Best Practice Guide to Listing - barcouncil.org.uk · BEST PRACTICE GUIDE TO LISTING Lord Steyn summarised the guiding principle, which must be followed, as: “There must be fairness

BEST PRACTICE

GUIDE TO

LISTING

Lord Steyn summarised the guiding principle, which must be followed, as:

“There must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case this requires the court to consider a triangulation of interests. It involves taking into account the position of the

accused, the victim and his or her family, and the public.”

(House of Lords - Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 [2000] UKHL 63) Created by the Best Practice Group

Best Practice Guide Last amended 19/12/2011

1

Index Page

Introduction 2 Section 1) Listing

a. Pre Trial Hearings i. Preliminary Hearings

ii. Plea and Case Management Hearings 3 iii. Applications 4

b. Trials 5 i. Fixtures

ii. Warned List iii. Floaters 6 iv. Weekly Work State Update 8

c. Miscellaneous i. Transferring Cases

ii. Custody Time Limits iii. Persistent Young Offenders 10

Section 2) Communication

a. Court Centre i. Resident Judge and Court Manager

ii. Resident Judge and List Officer 11 iii. Other Judiciary and List Officer 12 iv. Court Manager and List Officer v. List Officer and Case Progression Officer 13

vi. Court Manager/List Officer and Jury Manager b. Inter Agency c. Escalation Process [with the CPS] 14 d. Regional

i. Crown Court Managers Meetings ii. List Officer Meetings

iii. Case Progression Officer Meetings

Section 3) Housekeeping Functions/Statistics 15 a. Weekly b. Monthly 16 c. Quarterly 17

Appendix 1 - Weekly Work State Update 18 Appendix 2 - Transfer Protocol 19 Appendix 3 - Persistent Young Offenders, Phoenix Initiative 26 Appendix 4 - Monthly Work State Return 27 Appendix 5 - High Court Judge Return 30


2

Introduction

This guide is designed to assist newly appointed List Officers and Court Managers in how they

approach our core business with a particular focus on maximising disposal rates, increasing courtroom

utilisation and improving the timely listing of Crown Court trials. Nothing in this guidance should

affect the principles of listing or the setting of listing practice in the courts as described in the Crown

Court Manual.

1) LISTING

a) Pre Trial Hearings

i) Preliminary Hearings

(1) Courts must adopt the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2007.

(2) A preliminary hearing should normally only be ordered by the Magistrates’ Court or

by the Crown Court where one or more of the following apply:

(a) there are case management issues which call for such a hearing;

(b) the case is likely to last more than 4 weeks;

(c) it would be desirable to set an early trial date;

(d) the defendant is a child or young person;

(e) there is likely to be a guilty plea and the defendant could be sentenced at the

preliminary hearing; or

(f) it seems to the court that it is a case suitable for a preparatory hearing in the Crown

Court (see sections 7 and 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and sections 29 - 32

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996).

(3) A preliminary hearing, if there is one, should be held about 14 days after sending

unless a guilty plea is indicated and longer may be required for preparation of

indictment or pre sentence report.


3

ii) Plea and Case Management Hearings (PCMH)

(1) For section 51 trials, the PCMH should take place:

(a) Bail - within 17 weeks from send

(b) Custody - within 14 weeks from send

(2) For committals, the PCMH should take place

(a) Bail - within 7 weeks from committal

(b) Custody - within 7 weeks from committal

These are maximum periods and simple cases should be listed within a shorter time

frame.

(3) In accordance with paragraph IV.41.8 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction

PCMHs should be listed so far as practicable to enable the instructed/trial advocate to

attend.

(4) Between receiving the file from the Magistrates Court and the PCMH date, the case

progression team should ensure that the automatic directions, which now must be

signed by the parties, are complied with.

(5) If notification is received saying that the PCMH will not be effective, the case should

remain listed on the allocated date but the Case Management Judge should direct

whether it should be listed for PCMH or for mention and to fix. At the hearing a new

PCMH and trial date should be set with liberty to apply. Consideration should be give

to ensuring that directions are given without a hearing in accordance with Parts

3.5(2)(d) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure Rules.

NB. The defendant(s) should not attend unless there is a justifiable request from their

solicitor(s). (Attendance should be via the link for custody defendant(s) wherever

possible).


4

iii) Applications

(1) In accordance with Part 3.5(2)(d) and (e) of the Criminal Procedure Rules applications

should not be listed unless the following steps have been taken. The only exception

would be if a trial date is in danger of being compromised (i.e. if the trial date is

imminent).

(a) All requests by parties must be submitted in writing to the court, along with a draft

of any orders proposed, and must be served on the other parties.

(b) The letter should contain:

(i) reasons for application

(ii) the attempts made to resolve the issues; and

(iii) the precise nature of order required

(c) The other parties have 48 hours to make any representations in writing, copied to all

parties.

