400:
issue is taken with the prosecution and why, any particular defence or points of law (such as evidential admissibility or abuse of process) upon which he or she would rely. The defendant must also give a list of defence witnesses, along with their names and addresses. The police may then interview those witnesses, according to a code of practice issued by the Home
Secretary. The Explanatory Notes make it clear the police interviewing of potential defence witnesses is one of the intents of the Act. The details of any defence expert witness instructed must also be given to the prosecution, whether or not they are then used in the case. However, no part of the Act explicitly amends the law on legal privilege, so the contents of any correspondence or
34:
886:
judgment will affect only the issue of who sets the tariff in each case. As is proper in a democracy, Parliament will continue to retain the paramount role of setting a clear framework within which the minimum period to be served will be established. I am determined that there should continue to be accountability to
Parliament for these most critical decisions. ... I intend to legislate this Session to establish a clear set of principles within which the courts will fix tariffs in the future. ...in setting a tariff, the judge will be required, in open court, to give reasons if the term being imposed departs from those principles.
396:
statement. Now the prosecution are under a continuous duty to disclose evidence, though the defence statement would impose a revised and stricter (depending on the contents and detail of the defence statement) test. The test for disclosure — "evidence which undermines the prosecution case or assists the defence case" — remains, though the prosecutor's own opinion of whether unused evidence meets those criteria is replaced by an objective test. However, the defence still cannot force the prosecutor to disclose such evidence until a defence statement is produced, so this change means little in practice.
1043:
in despair, to hold up their hands and say: "the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find". But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of
Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception.
417:
The right to commit to the Crown Court for sentence (when a magistrates' court regards its own powers as insufficient) is abolished for cases when it has previously accepted jurisdiction. These provisions amend the previous position when a defendant whose bad prior record means that he is tried summarily and then sent elsewhere for sentence; the same type of court deals with both trial and sentence in ordinary cases. The provisions were introduced under section 41 and section 42 of Part 6 of the act.
790:
777:) to be imposed at the same time. This ensures the offender knows what sentence of imprisonment is facing him or her if he or she fails to comply with the order or commits a further offence during its suspended period. Provision is made for sentences of intermittent custody, and custodial sentences followed by period of community work and supervision.
972:
measures reforming hearsay, which were more closely modelled on the Law
Commission's report than the other reforms, attracted less adverse attention, though the Bar Council disputed some of its aspects. The maximum period a suspected terrorist could be detained without charge was increased from 7 to 14 days. This was later increased to 28 days by the
1042:
So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite statutory instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads
966:
The underlying idea ... deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offence, thereby compelling him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal
659:
includes not only previous convictions but also previous misconduct other than misconduct relating to the offence(s) charged. This fundamental change in the law means that under section 101(1) of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 the prosecution is free to adduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character
598:
Inquiry Report recognised that the rule is capable of causing grave injustice to victims and the community in certain cases where compelling fresh evidence has come to light after an acquittal. It called for a change in the law to be considered, and we have accepted that such a change is appropriate.
437:
A "terminating ruling" is one which stops the case, or in the prosecution's view, so damages the prosecution case that the effect would be the same. Adverse evidentiary rulings on prosecution evidence can be appealed for certain serious offences before the start of the defence case. These appeals are
395:
relating to prosecution and defence disclosure. The old system was that the prosecution would provide initial disclosure to the defence (known as "primary disclosure"), the defence would provide a "defence statement" and the prosecution would provide "secondary disclosure" in response to that defence
51:
An Act to make provision about criminal justice (including the powers and duties of the police) and about dealing with offenders; to amend the law relating to jury service; to amend
Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and Part 5 of the Police Act 1997; to make provision about civil
971:
In the event the measures came into law, though with strict qualifications. The measures to expand admissibility of bad character evidence were also opposed on the grounds of unfairness (the defendant's past bad character can more easily be adduced than a witness's) and of dangerous irrelevance. The
446:
The Act expanded substantially the number of people eligible for jury service, firstly by removing the various former grounds of ineligibility, and secondly by reducing the scope for people to avoid service when called up. Only members of the Armed Forces whose commanding officers certify that their
425:
The prosecution are given, for the first time, the right to appeal decisions by judges in the Crown Court which either terminate the case or exclude evidence. The prosecution has historically had the right to appeal decisions in the magistrates' courts on grounds of error of law or unreasonableness,
352:
in, for example, the carrying of spray paint by aspirant graffiti artists. People who accompany constables on a search of premises may now take an active part in the search, as long as they remain accompanied at all times. This is particularly useful in cases where computer or financial evidence may
895:
based on age and other factors, from which any increase or decrease is then made by the sentencing judge according to the circumstances of the crime and the offender. "Aggravating and mitigating factors" are also set out, which can cause the sentencing judge to adjust the sentence from the starting
399:
Reforms are made to the extent to which the defence must disclose their case in order to trigger both the revised duty to disclose and the right to a "section 8" application to the court to force the prosecution to disclose an item of evidence. A defence statement must now state each point at which
947:
Removal of jury trial was opposed on the ground that mere expediency (in cases of fraud) should never justify its removal, and that judge-alone acquittals of major City figures might cause "grave public disquiet". Jury-tampering might be protected against by better protection for jurors; there was
885:
to set the tariff, or minimum period a convicted murderer must remain in custody until he becomes eligible for release. This power has ensured ministerial accountability to
Parliament within the criminal justice system for the punishment imposed for the most heinous and serious of crimes. ... This
643:
The 2003 Act extensively changed the law regarding the admissibility into evidence of a defendant's convictions for previous offences, and his other misconduct, broadening the circumstances in which the prosecution could introduce such matters. It also imposed statutory restrictions, for the first
619:
The first person to be re-tried under the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 for an offence of which he had previously been acquitted was Billy Dunlop. He was acquitted of murdering his former girlfriend Julie Hogg in 1989. The application was brought by the Crown with the consent of the Director of Public
577:
prior to making the application for a second trial. Authority to give permission may not be exercised generally by Crown
Prosecutors (typically employed lawyers of the Crown Prosecution Service), but can be delegated. There is a requirement for "new and compelling evidence", not adduced during the
504:
A case where a judge was satisfied that there was "evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place", and "notwithstanding any steps (including the provision of police protection) which might reasonably be taken to prevent jury tampering, the likelihood that it would take
416:
The mode of trial provisions are amended to allow the court to be made aware of the defendant's previous convictions at the mode of trial stage (that is, when a magistrates' court decides whether certain offences are to be tried summarily before them or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court).
