The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill: For Better or for Worse?

Abstract

The Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA 1987) hailed a new era. Obligations were imposed on prosecution and defence to collaborate at an early stage to identify issues, serve documents, prepare schedules and deal with points of law. The preparatory hearing was introduced. The intention was better case management, to smooth the path towards the presentation of trial and make the system generally more efficient. As an idea it was a good one, but the operation was at variance with what Parliament intended. The Act made provision that the party which lost on a particular point at a preparatory hearing could take that point on appeal. This caused a rush of applications to the Court of Appeal with counsel doubtless feeling that they had to take the point so as not to be disadvantaged later. In a number of decisions the Court ruled that the legal arguments did not form part of the preparatory hearing. Arguably the Court of Appeal was looking for clarification but the reality is that there have been a number of inconsistent decisions that have defeated Parliament's intention for smoother case management. If the Court of Appeal was looking for an administrative way of lowering the number of appeals they had to force the ball back into the court of the Executive. Let us examine whether the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill has assisted the position or not.

Citation

Davies, S. (1997), "The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill: For Better or for Worse?", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 234-235. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025783