(d) The Court will give the application and any responses to the Case Management (or

nominated) Judge for his written directions (wherever possible refer any extensions

/ variations of orders back to the original judge that made the order(s)).

(e) Any orders made by a Judge in chambers will be forwarded to the parties.

(f) If no resolution or compromise can be reached through the above process, the case

should be listed for mention in consultation with the case management or trial

Judge. Hearings should if appropriate and practicable be listed for the

instructed/trial advocates’ availability in accordance with Part 3.8(2)(d) of the

Criminal Procedure Rules.

(g) The Court should provide blank pro forma orders to the advocates before mention

hearings. The Judge should then direct counsel to draft any agreed order for his

approval and should not release the advocates until such an order has been lodged

with, and approved, by the court.

Email is the Court’s preferred method of communication and all Practitioners/Court

Users should be asked to correspond in this manner


5

b) Trials

i) Fixtures

(1) Cases will be listed for trial depending on the circumstances of each particular case, in

accordance with the listing practice determined by the Resident Judge (Section 16

paragraph 5(1)(ii) of the Crown Court Manual). In accordance with paragraph IV.41.8

of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction trials should be listed so far as

appropriate and practicable to enable the instructed/trial advocate to appear.

(2) Guidance on categories of case suitable to fix is set out in section 16 paragraph 5(2)(ii)

of the Crown Court Manual:

(a) the cases where fixtures should be given will be set out in the listing practice

applicable at the court, but may include the following:

(i) class 1 cases;

(ii) class 2 cases and most other sexual offences;

(iii) other cases involving death, such as dangerous driving;

(iv) cases involving vulnerable and intimidated witnesses (including domestic

violence cases), whether or not special measures have been ordered by the

court;

(v) cases where the witnesses are under 16 or have to come from overseas;

(vi) cases estimated to last more than 5 days; although the period chosen will

depend on the size of the centre and the available judges;

(vii) cases where there has been a previous abortive listing;

(viii) re-trials;

(ix) cases involving interpreters and expert witnesses.

ii) Warned List

(1) Warned lists should supplement fixtures and operate in 1 week blocks.

(2) In accordance with paragraph IV.41.8 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction

warned list dates should be set, so far as practicable, to enable the instructed/trial

advocate to appear.


6

(3) Cases should normally not last longer than 5 days, which should allow for jury

deliberation, but it is important to create a balance between length of case to cater for

Recorders booked in 1 week blocks.

(4) Cases should not appear in a warned list more than twice before a fixture is given.

(5) If the court has exhausted its warned list by mid week or routinely has a number of

cases unused at the end of the week, the List Officer, along with the Court Manager

and Resident Judge, should urgently review the number of cases placed in the warned

list.

iii) Floaters

(1) Courts should cover fixtures with floaters because cases either ‘crack’ or are

‘ineffective’.

(2) What is known about the history of the trials listed will guide how many floaters to

list. Case Progression Officers may have additional information about both the fixtures

and the warned list trials, so it is crucial to discuss the cases with them. It is imperative

that the needs of victims and witnesses are considered.

(3) It is recommended that for three new trials or less list one floater. If four or more new

trials are listed, two, or possibly three, floaters should be listed. Any more than three

should be discussed with the Resident Judge/ Court Manager.

(4) When deciding what trials to float it must be borne in mind that they may not be

reached. It is therefore recommended that, wherever possible, the List Officer floats

cases not involving physical injury to a victim, for example theft, deception or

possession of an offensive weapon or drugs;

(5) Accordingly the following points should be considered in determining how many cases

to float and what length they should be

(a) what other fixtures there are for the rest of the week;

(b) what the next available date for trial would be; and

(c) the instructed/trial advocates’ availability so far as practicable.

(6) If you are floating cases you should contact the Listing Co-ordinator to ascertain

whether other courts may have capacity. In addition, before releasing the case, the List

Office should always ring the neighbouring courts to check whether they require any

work for that day.


7

(7) If there is a possibility that the defendant will plead (e.g. if certain witnesses attend

court) then it is considered appropriate to list an additional floater. It is better to list the

case in advance for plea to be taken to prevent a cracked trial but pleas are not always

forthcoming at this stage.

(8) If it is suspected that a particular trial will crack, the case should be listed for trial with

a footnote indicating whether witnesses are required and, if so, at what time. This

should be done after discussion with either the Resident Judge or trial Judge. If legal

argument takes place before a jury is sworn the case should be shown as part heard for

the purposes of the list unless local practices dictate otherwise. The Jury Bailiff must

be kept informed of the status of the case at all times to ensure a jury panel is available

if required. In any event if the court has been advised of legal argument which may be

lengthy then the list should be annotated in this way. This prevents witnesses coming

to court unnecessarily.