1003:
Gill Smith, whose 18-year-old daughter Louise was murdered in December 1995, praised David Blunkett for giving judges the power to set longer minimum terms. Her daughter's killer, David Frost, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life but with a minimum of 14 years, as he had confessed to the
475:
the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial (or both) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of a jury hearing the trial that the interests of justice require that serious consideration should be given to the question of whether the trial should be conducted without a
939:
published a joint document setting out their concerns about a number of measures in the Bill. In this the disclosure provisions, the requirement of the defence to disclose details of any expert they instruct, whether or not they go on to use them was referred to as a "major scandal" by Professor
764:
The previous and varied types of community sentence (such as community punishment order, community rehabilitation order, drug treatment and testing order) have been replaced by a single "community order" with particular requirements, such as unpaid work, supervision, activity, curfew, exclusion,
615:
This Act was not the first legislation to affect the double jeopardy rule: the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 provided that an acquittal proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been procured through violence or intimidation of a juror or witness could be quashed by the High Court.
378:
The police may now, as well as issuing the normal cautions (which are unconditional), issue conditional cautions. The recipient of any kind of caution must admit his guilt of the offence for which the caution is imposed. Conditional cautions must be issued in accordance with a code of practice,
593:
The double jeopardy rule means that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same offence. It is an important safeguard to acquitted defendants, but there is an important general public interest in ensuring that those who have committed serious crimes are convicted of them. The
660:
subject to it passing through any one of seven gateways, unless it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial that it should not be admitted. Subsection 1 provides: in criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—
948:
also the danger that judges would hear secret evidence about intimidation or threats and then go on to try the defendant alone, which was again highly unsatisfactory. Re-trials for serious offences was opposed as a breach of a fundamental right, the Bar Council quoting
926:
In years to come, as more innocent people emerge after years in prison caused by these plans, we'll wonder how Parliament let this shameful attack on justice get into law. Liberty's principal concerns relate to the removal of safeguards against wrongful
723:, which regulated use of business documents and absent witnesses. Various categories of the common law were preserved and the remainder abolished. A new power was incorporated to permit hearsay evidence if certain 'interests of justice' tests were met.
450:
This has been controversial, as people now eligible for jury service (who were previously ineligible) include judges, lawyers and police officers. Judge Bathurst-Norman commented: "I don't know how this legislation is going to work intelligently."
824:
of defendants convicted of violent or sexual crimes, introducing compulsory life sentences or minimum sentences for over 150 offences (subject to the defendant meeting certain criteria). The Act created a new kind of life sentence, called
1919:
693:
The Act provides for the exclusion of bad character evidence where it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
917:
did not meet with universal approval. The legal profession and civil liberties groups were opposed to several of the measures in the Bill, though most of them were contained within the final Act. John Wadham, the then Director of
1033:
Time and again during the last 14 months, this Court has striven to give sensible practical effect to provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a considerable number of which are, at best, obscure and, at worst, impenetrable.
744:
The Act sets out in statute the principles underlying sentencing: punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, public protection and reparation. These were previously part of the common law. The Act also created the
582:, which is the sole authority for quashing an acquittal and ordering a retrial. The offence to be re-tried must be among a list of offences in Schedule 5 of the Act, all of which involve maximum sentences of life imprisonment.
544:. The trial opened on 12 January 2010. The four accused were convicted, and on 31 March 2010 they received sentences ranging from 15 years to life. It was the first juryless criminal trial held in England for over 400 years.
