Home / News & Events

Christopher Grout appears before the High Court to challenge the evidential admissibility of Case Management Forms

The Claimant was charged with one offence of Common Assault. As per the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules, her legal representative at the first appearance quite properly indicated the ‘issues for trial' on the Case Management Form. In the present case, the issue was said to be ‘self defence'. Having reviewed their file, the Crown Prosecution Service decided to lay a new charge of Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and invited the Magistrates' Court to decline jurisdiction to hear the case. At the Claimant's committal hearing, the Crown sought to admit the contents of the Case Management Form as hearsay evidence to show that presence at the scene of the crime was not in dispute (the police having not undertaken any formal identification procedures). The Magistrates, having allowed that evidence to be adduced, duly committed the Claimant to the Crown Court for trial.

Having been granted permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings of the Magistrates' Court decision to allow the contents of the Case Management Form in as evidence, the case came before the Divisional Court on the 3rd February 2011 for a full hearing.

Dismissing the Claimant's appeal, the Divisional Court ruled that s.118(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserved a common law exception to the hearsay rule regarding admissions made by a duly authorised agent. The Court observed that, absent any evidence to the contrary, it was clear that any information provided on a Case Management Form by an individual's legal representative was done so on that individual's instructions. Distinguishing the case of R v Hutchinson (1985) 82 Cr App R 51, the Court found that the Criminal Procedure Rules have significantly altered the obligations of legal representatives to actively assist the court in identifying the real issues in any given case. Anything which had a contrary effect would be to undermine the Criminal Procedure Rules and would not fit with the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and expeditiously.

Consequently, subject to any successful application to exclude evidence under s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, anything which is recorded by an individual's legal representative at a pre-trial hearing is now capable of being admitted as evidence at a subsequent trial.
Owing to the potential ramifications of this Judgment, the Claimant has applied to the High Court to certify that a point of general public importance was involved in its decision so as to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The full Judgment is not yet available but a summary is reported in the All England Reports Digest- R (on the application of Firth) v Epping Magistrates' Court [2011] All ER (D) 58 (Feb).

10 February 2011

Top of page