(9) If half time submissions are taking place, it may be appropriate to add a floater as

cover in case the part-heard trial goes short. It is inappropriate to ask the Judge what

he is likely to decide, although occasionally a Judge will give an indication as to the

strength of the defence argument, which will help the decision making. On no account

should a new trial be placed in the court where the part-heard trial is listed, as parties

may assume the Judge has made his decision without hearing all the legal argument.

The ability to add a floater will be dependent on there being enough jurors to make up

a fresh panel.

(10) Additional thought should be given to backing up two day + appeals with a further

floater.

(11) Consideration should be given to the current ineffective trial rate as it may allow a List

Officer to list more robustly (e.g. if the ineffective trial rate is well below the target

then the figures may indicate that more risks could be taken to add additional floaters,

which in turn could help the court to list in a timely manner). However this should not

impact upon the process in paragraph (iii) (2) above.

(12) Some courts prefer to list floaters in a court room to get early judicial intervention, to

establish effectiveness and to help resolve any issues beforehand. Other courts expect

counsel to attend at the List Office, allowing them time to ascertain whether the case

will be effective.

(13) If it is impossible to accommodate the trial on the day listed, having checked the

availability of other local courts, it is recommended to put the matter into court to be


8

stood out formally by a Judge thus ensuring all parties know the next date of hearing

and keeping the court record up to date.

(14) If a case has been floated and not used then it should not be floated again.

iv) Weekly Work State Update

(1) The form at Appendix 1 will provide data indicating to the Regional Listing Co-

ordinator’s Office, which courts may have capacity to help others.

[The London List Officers will begin a 3 month period on this from the week commencing 16th

April 2007]

c) Miscellaneous

i) Transferring cases

(1) Please see the transfer protocol at Appendix 2

ii) Custody Time Limits

(1) Criteria to be considered when offering a fixed date.

(a) A trial date should ordinarily be offered by the List Office and fixed by the Case

Management Judge at least 7 days before the expiry of the CTL, unless one of the

following exceptions applies.

(b) Exceptions could be;

(i) Parties inform the court that the case will not be ready within CTLs

(ii) The case is long and complex and no suitable judge is available

(iii) Allocated trial counsel who has taken all the pre trial decisions is not available

until a later date (Carter review and CPR 2005) where that date would not

involve unacceptable delay.


9

(iv) The court has fulfilled its obligations to the defendant(s) by offering a date

within CTLs and the parties can not take it up (e.g. the court does have a

suitable window for the case but it does not coincide with counsels’/witness

availability)

(c) If a court does not have a trial window available before the expiry of the CTL and

one of the exceptions above does not apply, the List Office should offer a date

within CTLs.

(d) They should:

(i) offer a date where there is an acceptable level of over fixing and/or there is a

possibility that a trial with a lesser priority can be moved to accommodate it.

(ii) The presumption should be that custody cases should take precedence, and that

bail cases should be moved if necessary to accommodate custody cases.

(e) If this approach results in an unacceptably high level of over fixing, the List Officer,

in consultation with the Court Manager, should consider whether it is necessary to

make representations to the Listing Co-ordinator’s Office/Area Director about

workload balance.

(2) Applications to extend custody time limits

(a) Courts must ensure that they have taken all possible steps to offer a date within

CTLs so that a Tribunal does not have to grant bail to a defendant because of the

courts inability to offer a reasonable trial date.

(b) If such a step is being considered, it is essential that the Resident Judge and Court

Manager are consulted before it occurs.

(3) Approach to alternative venues

(a) Courts should manage their own CTLs. Other courts should not, as a rule, be asked

to accommodate problem cases on earlier dates. The Listing Co-ordinator, under the

direction of the Presiding Judges, ensures that workload is equalised across the


10

Circuit taking into account the need to prioritise cases. There should be a

presumption that cases should not be transferred to other centres at the expense of

local work unless exceptional circumstances prevail. If meeting CTLs is an issue, it

should be addressed strategically and not on an ad hoc basis.

(4) See 3) a) ii) below for courts obligation to notify CPS of cases approaching CTLs.

iii) Persistent Young Offenders (PYO)

(1) Criteria for listing PYOs are detailed in the Phoenix Initiative (Appendix 3) launched

by the London Criminal Justice Board in 2006.

[Best Practice Group recommendation that Magistrates’ Courts allocate trial dates for PYOs being

piloted at Snaresbrook]

2) COMMUNICATION

a) Court Centre

i) Resident Judge and Court Manager

(1) Whilst it is suggested that the following topics be discussed this is not an exhaustive

list.