890:
The new law applies to murders committed on or after 18 December 2003. Schedule 21 of the Act sets out "minimum terms" (a term further defined in section 269(2)) for those convicted of murder. The terms are in the form of
407:
Co-defendants must now also disclose their defence statements to each other as well as to the prosecution. The duty to serve defence statements remains compulsory in the Crown Court and voluntary in magistrates' courts.
438:"interlocutory", in that they occur during the middle of the trial and stops the trial pending the outcome of the appeal. They differ in this respect from a defendant's appeal which can only be heard after conviction.
1024:
The Court of Appeal and the High Court have frequently passed adverse comment on the poor drafting of many provisions of the Act, which have resulted in numerous appeals to ascertain what the Act means. In March 2006
361:
The right of a prisoner to make an application to the High Court is abolished. Previously an application could be made to the Crown Court and the High Court as of right. The right to make a bail application by way of
611:
report stated in paragraph 4.66 that the double jeopardy power was to be retrospective. That is, it was to apply to acquittals which took place before the law was changed, as well as those that happened afterwards.
243:
in cases where there is a danger of jury-tampering. It also expands the circumstances in which defendants can be tried twice for the same offence (double jeopardy), when "new and compelling evidence" is introduced.
844:(with effect from 14 July 2008), which imposed stricter criteria for the imposition of these sentences, and restored judicial discretion by providing that they were no longer compulsory when the criteria were met.
505:
place would be so substantial as to make it necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted without a jury" may also be conducted without a jury. This provision came into force on 24 July 2007.
872:
a defendant should be sentenced by an independent tribunal (that is, a judge) and not a politician who will have extraneous and irrelevant concerns which may affect his or her judgment. The Home Secretary's
1008:
was sentenced to 18 years. She criticised the judiciary for implying that a diamond was worth more than her daughter's life. (However, a person sentenced to 18 years is eligible for parole after 9 years.)
864:
366:
remains, although only if its more stringent tests applicable are satisfied. The Crown Court is now effectively the final arbiter of bail in criminal cases. Prosecution appeals against decisions of
944:
QC. The disclosure provisions generally were described by the Bar Council as placing an "unnecessary burden on the defence which does nothing to improve the prospect of conviction of the guilty".
1917:
The General Council of the Bar and Criminal Bar Association - Commons consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill - Bar Council briefing on the Bill as amended in Standing Committee (March 2003)
1916:
1016:
was murdered by two 10-year-old boys in February 1993, criticised the legislation for insufficient severity. She protested that whole life sentences should apply to children who kill as well.
492:. In the event, that Bill was defeated and plans to introduce trials without a jury in serious fraud cases were dropped. Section 43 of the Act was repealed on 1 May 2012 by section 113 of the
737:
Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act made substantial amendments to nearly every part of sentencing practice, containing 159 sections and referring to 24 schedules. The regime set out in the
1214:
829:" (IPP), or "detention for public protection" for those aged under 18, which may even be imposed for offences which would otherwise carry a maximum sentence of ten years. In 2012, the
1239:
2031:
Crown Prosecution Service (Applicant) v. South East Surrey Youth Court (Respondent) and Milad Leon GHANBARI (Interested Party), EWHC 2929 (Admin); LTL 9/12/2005; (2006) 1
868:
that the Home Secretary was not permitted to set minimum terms for life sentences. The reasoning was on the basis that in order to have a fair trial under Article 6 of the
1268:
578:
original trial, to be found. A "public interest" test must also be satisfied, which includes an assessment of the prospect of a fair trial. The application is made to the
379:
issued by the Home Secretary. They will impose conditions upon the offender. If those conditions are breached the offender may then be prosecuted for the offence. The
2082:
738:
1803:
392:
296:
967:
and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty
896:
point. Judges are free to decide a minimum term of any length or a "whole life" sentence but must state their reasons for deviations from the starting point.
1409:
2092:
1133:
624:
on 16 June 2006, who granted it. Dunlop was retried and convicted on 6 October 2006. He was sentenced to a life term, with a minimum tariff of 17 years.
1210:
1175:
841:
380:
367:
621:
517:
668:
the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
647:
Bad character evidence is defined under section 98 as evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than evidence which -
1852:
481:
57:
1004:
crime as well as expressing remorse in court. Mrs Smith felt that 14 years was a very short time, especially when one of the men who tried to
1689:
702:
698:
1594:
2015:
1297:
919:
129:
562:
rule, by providing that an acquitted defendant may be tried a second time for a serious offence. In November 2000 both the Home Secretary
1236:
869:
600:
261:
1122:
826:
489:
1828:
1149:
1881:
603:(Article 4(2) of Protocol 7) explicitly recognises the importance of being able to re-open cases where new evidence comes to light.
701:
s.78, with one minor difference - the Criminal Justice Act provides that courts 'must' exclude potentially unfair evidence, whilst
1658:
Naomi Corrigan, ‘Crimes that Shook Teesside: 'Double jeopardy' killer Billy Dunlop’, Gazette Live (online), 28 November 2013, <
471:
Section 43 of the Act sought to allow cases of serious or complex fraud to be tried without a jury if a judge was satisfied that:
1636:
A murderer has made legal history by becoming the first person to be brought to justice after changes to the double jeopardy law.
914:
485:
265:
167:
38:
1265:
765:
residence and others, alone or in combination with each other. The intent was to tailor sentences more closely to the offender.
741:
was almost wholly replaced, even though it had only been passed three years previously and was itself coming slowly into force.
732:
574:
493:
1620:
830:
349:
1286:
1266:
lawcommission.justice.gov.uk: "Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics" web page with links to pdf file
1228:
589:
report of Blunkett, Lairg and Goldsmith prefaced the legislation with this statement on double jeopardy at paragraph 4.63:
331:
The intention of the Act was to introduce reforms in two main areas: improved case management and a reduction in scope for
2087:
746:
882:
677:
it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
1439:
953:
1896:
1557:
1257:
773:
The previously deprecated "suspended sentence of imprisonment" returns, also allowing elements of a community order (
286:
1659:
877:
MP) response was outlined in a written response to a parliamentary question on 25 November 2002. Mr Blunkett said
1406:
720:
644:
time, on the ability of defence lawyers to cross-examine prosecution witnesses about their own criminal records.
427:
1207:
homeoffice.gov.uk: "Making Punishment Work: report of a review of the sentencing framework of England and Wales"
992:
1866:
1026:
936:
1455:
1130:
1237:
lawcommission.justice.gov.uk: "Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings" web page links to pdf files
459:
The Act introduced measures to permit trial without a jury in the specific cases of complex fraud (s.43) and
2036:
1182:
980:
958:
719:
The Act made substantial reforms to the admissibility of hearsay evidence, building upon the reforms of the
431:
171:
1013:
714:
656:
638:
540:
in February 2004. It was the fourth time the case had been tried, but this time in front of only a single
224:
220:
1346:
324:
Other recommendations of the Criminal Courts Review relating to court procedures were implemented in the
892:
857:
853:
46:
1295:
lawcommission.justice.gov.uk: "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" web page with links to pdf file
1005:
821:
2019:
910:
837:
753:
653:(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.
332:
187:
2066:
2056:
2032:
1497:
987:. Further fueling the controversy was the revelation that 53 prisoners who had been sentenced to
973:
306:
1946:
1294:
1748:
1206:
143:
1981:
1685:
988:
513:
175:
163:
75:
1994:
1119:
650:(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or
595:
537:
488:, subsequently sought to repeal the section and to replace it with new provisions under the
206:
183:
85:
1089:
1075:
1061:
291:
Making Punishment Work: report of a review of the sentencing framework of England and Wales
1923:
1885:
1737:
1647:
1413:
1301:
1290:
1272:
1261:
1243:
1232:
1137:
1126:
579:
559:
553:
509:
363:
325:
214:
202:
91:
1878:
1631:
1605:
674:
it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
1970:
1759:
1543:
1520:
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No.13 and Transitional Provision) Order 2006
1102:
447:
absence would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the Service can be excused jury duty.
1934:
1726:
1715:
1674:
1583:
1508:
1424:
1372:
1361:
1335:
1324:
941:
874:
460:
257:
228:
150:
1383:
1120:
cps.gov.uk: "Justice for All - A White Paper on the Criminal Justice System" (CM 5563)
789:
2076:
1468:
1150:"criminal-courts-review.org.uk: "Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales""
567:
533:
401:
1790:
1779:
1704:
1562:
463:(s.44), though these provisions did not come into force on the passage of the Act.
111:
1595:
telegraph.co.uk: "Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy law" 5 Nov 2000
1394:
1312:
1519:
932:
525:
236:
210:
95:
2062:
2052:
1804:"David Blunkett says devising 99-year prison sentences is his 'biggest regret'"
1660:
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/crimes-shook-teesside-double-jeopardy-6350545
949:
563:
521:
275:
2065:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from
2055:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from
1283:
1225:
1531:
1153:
348:
Police "stop and search" powers are increased to include cases of suspected
1362:
legislation.gov.uk: "Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996", c.25
1254:
1625:
1176:"governance.lawsociety.org.uk: "Consumer Complaints Board - Biographies""
353:
need to be sifted at the scene, for which outside expertise is required.
179:
170:. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the
81:
1226:
lawcom.gov.uk: "Evidence of Bad Character of Criminal Proceedings" LC273
680:
it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
516:
made a landmark ruling under the terms of the Act that resulted in the
665:
all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
1867:
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson
1681:
984:
232:
194:
1255:"Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics" LC245
1078:(Act 44, Section 337(2–13)). Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2003.
620:
Prosecutions, given in writing on 10 November 2005 and heard by the
833:
declared IPPs unlawful for new offenders, but not retrospectively.
421:
Prosecution appeals against case termination and evidence exclusion
541:
370:
to grant bail are extended to all imprisonable criminal offences.
1064:(Act 44, Section 337(1)). Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2003.
383:
extends the adult conditional caution scheme to young offenders.
1544:
BBC News: Heathrow robbery accused face first trial without jury
865:
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson
529:
240:
198:
683:
the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
1476:
1092:(Act 44, Section 338). Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2003.
