the defence cases on behalf of Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams.
And now there are just two defendants left in our case, Bianca Jones having been acquitted on the direction of the judge following a successful submission of no case to answer by her barrister Henry Irwin.
Having been formally found Not Guilty, it means that Bianca has left the case and moved on to pick up her life, leaving behind Aidan and Conor who are still facing the charge of murdering 23-year-old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley’s nightclub in the early hours one Saturday morning in late January.
For Aidan and Conor, the stakes could not be higher. Before long, they will reach the ultimate conclusion of this trial, the jury’s verdict. A Not Guilty verdict will secure their freedom, but a guilty verdict can lead to only one outcome - a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
At the end of Episode 10, Aidan was called to give evidence by his barrister Gabriella Hadden and in this episode we will join them back in court.
As we find out, sometimes the end of the prosecution case is the high point for the defence. In this episode we find out why.
What are the risks involved for a defendant giving evidence, versus staying silent? Listen to find out more, including what an adverse inference means for defendants who choose to stay nothing, and what cross-examination can mean for defendants who choose to give evidence.
If you want to catch up on what’s led us to where we are now, from the scene of the alleged crime in Episode 1 to the close of the prosecution case in Episode 10, please feel free to start from the beginning to discover how this case has developed from the outset, and exactly why we have arrived at where we are now.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Adverse Inference from not giving Evidence -
s. 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - Effect of accused’s silence at trial https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/35
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
In Episode 10, we move through the remainder of the prosecution case against our three defendants, Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones & Conor Williams, all of whom are accused of murdering 23 year old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley's Nightclub in the early hours one Saturday morning in late January.
The prosecution are still to call the next main prosecution witness, Ethan Green, but - the last we knew - he wasn’t too keen on helping, and the fact that a warrant was issued for his arrest to bring him to court - whether he liked it or not - may not help matters. We’ll see.
What does it mean to be competent to be a witness? What does it mean to be compellable? When can a witness refuse to answer questions? And what can happen if a witness simply refuses to play ball?
How does the prosecution present agreed evidence? Why is a defendant’s police interview presented as part of the prosecution case? And why is the record of the police interview edited before it is shown to the jury?
On top of all that, Ivy Jewell, Conor’s barrister, is wrestling with Conor’s revelation about Bianca, and we’ll find out what approach Ivy now takes in her client’s defence.
What is a cut-throat defence and how does it usually play out?
And, after the prosecution case, comes the defence case unless, as we’ll see, the barristers for each defendant can do something to bring the case to an early conclusion - which means we’ll go into detail about what’s known as a Submission of No Case to Answer.
If you want to catch up on what’s led us to where we are now, from the scene of the alleged crime and the defendants' arrest in Episode 1, to the opening of the prosecution case in Episode 7 and the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first witness in Episodes 8 and 9, then please go back to the beginning and discover how this case has developed from the outset.
As ever, thank you for listening.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Competence to give Evidence -
s.53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - Competence of witnesses to give evidence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/53
Exceptions to Compellability -
s.80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Competence and compellability of accused's spouse or civil partner https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/80/enacted
Agreed Facts -
s.10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 - Proof by formal admission
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/10
Hearsay - Interests of Justice -
s.114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Admissibility of hearsay evidence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/114
Submission of No Case to Answer -
Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(e) - Procedure and basic test for a submission of no case to answer https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made
R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060 - the case which sets out the detailed approach to submissions of no case to answer (not publicly available but helpful summary on Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_case_to_answer
R v Craig and Bentley (1952) - Derek Bentley Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
The murder trial continues, with the prosecution witness Finn Hawkins facing cross-examination by barristers Gabriella Hadden (for Aidan Johnson), Henry Irwin (for Bianca Jones) and Ivy Jewell (for Conor Williams).
In Episode 8 we looked in detail at the first stage of questioning a witness - examination-in-chief - which is the process of eliciting from a witness their account of what took place.