(a) Weekly Meetings:

(i) Any issues on lost time

(ii) Judicial resources

(iii) Staff resources (particularly concerning in-court and listing staff)

(iv) Other court business (e.g. accommodation)

(v) Fixture/warned list balance


11

(b) Monthly Meetings:

(i) Performance of the Court

(ii) Outstanding workload e.g. trials

(iii) Outcome of Joint Performance Meetings

(iv) Inter-agency issues

(v) Monitoring sitting days against profile for the month

(c) Ad Hoc Meetings:

(i) New initiatives e.g. ETMP

(ii) New legislation e.g. Criminal Procedure Rules

(iii) Discussing the contents to be included in the Crown Court Annual Report

(iv) Ticketing requirements

(v) Meetings with other agencies e.g. CPS, Probation, local defence solicitors, bar

liaison committee

(vi) Discussion about bulk transfers of work e.g. volume and type of work

ii) Resident Judge and List Officer

(1) This is dependent on the experience of the List Officer and the amount of delegation

by the Resident Judge.

(a) Daily Meetings:

(i) Allocation of work for next day e.g. Recorders hearing appeals or where to list

applications work when all Judges are hearing part heard trials (e.g. before

Judges sit on their part-heard trials or in a separate court)

(ii) Allocation of trials to new Recorders

(iii) Any other judicial issues e.g. frequent adjournments or standing out of cases

(b) Weekly Meetings:

(i) Allocation of trials for the following week, to include whether to run one court

solely on applications. This will be dependent on the volume and type of

applications.


12

(ii) Who is sitting e.g. which Recorders

(iii) Any judicial vacancies

(iv) Which judges are taking leave and any short notice applications to take leave

(v) Other judicial commitments e.g. Parole Board

(c) Ad Hoc Meetings:

(i) issues that cannot be resolved at local level e.g. when to involve Listing Co-

ordinators Office

(ii) any trials with special measures e.g. press interest, jury protection etc

(iii) allocation of trials over 4 weeks to the judiciary

iii) Other Judiciary and List Officer

(1) These discussions normally take place first thing in the morning and reviewed during

the luncheon adjournment. List Officers may wish to consider approaching Judges

collectively in the lunch room.

(a) Daily Meetings:

(i) Discussion as to the status of current trial and what other work is in the list for

the following day

It is strongly recommended that when the Deputy List Officer deputises as List Officer, the daily

communication with the Resident Judge and other judges outlined above should be followed.

iv) Court Manager and List Officer

(1) Regular discussions of

(a) Forward planning/listing balance, e.g. number of fixtures to warned list cases,

number of floaters and if they were reached.

(b) Listing situation for next 3 months, e.g. over-fixed or under-fixed

(c) Statistics see 3 (Housekeeping Functions/Statistics) below.

(d) Comparative work load and position in the group.

(e) Any problems on the horizon, e.g. with Judicial absence, ticketing.


13

(2) Court Managers talk to List Officers about the agenda items of the List Officer

meetings to ensure that they understand the Courts position.

v) List Officer and Case Progression Officer

(1) If the List Officer does not attend a case progression meeting, the List Officer and the

Case Progression Officer should meet once a week to discuss the state of play of future

cases

vi) Court Manager/List Officer and Jury Manager

(1) Regular discussions in order to ensure the optimum use of jurors.

b) Inter Agency

i) Minutes of these meetings should be taken as they may be used if any further issues arise.

(1) Case Progression Weekly Trial Check Minutes:

(a) confirmation that a case is trial ready, to include confirmation that the case has been

reviewed and witnesses warned to attend

(b) note of any further action to be taken and who is responsible

(2) Joint Performance Meeting Minutes:

(a) note of any further case specific action to be taken and who is responsible

(b) note of any changes in process e.g. weaknesses in witness warnings


14

c) Escalation Process [with the CPS]

District Crown Prosecutor

↓

Sector Director/Sector Business Manager

↓

Operations Director for London (Lesley Burton)

i) Each Crown Court should agree, with their local CPS, an escalation process.

d) Regional

i) Crown Court Managers Meeting

(1) Monthly meetings to discuss performance and advise strategic listing policy, local

issues and any escalation initiatives.

ii) List Officer Meetings

(1) Quarterly meetings held by the Regional Listing Co-ordinators Office to discuss

current issues, future initiatives etc.

iii) Case Progression Officer Meetings

(1) Bi-Annual meetings chaired by a Court Manager


15

3) HOUSEKEEPING FUNCTIONS/STATISTICS

It is recommended that the following reports be run to assist in the monitoring of the workload.

a) Weekly:

i) UNLC (List of all unlisted cases)

(1) This will identify those cases without a hearing date and should be used to investigate

the reasons why.

(2) It may be advisable to allocate a date in the diary to ensure these cases are checked and

not missed.

ii) OUTC (List of outstanding cases)

(1) This will identify all trial cases over 12 weeks old.

