£12.56
FREE Shipping

Courts Act 2003 (UK)

Courts Act 2003 (UK)

RRP: £25.12
Price: £12.56
£12.56 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods

Description

The High Court noted that the decision in Gould concerned itself with the correct approach to take where a party had failed to comply with a requirement of primary legislation; and that the Court in Gould had focused on the distinction between whether there had been a procedural or a jurisdictional failure. In relation the defective charges which formed the basis for the 2021 conviction the Court held that again the error in relation to the dates and the identification of the Court were insufficient to render the committal a nullity. They were matters “ which could have quite permissibly been ignored by agreement” (see [26]). The Courts Act 2003 created a fines collection scheme which provides for greater administrative enforcement of fines. Consult your legal adviser for further guidance. the court concludes that the offender is an existing defaulter and that the existing default(s) cannot be disregarded (Courts Act 2003, sch.5, para. 8). In other cases, the court may make an AEO or ABD with the offender’s consent (Courts Act 2003, sch.5, para. 9).

In cases where this is prejudice to the Appellant or the procedural error is of a kind that parliament intended to invalidate all that follows, then the Appeal Court will quash the offending decision. The Court of Appeal decision in R v Gould [2021] EWCA Crim 447 (‘ Gould’) aimed to provide clarity as to the use of section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 (‘section 66’). This article does not aim to fully analyse that case – a thorough review by Joe Hudson can be accessed here – but it does aim to consider the cases that have followed. Section 66 was used by the Crown Court Judge following the submission from prosecution counsel that the charge which the Defendant had indicated a guilty plea to, should have been sent for trial rather than committed for sentence.Guideline users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers important aspects of fair treatment and disparity of outcomes for different groups in the criminal justice system. It provides guidance which sentencers are encouraged to take into account wherever applicable, to ensure that there is fairness for all involved in court proceedings. It is open to the Judge in the Crown Court, under section 66, to lay and commit a new charge in the correct form.

The Courts Act 2003 (c.39) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom implementing many of the recommendations in Sir Robin Auld's (a Court of Appeal judge) Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales (also known as the "Auld Review"). The White Paper which preceded the Act was published by the Home Office on the 17 July 2002 and called "Justice for All". The act also transfers the authority and obligation of high sheriffs, in relation to civil writs, to sheriff's officers; previously, high sheriffs had delegated these to the sheriff's officers, in any case, but the Blair Ministry preferred to make this explicit, and remove the theoretical power of the high sheriff. It also renames this more-than-1000-year-old role - the sheriff's officer - to High court enforcement officers, for reasons that have not been explained, except perhaps to give it a modern-sounding name. The Prosecution must be in a position to assist the Judge in any circumstance where it seeks for the Judge to exercise their power under section 66. The third charge (relating to the 2018 conviction) which was defective due to the dates particularised, was not bad on its face and was a minor typographical error. This offence had been properly committed and it was, therefore, unnecessary for the Judge to have used section 66 in relation to this charge and the sentence passed on this charge remained lawful.

Changes to legislation:

Text of the Courts Act 2003 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. The High Court noted the decision in Gould when considering the ambit of section 69 of the Courts Act 2003 which governs the power to make Criminal Procedural Rules. The Court noted the power under section 69 is in relation to “ rules which govern the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal Courts” but not those on whether the Court has jurisdiction (see [49]). Unless it would be impracticable or inappropriate to do so, the court must make an attachment of earnings or (AEO) or application for benefit deductions (ABD) whenever:

Such a circumstance may arise where “ an important element has been misdescribed in the charge, to the adventitious advantage of the defendant”. In the latter case, the error may be of such a nature that the use of section 66 would be otiose – i.e. where the error is merely typographical and does not affect the validity of the charge. The Court has an inherent power to direct that a guilty plea can be vacated. The exercise of this power is constrained by the interests of justice (see [112]).



  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns

Fruugo

Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop