Albion Chambers, Broad Street, Bristol BS1 1DR Telephone 0117 927 2144 Fax 0117 926 2569 DX 7822 Bristol
[email protected] www.albionchambers.co.uk Number 14 July 2011 Albion Chambers CRIME TEAM NEWSLETTER response than one made on the day. A tug of war It is the provision of defence statements that has brought the tension between the Bar and the judiciary into the sharpest focus. Of course, no court wants an ineffective PCMH; that is a waste of t has become increasingly clear any consequent alteration or amendment everyone’s time, not least the defence that there is a tension between has to be administered fairly. The injustice advocate who does not get paid for such the judiciary and the Bar, when to a defendant of a trial being unexpectedly attendances. Yet the insistence that an the judge sets a timetable lengthened and his evidence or that of effective PCMH cannot be held without under the Criminal Procedure his witnesses being curtailed as a result is a defence statement is equally counter- Rules 2010 (CPR). obvious. productive to the need to save time and The rules have highlighted Equally, in a sex or domestic violence money. the need for judges to take case where a wealth of social services and If the system works smoothly, the control of the entire trial other records had not been disclosed at Crown would serve the papers in such process. The amendments the time of the PCMH when the estimate time as to allow the defence advocate which came into force in October 2010 was given, the defendant’s case would to be identified and briefed, the papers Iextended that duty, not only to the setting be severely prejudiced if his advocate to be read, the issues to be identified, of a timetable but also to limiting the were prevented from cross-examining a conference held and if necessary, the duration of any stage of proceedings.