(2) The custody time limit date should be entered on the case notes and this report assists

in monitoring custody cases.

(3) The Prosecution should be sent a list of cases approaching the custody time limit

(CTLRP), 4 weeks prior to the expiry date, but it is also the responsibility of the

Prosecution to monitor these cases.

iii) RREC (List of cases disposed of within the previous week)

(1) This report will identify all cases disposed of and should be checked against the court

clerk returns to ensure all cases are closed on CREST.

(2) Any discrepancies need to be actioned immediately to ensure the end of month

statistics are accurate.

iv) ADJSS (Cases adjourned for sentence)

(1) This will identify cases with dates for sentence and those without.

(2) Any case without a future date should be investigated.

(3) The report will also help to keep track of all cases transferred out for sentence.


16

b) Monthly:

i) Work State and Transfer Return

(1) This return (Appendix 4) is designed to identify work state pressures and possible

listing imbalances as shown by the transfer trends.

ii) RAGE (Report of cases by age)

(1) This will list every outstanding case, with details about the bail/custody status, number

of weeks from committal/sending and the case notes.

(2) This report can be tailored to different age categories e.g. over 48 weeks, over 36

weeks etc, to allow closer monitoring of particular groups of cases.

iii) INFTRL

(1) This forms part of the DMI report and identifies all cases that were listed for trial in the

previous month and whether they were effective, ineffective or cracked.

(2) Before transmission of the DMI, this should be checked to ensure that the number of

trials, whether effective, ineffective or cracked, is accurate.

(3) Any discrepancies should be rectified as soon as possible as MIS (Management

Information System) will issue a monthly Hearing Discrepancy Report that is sent to

the Court Manager.

(4) Action taken at an early stage can prevent further investigation at a later stage.

iv) High Court Judge Return

(1) This only needs to be completed by courts that have Class 1 work and can be found in

Appendix 5.

c) Quarterly:

i) DEFSS (Cases where sentence has been deferred)

(1) This will identify cases where sentence has been deferred.

(2) The deferment should be for no longer than 6 months and the report will also identify

cases with no future hearing date, which should be investigated.


17

ii) OBW (List of outstanding bench warrants)

(1) This will list all outstanding bench warrants according to CREST, even if the case has

actually been dealt with.

(2) This list should be checked to ensure that all warrants shown are outstanding and that

the process for recording the execution and withdrawal of warrants on CREST has

been correctly followed.


18

APPENDIX 1

WEEKLY WORK STATE UPDATE This must be returned to the Regional Listing Co-ordinators Office by 12noon every Wednesday. Court: No. of courtrooms:

Next week

No. of fixtures on Monday

No. of part heard trials

No. of cases in warned list

No. of cases over fixed

If over fixed, what contingency

plans do you have?

This week

Would you be able to take any

short trials in?

Do you think that you won’t be

able to give a Recorder work at

the end of the week?


19

APPENDIX 2

PROTOCOL FOR THE TRANSFER OF CASES BETWEEN CROWN COURT

CENTRES

[This protocol has been approved by the Presiding Judges of the South Eastern Circuit, by the London

HMCS Region and by the Crown Prosecution Service. It sets out agreed procedures for the transfer of

cases between the London Crown Court centres and seeks to clarify the respective roles and

responsibilities of all those involved in this process. It should be read in conjunction with paragraph 8

section (i) to (iii) of section 14 of the Crown Court Manual re Listing of cases. (Re-produced at the end

of this Protocol).]

The listing of individual cases is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion and this protocol does not

seek to fetter that discretion.

1. Reasons for transferring cases

1.1 One of the objectives of the review of the committal paths was to redistribute work across

London, taking into account the closure of 1 court centre and the opening of additional courts at

another centre, and reduce the need for cases to be transferred. It is recognised, however, that

there will always be a need to move cases between court centres. Such a need may arise

because:

a) Backlogs are building up at a particular court centre and impacting upon the centre’s

ability to list trials within appropriate timescales;

b) The requirements of a particular case cannot be accommodated at the court centre to which

it was originally sent/committed;

c) An unexpected event (for example, the overrunning of another case) means that the

original court centre can no longer accommodate a trial which has already been listed.

1.2 Each of the situations described above are different and will require a different approach to be

taken to the transfer of work. For the purpose of this protocol we consider transfers within three

broad categories:


20

a) Block transfers (i.e. the planned movement of a significant volume of cases from one

centre to another either as a one-off arrangement or for a fixed period)

b) Single case transfers (i.e. the planned transfer of a single case in response to the need for

particular facilities – large courtroom/dock, security arrangements etc)

c) Short notice transfers (i.e. the movement of a case or cases at less than 3 days notice in

response to an unexpected event)

1.3 In line with the Right of Way protocol previously agreed by the London Crown Court Group,

Persistent Young Offender, Child Abuse trials, and those cases where the custody time limit

(CTL) is approaching, will be treated as having over-riding priority for transfer once it has been

established that the original court cannot adjust its lists in order to accommodate such cases.

1.4 Separate work is currently being undertaken within London on the management of long and

complex cases. This protocol may, therefore, be supplemented by others dealing with the

specific issue of how such cases are allocated to judges and venues.

2. Principles

2.1 The following principles should be applied to the movement of work under this protocol:

a) Wherever possible, work should be retained within the Crown Court centre to which it has

been committed/sent;

b) Once it becomes clear that the transfer of work will be required, cases should be

reallocated to the receiving Crown Court centre as soon as practicable and responsibility

for case management should transfer to the receiving centre at that point;

c) Cases transferred at short notice should be confirmed by all parties as being trial ready;

d) Where cases are transferred prior to a Plea and Case Management Hearing, the date set for

that hearing should be honoured by the receiving Crown Court centre, unless alternative

arrangements have been agreed by all parties.

e) Where the lack of a trial judge with appropriate experience is giving rise to the possible

need to transfer a case, consideration will be given as to whether the temporary movement


21

of a suitable judge would provide a better solution than a change of venue. Any decision

to temporarily redeploy a judge is a matter for the Presiding Judges.

f) The original court will arrange and pay for the movement of court files. If a hearing is due

to take place within 3 working days, the file will be couriered to the receiving court.

3. Issues to be considered prior to transfer

3.1 Consideration will be given to the following issues before any transfer is approved. In respect of

block transfers, the relevant prosecution authority(ies) will be asked to comment before any

decision is made. In respect of individual cases, the parties will be invited to make

representations.

a) Convenience of defendants, victims and witnesses and relatives

The opportunity to get a case on more quickly has to be balanced against the impact that a

move to a new location would have upon all those involved (defendants, victims, witnesses

etc). Particular regard will be had for the very young or elderly, people with disabilities,

vulnerable witnesses and anyone else who may experience exceptional difficulty in

travelling. The number of witnesses fully bound to give live evidence will also be a

consideration. It is the responsibility of the parties to confirm to the Court that there are

no specific witness difficulties

b) Nature of the case

Efforts will be made to avoid the administrative transfer of cases of a sensitive nature or

which are the subject of particular public interest. Court Managers/List Officers will alert

their Area Director to any need to transfer a case likely to be the subject of media

comment. Where a party applies for a transfer under section 76(3) of the Supreme Court

Act 1981 the case should be referred to a Presiding Judge for directions.

c) Convenience of Prosecution/Defence

Short notice transfers in particular can cause logistical difficulties for the prosecution (and

potentially the defence) as well as for the Court. Where there are exceptional reasons for a

particular caseworker to remain with a case, this will be a consideration in any decision

about transfer. Generally, however, there will be an expectation that cases will become the

responsibility of the representatives of the prosecution authority who cover the receiving

court.


22

d) Warning of Witnesses

Some cases have inherent witness problems including vulnerable witnesses, those with no

fixed address or who live abroad or experts with limited availability and the late transfer of

such cases should be avoided if at all possible. In all cases, the prosecution must be given

sufficient notice of any transfer to enable information about the new venue/trial date to be

passed to all witnesses.

e) Facilities

Many single case transfers will take place specifically because of the lack of certain

facilities at the original court. Whatever the reason for the transfer, consideration will

always need to be given to whether the receiving Crown Court centre has all the facilities

required by the cases being transferred. The resource model will be used to identify the

facilities available at each Crown Court centre. This document is held by the Listing Co-

ordinator’s Office; it is the Court Managers’ responsibility to inform that office of any

changes to their facilities, to enable the resource model to be amended.

4. Block Transfers

4.1 The potential need for a block transfer of work may be identified in a number of ways – the

scrutiny of performance information, discussions at the Crown Court managers meetings,

warnings from Presiding/Resident Judges about the build up of backlogs etc. Once a potential

solution has been identified, the relevant Court Managers should work with the Listing Co-

ordinator’s office to produce a simple business case providing:

a) evidence of the problem;

b) details of which cases have been identified as suitable for transfer (this may be a particular

type of work or cases committed/sent from a particular magistrates’ court);

c) whether it is proposed that any individual cases should be excluded from the block transfer

and how these will be identified;

d) whether it is proposed to transfer any resources along with the cases;

e) Confirmation of the period for which this arrangement will continue.


23

4.2 The Business Case will be submitted to the London Performance Team and Listing Co-

ordinator’s Office for confirmation that proper consideration has been given to any resource

implications. Then, after consultation with the relevant Prosecution Authority(ies), the proposal

will be submitted to the Presiding Judges for approval.

5. Single case transfers

5.1 As soon as List Officers become aware that a particular case gives rise to requirements that

cannot be accommodated within the original Crown Court Centre, they will alert their Court

Manager and the Listing Co-ordinator to the difficulty. The Listing Co-ordinator’s Office will

consider the specific circumstances of the case and propose a way forward, consulting other

Court Managers/Resident Judges as appropriate.

5.2 Where the transfer arises because of the need for particular facilities rather than the pressure of

work, there will generally be an expectation that the original Crown Court centre will be sent

suitable cases in exchange for the work being transferred out.

5.3 Where appropriate, and after consultation with the parties, such transfers will be submitted to the

Presiding Judges for approval. There will be no expectation that Area Directors get involved in

this process unless a particular transfer has significant resource implications for one or more of

the Crown Court centres involved.

6. Short notice transfers

6.1 The transfer of cases within 3 days of trial should be avoided wherever possible and should take

into account any representations made by the parties.

6.2 Because of the need for speed, a List Officer who becomes aware of the likely need to transfer a

case at short notice should discuss the situation with the Court Manager/Resident Judge before

requesting assistance from all other London Crown Court centres by e-mail, copying in the

Listing Co-ordinator’s Office. If the case is a fixture, the Listing Co-ordinator should be

contacted prior to e-mailing the other London Courts for assistance. Similarly, if a Crown Court

centre experiences an unexpected shortage of work, the List Officer should alert the Listing Co-

ordinator’s Office to the potential for the centre to assist other courts. To assist with this, the List

Officer e-mails the Listing Co-ordinator's Office every Wednesday to alert the Listing Co-

ordinator to any potential problems such as shortages of work or alternatively spare capacity.


24

6.3 If there are competing priorities (a number of centres require assistance or a number of centres

have gaps to fill), the Listing Co-ordinator will propose a solution, consulting Presiding Judges

as appropriate.

6.4 It is recognised that a case may need to be transferred as late as the day before listing or,

exceptionally, on the day of listing, to ensure it is heard. There will be a cut off time of 15:00

hours after which cases will not normally be transferred for the following day without the

agreement of all parties (subject, of course, to judicial discretion).

7. After the transfer

7.1 The Listing Co-ordinator’s office will monitor all transfers within the Region and will alert the

relevant Area Directors and London Performance Team to any recurring patterns which are

potentially a cause for concern.

7.2 Cases subject to block transfer arrangements will not normally be returned to the original Crown

Court centre.

7.3 In single cases, if the original trial date proves to be ineffective, the List Officers of the receiving

and original Crown Court centres should discuss the way forward. In most situations, it will be

appropriate for the case to be retained by the receiving centre for trial, unless factors which

determined the initial transfer outweigh this. Dates to avoid should be sought from all parties

and a judge at the receiving court should consider any representations as to future venue, if

necessary consulting the relevant Resident Judges.

7.4 No case will be transferred more than once unless otherwise directed by a Judge, or unless all the

parties agree


25

EXTRACT FROM CROWN COURT MANUAL SECTION 14 LISTING OF CASES

(8) Transferring cases to another court within the same Region

(i) Any case referred to the Presiding Judges under the provisions set out in sub-paragraph (2)

above may only be transferred to another court by or under the direction of the Presiding

Judges, who will have the assistance of the Regional Listing Co-ordinator.

(ii) It will also be necessary, from time to time, to transfer cases well in advance of the trial

date to another court centre to equalise the amount of work at different centres in proximity

to one another. Such transfers will take place only under the guidance of the Presiding

Judges, provided in accordance with the principles set out above and after consultation with

users of the courts involved.

(iii) It may be necessary to transfer a specific case at shorter notice to a different but proximate

court centre to enable a trial to go ahead on a fixed date, or within the trial window, or for

some other similar reason. Every effort must be made to avoid transferring a case where the

witnesses have had a pre-court visit for familiarisation with the court and courtroom, or

where there are transport difficulties. The Listing Officer must consult the parties; if they

do not agree to the change, then the case must be referred to the Resident Judge of the

transferring court for his/her decision.


26

APPENDIX 3

Phoenix Persistent Young Offenders -

Delivering on our commitment to achieve an average of 71 days from arrest to sentence

The London Criminal Justice Board has launched ‘phoenix’ to deliver on its commitment to achieve an average

of 71 days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (PYOs). The Board considers this to be an important test of the ability of the London criminal justice service to deliver

joined up justice and has committed to achieve an average of 71 days by December 2006. This desk note sets out the core components of ‘phoenix’ - Accountability, Expectations and Escalation.