784:
752:
The sentencing provisions of the Act are now contained in the
270:
Justice for All - A White Paper on the Criminal Justice System
252:
The Act had its genesis in several reports and consultations:
186:. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the
52:
proceedings brought by offenders; and for connected purposes.
311:
Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics
1995:"Government to tighten rules on early release of prisoners"
2063:
Text of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
705:
states courts 'may' exclude potentially unfair evidence.
548:
Retrial for serious offences (the "double jeopardy" rule)
404:
would remain confidential to the same extent as before.
858:
Murder in English law § Starting points, post-2003
801:
532:. The case in question involved four men accused of an
1038:
In December 2005, sitting in the High Court, he said:
1384:
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, s.8
149:
142:
135:
125:
120:
110:
105:
66:
56:
45:
1673:
1498:Section 113 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
1395:Explanatory Notes to the Criminal Justice Act 2003
1313:Explanatory notes to the Criminal Justice Act 2003
715:Hearsay in English law § Criminal proceedings
280:Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales
983:for its lenient sentencing rules and handling of
301:Evidence of Bad Character of Criminal Proceedings
1982:The Parliamentary debate on the 14 day extension
1857:, 10 November 2019 (retrieved 30 November 2019)
924:
739:Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
573:The prosecutor must have the permission of the
1556:Laville, Sandra; Pidd, Helen (31 March 2010).
393:Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
1947:"Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957)"
1284:Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals LC267
840:, Parliament passed sections 13 to 17 of the
316:Mr Justice Carnwath's Law Commission report:
8:
1738:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.78.
1215:Chapter 1+2 found at nationalarchives.gov.uk
21:
1532:BBC News: First trial without jury approved
20:
1558:"Four jailed for £1.75m Heathrow robbery"
1349:Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
842:Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
820:The Act replaced the previous law on the
657:Evidence of the defendant’s bad character
381:Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
1029:, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said:
1006:steal a diamond from the Millennium Dome
769:Combined custody and community sentences
1760:Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.142 - 301
1615:
1613:
1357:
1355:
1053:
622:Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
318:Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals
2083:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2003
1012:Denise Bulger, whose two-year-old son
2053:Text of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
1705:Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss. 98-113
1115:
1113:
1111:
995:had been freed on parole since 2000.
671:it is important explanatory evidence,
339:Reforms to court and police procedure
144:Text of statute as originally enacted
7:
1802:Hattenstone, Simon (28 April 2024).
1780:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.224-230
1727:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.101(3).
881:The case of Anderson deals with the
558:The Act creates an exception to the
130:Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
1630:, 11 September 2006, archived from
999:Victims of crime and their families
979:The act was also criticised by the
870:European Convention on Human Rights
689:Exclusion of bad character evidence
601:European Convention on Human Rights
239:by a judge sitting alone without a
2093:Criminal law of the United Kingdom
1897:Written response of David Blunkett
1791:Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sch. 15
1621:"Double jeopardy man admits guilt"
1469:"Lords defeat no-jury trials plan"
827:imprisonment for public protection
490:Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
412:Allocation and sending of offences
151:Revised text of statute as amended
14:
1869:UKHL 46, decided 25 November 2002
566:and the Leader of the Opposition
1971:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.306
1716:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.98.
788:
749:to give authoritative guidance.
391:The Act makes amendments to the
285:Deputy Under Secretary of State
168:Parliament of the United Kingdom
39:Parliament of the United Kingdom
32:
1935:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.35
1584:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.75
1509:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.44
1425:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.43
1373:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.32
1336:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.22
1325:Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.17
1213:(links to documents are dead);
733:Sentencing in England and Wales
575:Director of Public Prosecutions
494:Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
282:, published on 5 September 2001
266:Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith
262:Lord Chancellor Irvine of Lairg
1993:Ford, Richard (14 June 2006).
831:European Court of Human Rights
697:This language mirrors that of
193:It amends the law relating to
1:
2039:444; (2006) 2 Cr App R (S) 26
836:In response to unprecedented
747:Sentencing Guidelines Council
303:, published on 9 October 2001
862:The House of Lords ruled in
235:. It permits offences to be
178:and, to a lesser extent, in
2014:, EWCA Crim 726; (2006) 2
1834:. Ministry of Justice. 2011
954:United States Supreme Court
528:trial to be held without a
320:, published on 6 March 2001
313:, published on 19 June 1997
2109:
993:Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
905:Passage through Parliament
893:standard "starting points"
851:
730:
712:
636:
551:
524:, allowing the first-ever
309:'s Law Commission report:
299:'s Law Commission report:
293:, published on 16 May 2000
137:Status: Partially repealed
18:United Kingdom legislation
1749:Criminal Justice Act 1988
1676:Evidence of Bad Character
1412:27 September 2007 at the
1090:Criminal Justice Act 2003
1076:Criminal Justice Act 2003
1062:Criminal Justice Act 2003
848:Life sentences for murder
721:Criminal Justice Act 1988
428:Criminal Justice Act 1988
160:Criminal Justice Act 2003
31:
26:
22:Criminal Justice Act 2003
1884:29 November 2007 at the
937:Criminal Bar Association
628:Criminal evidence reform
426:and the right under the
272:, published 17 July 2002
68:Territorial extent
1522:, SI2006/1835, art.2(b)
570:favoured this measure.