But as we saw, there can often be a difference between what a witness says in their written witness statement, and what they actually say in court. And Finn Hawkins was no exception.
In this episode, we move to the next stage of questioning - Cross-Examination. How does cross-examination really work? What are the key purposes of cross-examination, as well as the restrictions imposed in criminal cases? And why, sometimes, is less really more?
We also discover the hidden power of the final stage of questioning - Re-Examination - and why both Henry Irwin and Ivy Jewell - on behalf of their clients Bianca and Conor - will have to tiptoe extremely carefully.
And, as often arises in criminal cases, there is a surprise in store, a revelation which goes to the heart of the case against our three defendants, and the murder charge which they all face. As the case proceeds, we’ll find out that criminal cases can be far from a search for the truth.
Thank you for listening.
I very much hope that you enjoy this episode.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Cross-Examination -
Part 2 C1 - rule C7 in the Bar Code of Conduct (Barristers - Not abusing your role as an advocate) https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/the-bsb-handbook.html?part=E3FF76D3-9538-4B97-94C02111664E5709&audience=&csrfToken=&q=
s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - restrictions on asking complainant’s in cases involving allegations of a sexual nature questions about their sexual history except with the leave (permission) of the court https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/41
See also s.41 information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-11-sexual-history-complainants-section-41-yjcea
s.34 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - prohibition on defendants in person cross-examining complaints in sexual cases https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/34
s.35 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - prohibition on defendants in person cross-examining child complainants and other child witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/35
s.36 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - Power of the court to prohibit in the interests of justice defendants in person cross-examining witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/36
A Life of Crime: The memoirs of a High Court Judge - Sir Harry Ognall. Published by William Collins. (Interesting insight into cross-examination in the Peter Sutcliffe trial).
Recommended John Mortimer Books -
A Voyage Round My Father (play) (Penguin Classics)
Clinging to the Wreckage (Autobiography Part 1) (Penguin)
Rumpole of the Bailey series (Penguin)
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
As the trial gets underway, the prosecution calls Finn Hawkins to give evidence, the first witness in the case against our three defendants, Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones & Conor Williams, all of whom are accused of murdering 23 year old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley's Nightclub in the early hours of Saturday morning in late January.
In this episode we follow the questioning by the prosecution of Finn Hawkins.
And in this episode, we delve into trial advocacy:
What exactly is examination-in-chief? What does it really mean not to lead a witness? What does it mean to ‘come up to proof’ and how do you elicit evidence from a forgetful or hostile witness?
And, as we’ll find out, prosecution witnesses can say something that might surprise you. Finn Hawkins is no exception, and his new evidence will give the jury - and all the barristers - food for thought.
As we move through the trial, we also look at the duties of a prosecution barrister and what it means to be ‘a minister of justice’, as well as the rules on when the defence can make an opening speech in a criminal trial. We know that our three defendants have a barrister and solicitor representing each of them, but who exactly represents each prosecution witness?
As ever, thank you for listening.
I very much hope that you enjoy this episode.
NOTES
Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.
You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.
CHARACTERS
Defendants -
Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)
Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)
Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)
Prosecution Barrister -
Keith Lowe
Defence Barristers -
Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan
Henry Irwin - representing Bianca
Ivy Jewell - representing Conor
Defence Solicitors -
Georgina Hale - representing Aidan
Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca
Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor
The Deceased -
Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)
Main Prosecution witnesses -
Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)
Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)
LEGAL NOTES
Defence Opening Speech -
Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(g) - When the defence can make an opening speech in the Crown Court https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made
Prosecution Duties -
Farquharson Guidelines: the Role of Prosecuting Advocates https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/farquharson-guidelines-role-prosecuting-advocates
Treasury Counsel https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/treasury-counsel
Memory Refreshing -
s.139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Refreshing the memory of a witness https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/139
Hostile Witnesses -
s.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 - Cross-examining your own ‘hostile’ witness during examinination-in-chief https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/28-29/18/section/3
Eye Witnesses -
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 - Turnbull Guidelines on CPS website https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification#:~:text=The%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20in,the%20quality%20of%20the%20identification.
ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK
For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.
PLEASE NOTE:
It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:
Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.
Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.
The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.
Thank you for your understanding.
CONTACT
Email: [email protected]
X https://twitter.com/defencebar
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/
COPYRIGHT
Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.
External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ -
The trial begins. Today Aidan, Bianca and Conor face trial in the Crown Court on a single count of murder.After the end of Episode 6, Ethan Green - a vital prosecution witness - is now in a bit of bother himself, which causes more than a few problems for our prosecution barrister - Keith Lowe - in deciding how to proceed. But Ethan Green will soon be facing even greater problems himself.Join our solicitors Georgina Hale (for Aidan), Holly Ibsen (for Bianca) and Ramesh Jayanshankar (for Conor) as they work with our barristers Gabriella, Henry and Ivy to put the finishing touches to the defence cases. What is a Defence Statement? What does it contain and how does it differ from a defendant’s proof of evidence? As the case moves forwards, we discover that a defence is only as good as the information available to support it. And who decides on the defence - the client, the solicitor or the barrister? Does it really matter whether a lawyer believes in their client’s innocence? Find out in this episode.What are custody time limits? How long can a person remanded in custody be held before trial? Can these time limits be extended and what happens if they expire?Join us in court as the jury are sworn in, ready to hear the trial of Aidan, Bianca and Conor. What will the judge say to the jury and what warnings will they receive? Is it possible to object to a juror, or is it just a question of getting what you are given?And today the case starts. Listen as the prosecution barrister - Keith Lowe - opens the prosecution case to the jury, the start of the murder trial against Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones and Conor Williams. By the end of this episode, you’ll have a good idea of the impact of the case on all of them, and - in truth - this is just the beginning.NOTESCriminal cases backlog -HM Courts & Tribunals Service - backlog of cases November 2023https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-management-information-november-2023 Custody Time Limits -s.22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 - Custody Time Limitshttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/section/22/enacted s.43 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (amendments to s.22 above)https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/43 Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 299) (these contain the applicable time limits) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/299/contents/made s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (No bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction of such offences)https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/25 Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McDonald [1998] EWHC 319 (Admin), Lord Bingham CJ. (The approach to extending Custody Time Limits) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1998/3532.html Representing clients -Bar Code of Conduct - Part 2 Rule C15 - barristers acting in the best interests of their clientshttps://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/the-bsb-handbook.html?part=E3FF76D3-9538-4B97-94C02111664E5709&audience=&csrfToken=&q= Defence Statements -s. 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Contents of a Defence Statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/6A Rule 15.4 Criminal Procedure Rules (Defence Statements) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/15.4/made Defence Statement Form (template) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-statement Defence Witnesses - s.6C of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Notification of Defence Witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/6C (see also rule 15.4 Criminal Procedure Rules above)Defence Witnesses Notice (template) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-witness-notice Adverse Inferences -s.11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Adverse inferences from Defence Statements and Defence Witness Notices https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/11 Witness Summons and Arrest -s.2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 - Issue of a Crown Court Witness Summons https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/69/section/2 s.4 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 - Warrant of Arrest for Unwilling Witness https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/69/section/4 Witness Summons form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n20-witness-summons The Jury -Crown Court Compendium Part 1, Chapter 2 (Jury Management); Chapter 3 (Trial Management) https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/ ‘Your Legal Responsibilities as a Juror’ (A Notice given to all Jurors) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fbe9ee0e90e077ed7351b0a/j001-eng.pdf ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UKFor additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister.PLEASE NOTE:It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.Thank you for your understanding.CONTACTEmail: [email protected] https://twitter.com/defencebarInstagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/COPYRIGHTMusic and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved.External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
- Näytä enemmän