ACCOUNTABILITY At the Executive Group, deputy Chief Officers will be accountable to the Board for each agency’s performance against the constituent targets. Executive Group members: Met Police - Mark Simmons, Commander CPS - Lesley Burton, Operations Director HMCS - Danny Sullivan, Director of Strategy and Business Support YJB - Susannah Hancock, London Regional Manager London Probation - Mary McFeely, Director London East City Police - Steve Smith, Head of Criminal Justice Unit

EXPECTATIONS Arrest to Charge 5 days POLICE Disclosure Initial - 14 days from CPS when trial date set. Additional evidence - 7 days before trial. Magistrates’ First hearing 7 days HMCS Court Dates from charge. Trial 25 days from please unless judicial reason to direct otherwise. Crown Court Plea and Case HMCS Dates Management Hearing (PCMH) 14 days from committal. Trial date offered 28 days from PCMH unless Judge Otherwise directs. Youth Offending Pre Sentence reports YOT Team 10 days from conviction

HOW TO WE MEET THESE EXPECTATIONS? Early Starts with Custody Identification Sergeant. Check whether PYO at

all stages of process. Bail to return limited to 5 days.

Potential PYOs Identify those with 2 sentencing

occasions and prioritise Tracker System Update tracker after every action

on PYO Tracker meetings Hold fortnightly. Consider

‘virtual meetings’ Required minimum membership of Tracker meetings: CJU Inspector, Borough Crown Prosecutor, Youth Court Specialist or Bench Legal manager and YOT Operations Manager. Check tracker accuracy Ensure protocols (e.g. forensic; id parades) being

appropriately managed. Review performance as well as cases. Identify

trends, system failures and fix. Integrate Crown Court cases - involve Crown

Court Manager if not at meeting. Action points noted and followed up. Warrants PYO Warrants Prioritised All Failed to Appear

ESCALATION In addition to agencies own escalation procedures, the following interagency escalation will apply: Any live Magistrates’ Court case over 60 days old

to be referred to the Borough Criminal Justice Group (BCJG).

Any live Crown Court case over 180 days to be referred to the BCJG.

Any live Magistrates’ Court case over 100 days to be referred to the London CJB Executive Group (to be sent to [email protected])


27

APPENDIX 4

CROWN COURT MONTHLY WORK STATE AND TRANSFER RETURN

Please complete all three parts of this return. Before you send it to the Regional Co-ordinator’s Office (by the 7th working day of the month), please discuss the contents with your Court Manager and Resident Judge, and ensure that they have an opportunity to comment, if they wish to.

CROWN COURT AT: MONTH: Part One: Please fill in the table

Trial receipts in month From PSDs

Transfers-in

Number of outstanding trials

Number of trials listed

Number of effective trials

Number of 2 week + trials received from outside the London Region?

Earliest dates for fixtures

Bail

Custody

Earliest warned list date

If you have a murder-ticketed judge, what dates is she/he free to take Class 1 work?

Number of 4+ week cases


28

Part Two Highlight issues which are causing you specific difficulties. Here are some examples: Do you have a lack of judiciary to try ticketed work? What impact are long cases having on your lists? Is the number of applications having an adverse effect on your ability to list trials in a timely way? Do you have issues with equipment or courtroom availability? Are there any warned list issues? If you didn’t reach warned list cases, please say why, and what action, if any, you are considering. Are there fixture difficulties you foresee?


29

Part Three MONTHLY TRANSFER RETURN

Total number of trials

transferred in during month

– fixed (F), warned (W)

and block (B)

Total number of trials

transferred out in month

(F/W/B)

Number of trials

transferred in overnight

(F/W)

Number of trials

transferred out overnight

(F/W)

Number of trials

transferred in to link/join

Number of trials

transferred out to

link/join

Transfers in: please note the Court of origin and number of cases, as follows:

Name of Court Fixed Warned Block Other (please

define) Reason*

Blackfriars

CCC

Croydon

Harrow

Inner London

Isleworth

Kingston

Snaresbrook

Southwark

Wood Green

Woolwich

Other Court (please specify)

* Reasons: a – lack of work b – to join to existing case c – lack of ticketed judge d – block transfer


30

MONTHLY HIGH COURT JUDGE RETURN (Please complete this form and return it to the Regional Listing Co-ordinators Office by the 7th working day of the month.)

ALL CLASS ONE CASES (RELEASED & UNRELEASED) AND OTHER CASES REQUIRING HCJ

COURT MONTH/YEAR:

Case Name Case Number

Principal offence

Case Released

Y/N

Committal Sent Date

PCMH Date

CTL Date

Trial Date

T/E Trial Judge Comments:

Documents

Best Practice Guide to Listing - barcouncil.org.uk · BEST PRACTICE GUIDE TO LISTING Lord Steyn summarised the guiding principle, which must be followed, as: “There must be fairness