432:unduly lenient sentence
223:, propensity evidence,
172:criminal justice system
1922:8 October 2007 at the
1672:Spencer, J.R. (2006).
1129:, also available from
1045:
1036:
969:
959:Green v. United States
929:
888:
883:Home Secretary's power
639:Bad character evidence
605:
478:
344:Stop and search powers
225:bad character evidence
1211:The National Archives
1131:The Stationery Office
1040:
1031:
964:
879:
854:Murder in English law
713:Further information:
591:
508:On 18 June 2009, the
473:
455:Trials without a jury
219:("double jeopardy"),
98:(by Order in Council)
2088:English criminal law
1634:on 10 January 2007,
1315:, paragraphs 4 and 5
1209:also available from
1125:10 July 2011 at the
1105:s. 413 & sch. 28
822:mandatory sentencing
374:Conditional cautions
1684:: Hart Publishing.
1289:26 May 2006 at the
1260:26 May 2006 at the
1231:26 May 2006 at the
1103:Sentencing Act 2020
838:prison overcrowding
781:Dangerous offenders
760:Community sentences
754:Sentencing Act 2020
368:magistrates' courts
333:abuse of the system
297:Mr Justice Carnwath
188:Sentencing Act 2020
23:
2067:legislation.gov.uk
2057:legislation.gov.uk
1300:4 May 2014 at the
1271:4 May 2014 at the
1242:4 May 2014 at the
1136:4 May 2014 at the
981:Conservative Party
974:Terrorism Act 2006
950:Justice Hugo Black
800:. You can help by
518:Lord Chief Justice
233:release on licence
1691:978-1-84113-648-6
1546:, 12 January 2010
1027:Lord Justice Rose
989:life imprisonment
818:
817:
727:Sentencing reform
514:England and Wales
307:Mrs Justice Arden
276:Lord Justice Auld
207:criminal offences
176:England and Wales
156:
155:
121:Other legislation
76:England and Wales
27:Act of Parliament
2100:
2040:
2029:
2023:
2009:
2003:
2002:
1990:
1984:
1979:
1973:
1968:
1962:
1961:
1959:
1957:
1943:
1937:
1932:
1926:
1914:
1908:
1905:
1899:
1894:
1888:
1876:
1870:
1864:
1858:
1850:
1844:
1843:
1841:
1839:
1833:
1825:
1819:
1818:
1816:
1814:
1799:
1793:
1788:
1782:
1777:
1771:
1768:
1762:
1757:
1751:
1746:
1740:
1735:
1729:
1724:
1718:
1713:
1707:
1702:
1696:
1695:
1679:
1669:
1663:
1656:
1650:
1645:
1639:
1638:
1617:
1608:
1603:
1597:
1592:
1586:
1581:
1575:
1574:
1572:
1570:
1553:
1547:
1541:
1535:
1529:
1523:
1517:
1511:
1506:
1500:
1495:
1489:
1488:
1486:
1484:
1465:
1459:
1449:
1443:
1433:
1427:
1422:
1416:
1404:
1398:
1392:
1386:
1381:
1375:
1370:
1364:
1359:
1350:
1344:
1338:
1333:
1327:
1322:
1316:
1310:
1304:
1281:
1275:
1252:
1246:
1223:
1217:
1204:
1198:
1197:
1195:
1193:
1187:
1181:. Archived from
1180:
1172:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1161:
1152:. Archived from
1146:
1140:
1117:
1106:
1100:
1094:
1093:
1086:
1080:
1079:
1072:
1066:
1065:
1058:
913:passage through
813:
810:
792:
785:
596:Stephen Lawrence
538:Heathrow Airport
482:Attorney General
216:autrefois acquit
205:, allocation of
184:Northern Ireland
116:20 November 2003
86:Northern Ireland
69:
36:
35:
24:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2073:
2072:
2049:
2044:
2043:
2035:2543; (2006) 2
2030:
2026:
2010:
2006:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1980:
1976:
1969:
1965:
1955:
1953:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1933:
1929:
1924:Wayback Machine
1915:
1911:
1906:
1902:
1895:
1891:
1886:Wayback Machine
1877:
1873:
1865:
1861:
1851:
1847:
1837:
1835:
1831:
1829:"IPP Factsheet"
1827:
1826:
1822:
1812:
1810:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1789:
1785:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1765:
1758:
1754:
1747:
1743:
1736:
1732:
1725:
1721:
1714:
1710:
1703:
1699:
1692:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1657:
1653:
1646:
1642:
1619:
1618:
1611:
1604:
1600:
1593:
1589:
1582:
1578:
1568:
1566:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1542:
1538:
1530:
1526:
1518:
1514:
1507:
1503:
1496:
1492:
1482:
1480:
1479:. 20 March 2007
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:, 20 March 2007
1451:House of Lords
1450:
1446:
1442:, 14 March 2006
1435:House of Lords
1434:
1430:
1423:
1419:
1414:Wayback Machine
1405:
1401:
1393:
1389:
1382:
1378:
1371:
1367:
1360:
1353:
1345:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1323:
