Indictments

?
What is the purpose of indictments? (where is it stated?)
s.3(1) Indictments Act, CPR rule 10.2
1 of 29
Which case is key on the degree of precision required?
Hodgson
2 of 29
What happened in Hodgson? (what were the issues with the indictment?)
Issue with initial drafting - accused Ds of inflicting GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 (an unknown offence to the law, inflicting GBH came under s.20) - s.18 was ore serious than s.20
3 of 29
What was the outcome of Hodgson?
Convictions weren't quashed, Ds had enough notice of what they were being accused of
4 of 29
What is the rule against "duplicity"?
That a count in indictment can only accuse D of 1 offence (allowing D to mount a separate case against each offence)
5 of 29
In which case was there duplicity?
Marchese (M committed same offence over + over again by threatening to kill V over multiple texts) - conviction was safe though due to huge amount of evidence against M
6 of 29
What is joinder?
Where counts appear in same indictment
7 of 29
Which statutory/rule provisions are relevant for joinders?
s.4, CPR rule 3.21(4)(a)
8 of 29
Example of where there was a common factual origin (so CPR rule subsection (i) was satisfied)
Barrell and Wilson - D's perverting course of justice only occurred because had had already committed an offence of assault occasioning ABH
9 of 29
Example of where there was no common factual origin
McGrath - D was arrested and then committed criminal damage in police cell
10 of 29
Example of a case with a shared factual + legal nexus
Ludlow (both offences committed in pubs, in same area within short period of time = factual, both offences involved alleged theft = legal)
11 of 29
Might legal nexus without factual nexus be sufficient for joinder?
Yes (and vice versa): Marsh
12 of 29
What is the impact of the new rule imposing a mandatory duty on court to order separate trials if (i) or (ii) aren't fulfilled?
We can't be sure - Stark thinks disregard old cases saying severance isn't possible
13 of 29
Is it possible to have mutually contradictory counts on the same indictment?
Yes: Bellman (jury could decide which offence D committed)
14 of 29
Which case stated that not every conceivable criminal offence should be put on 1 indictment?
Ambrose (just focus on serious ones)
15 of 29
What did McGrath say about the consequences of an inappropriate joinder?
Might not be a quashing (presence of 1 offence must be prejudicial to the other offence)
16 of 29
Which provision refers to the separation of validly joined counts?
s.5 IA.
17 of 29
What does Blackstock give TJ discretion to do regarding separation of validly joined counts?
Give clear directions that counts shouldn't have been put together OR to sever
18 of 29
Can counts of different Ds be joined on the same indictment? And why?
Yes - otherwise there would be unnecessary duplication, prevents juries from coming to different conclusions
19 of 29
Where counts of different Ds are joined on the same indictment, what must the judge do?
Give directions so jury considers Ds separately: Merriman
20 of 29
Which case stated that different Ds might be joined on the same indictments, even when they aren't involved with each other's offences (but offences are identical + take place simultaneously in same location)
Assim
21 of 29
Can Ds who are joined on same indictment ask for separate trials?
Yes: B(C) (1 D wanted to mention other D's previous conviction, increasing likelihood that other D committed offence, but this would prejudice other D, so there should be separate trials)
22 of 29
Does Thornton think the bar for separate trials is too high or too low?
Too high (hint: TH)
23 of 29
Which provision refers to fixing of "errors" in indictment?
s.5(1) IA
24 of 29
Which case states that the later on in proceeding the amendment is made, the less likely it will be just
Johal
25 of 29
Where was there an amendment to the indictment which caused injustice?
O'Connor (another count of manslaughter was added, where 'no case to answer' stage was reached)
26 of 29
Where was there an amendment to indictment which didn't cause injustice?
Gleeson (amendment made at end of P's case)
27 of 29
In which ways was Gleeson different to O'Connor?
Neither side's case changed in light of amendment, TJ warned P about "error" in indictment from outset, TJ said he was happy for P's witnesses to be re-examined
28 of 29
Can the fixing of "errors" in indictments extend to adding new counts?
Yes (Thompson)
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Hodgson

Back

Which case is key on the degree of precision required?

Card 3

Front

Issue with initial drafting - accused Ds of inflicting GBH under s.18 OAPA 1861 (an unknown offence to the law, inflicting GBH came under s.20) - s.18 was ore serious than s.20

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Convictions weren't quashed, Ds had enough notice of what they were being accused of

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

That a count in indictment can only accuse D of 1 offence (allowing D to mount a separate case against each offence)

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal Procedure and Criminal Evidence resources »