1319:
1311:
1307:
1302:Wayback Machine
1291:Wayback Machine
1282:
1278:
1273:Wayback Machine
1262:Wayback Machine
1253:
1249:
1244:Wayback Machine
1233:Wayback Machine
1224:
1220:
1205:
1201:
1191:
1189:
1188:on 3 March 2016
1185:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1138:Wayback Machine
1127:Wayback Machine
1118:
1109:
1101:
1097:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1022:
1001:
907:
902:
860:
852:Main articles:
850:
814:
808:
805:
798:needs expansion
783:
771:
762:
735:
729:
717:
711:
691:
686:
641:
635:
630:
609:Justice for All
587:Justice for All
580:Court of Appeal
560:double jeopardy
556:
554:Double jeopardy
550:
510:Court of Appeal
502:
469:
457:
444:
423:
414:
389:
376:
364:judicial review
359:
350:criminal damage
346:
341:
326:Courts Act 2003
256:Home Secretary
250:
138:
101:
92:Channel Islands
67:
41:
33:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2106:
2104:
2096:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2075:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2060:
2048:
2047:External links
2045:
2042:
2041:
2024:
2004:
1985:
1974:
1963:
1938:
1927:
1909:
1907:Section 336(2)
1900:
1889:
1871:
1859:
1845:
1820:
1794:
1783:
1772:
1763:
1752:
1741:
1730:
1719:
1708:
1697:
1690:
1664:
1651:
1640:
1609:
1598:
1587:
1576:
1548:
1536:
1534:, 18 June 2009
1524:
1512:
1501:
1490:
1460:
1444:
1428:
1417:
1399:
1397:, paragraph 25
1387:
1376:
1365:
1351:
1339:
1328:
1317:
1305:
1276:
1247:
1218:
1199:
1167:
1156:on 7 June 2009
1141:
1107:
1095:
1081:
1067:
1052:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1021:
1018:
1000:
997:
942:Michael Zander
906:
903:
901:
898:
875:David Blunkett
849:
846:
816:
815:
795:
793:
782:
779:
770:
767:
761:
758:
731:Main article:
728:
725:
710:
707:
690:
687:
685:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
662:
634:
631:
629:
626:
549:
546:
501:
500:Jury tampering
498:
486:Lord Goldsmith
468:
465:
461:jury tampering
456:
453:
443:
440:
430:to appeal an "
422:
419:
413:
410:
388:
385:
375:
372:
358:
355:
345:
342:
340:
337:
322:
321:
314:
304:
294:
283:
273:
258:David Blunkett
249:
246:
162:(c. 44) is an
154:
153:
147:
146:
140:
139:
136:
133:
132:
127:
123:
122:
118:
117:
114:
108:
107:
103:
102:
100:
99:
89:
79:
72:
70:
64:
63:
60:
54:
53:
49:
43:
42:
37:
29:
28:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2105:
2094:
2091:
2089:
2086:
2084:
2081:
2080:
2078:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2058:
2054:
2051:
2050:
2046:
2038:
2034:
2028:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2005:
2000:
1996:
1989:
1986:
1983:
1978:
1975:
1972:
1967:
1964:
1952:
1948:
1942:
1939:
1936:
1931:
1928:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1913:
1910:
1904:
1901:
1898:
1893:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1875:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1849:
1846:
1830:
1824:
1821:
1809:
1805:
1798:
1795:
1792:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1776:
1773:
1767:
1764:
1761:
1756:
1753:
1750:
1745:
1742:
1739:
1734:
1731:
1728:
1723:
1720:
1717:
1712:
1709:
1706:
1701:
1698:
1693:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1668:
1665:
1661:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1644:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1627:
1622:
1616:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1591:
1588:
1585:
1580:
1577:
1565:
1564:
1559:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1540:
1537:
1533:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1494:
1491:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1407:TheLawyer.com
1403:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1280:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1184:
1177:
1171:
1168:
1155:
1151:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1028:
1019:
1017:
1015:
1010:
1007:
998:
996:
994:
990:
986:
982:
977:
975:
968:
963:
961:
960:
955:
951:
945:
943:
938:
934:
928:
923:
921:
916:
912:
909:The original
904:
899:
897:
894:
887:
884:
878:
876:
871:
867:
866:
859:
855:
847:
845:
843:
839:
834:
832:
828:
823:
812:
803:
799:
796:This section
794:
791:
787:
786:
780:
778:
776:
768:
766:
759:
757:
755:
750:
748:
742:
740:
734:
726:
724:
722:
716:
708:
706:
704:
700:
695:
688:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
663:
661:
658:
654:
651:
648:
645:
640:
633:Bad character
632:
627:
625:
623:
617:
613:
610:
604:
602:
597:
590:
588:
583:
581:
576:
571:
569:
568:William Hague
565:
561:
555:
547:
545:
543:
539:
535:
534:armed robbery
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
506:
499:
497:
495:
491:
487:
483:
477:
472:
467:Complex fraud
466:
464:
462:
454:
452:
448:
441:
439:
435:
433:
429:
420:
418:
411:
409:
405:
403:
402:expert report
397:
394:
386:
384:
382:
373:
371:
369:
365:
356:
354:
351:
343:
338:
336:
334:
329:
327:
319:
315:
312:
308:
305:
302:
298:
295:
292:
288:
287:John Halliday
284:
281:
277:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
247:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
191:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
152:
148:
145:
141:
134:
131:
128:
124:
119:
115:
113:
109:
104:
97:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
77:
74:
73:
71:
65:
61:
59:
55:
50:
48:
44:
40:
30:
25:
16:
2027:
2016:Cr App R (S)
2012:R v Campbell
2011:
2007:
1998:
1988:
1977:
1966:
1954:. Retrieved
1950:
1941:
1930:
1912:
1903:
1892:
1874:
1862:
1854:The Guardian
1853:
1848:
1836:. Retrieved
1823:
1811:. Retrieved
1808:The Guardian
1807:
1797:
1786:
1775:
1766:
1755:
1744:
1733:
1722:
1711:
1700:
1675:
1667:
1654:
1643:
1635:
1632:the original
1624:
1601:
1590:
1579:
1567:. Retrieved
1563:The Guardian
1561:
1551:
1539:
1527:
1515:
1504:
1493:
1483:18 September
1481:. Retrieved
1472:
1463:
1452:
1447:
1436:
1431:
1420:
1402:
1390:
1379:
1368:
1342:
1331:
1320:
1308:
1279:
1250:
1221:
1202:
1190:. Retrieved
1183:the original
1170:
1158:. Retrieved
1154:the original
1144:
1098:
1084:
1070:
1056:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1023:
1011:
1002:
978:
970:
965:
957:
946:
930:
925:
908:
889:
880:
863:
861:
835:
819:
806:
802:adding to it
797:
774:
772:
763:
751:
743:
736:
718:
696:
692:
655:
652:
649:
646:
642:
618:
614:
608:
606:
592:
586:
584:
572:
557:
507:
503:
480:However the
479:
474:
470:
458:
449:
445:
442:Jury service
436:
424:
415:
406:
398:
390:
377:
360:
347:
330:
323:
317:
310:
300:
290:
279:
269:
251:
215:
192:
159:
157:
112:Royal assent
78:(entire Act)
15:
2018:96; (2006)
1440:Column 1117
933:Bar Council
900:Controversy
526:Crown Court
211:prosecution
96:Isle of Man
2077:Categories
1951:Justia Law
1648:R v Dunlop
1606:Schedule 5
1456:vol.690/62
1347:Section 48
991:under the
927:conviction
915:Parliament
637:See also:
564:Jack Straw
552:See also:
522:Lord Judge
387:Disclosure
229:sentencing
203:disclosure
126:Amended by
47:Long title
2001:. London.
1999:The Times
1879:Article 6
1293:moved to
1264:moved to
1235:moved to
809:June 2008
775:see above
699:PACE 1984
213:appeals,
1920:Archived
1882:Archived
1838:28 April
1813:28 April
1626:BBC News
1473:BBC News
1410:Archived
1298:Archived
1287:Archived
1269:Archived
1258:Archived
1240:Archived
1229:Archived
1134:Archived
1123:Archived
197:powers,
180:Scotland
82:Scotland
58:Citation
2020:Crim LR
1956:29 June
1628:website
1453:Hansard
1437:Hansard
1160:26 June
952:of the
920:Liberty
709:Hearsay
248:Origins
221:hearsay
166:of the
88:(parts)
2037:All ER
1688:
1682:Oxford
1662:> .
1569:25 May
1020:Judges
985:parole
911:bill's
195:police
1832:(PDF)
1770:S.167
1192:4 May
1186:(PDF)
1179:(PDF)
1048:Notes
1014:James
922:said
542:judge
476:jury.
237:tried
106:Dates
62:c. 44
1958:2021
1840:2024
1815:2024
1686:ISBN
1571:2019
1485:2007
1194:2014
1162:2006
935:and
931:The
856:and
703:PACE
607:The
599:The
585:The
530:jury
357:Bail
264:and
241:jury
231:and
199:bail
182:and
158:The
94:and
84:and
2033:WLR
2022:654
1477:BBC
956:in
804:.
536:at
512:in
434:".
289:'s
278:'s
268:'s
174:in
164:Act
2079::
1997:.
1949:.
1806:.
1680:.
1623:,
1612:^
1560:.
1475:.
1471:.
1354:^
1110:^
976:.
962::
756:.
520:,
496:.
484:,
335:.
328:.
260:,
227:,
209:,
201:,
190:.
2069:.
2059:.
1960:.
1842:.
1817:.
1694:.
1573:.
1487:.
1196:.
1164:.
873:(
825:"
811:)
807:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.