BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
The Law Commission |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF MULTIPLE OFFENDING [2002] EWLC 277 (01 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2002/277.html Cite as: [2002] EWLC 277 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor
by Command of Her Majesty
October 2002
Cm 5609
The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law.
The Law Commissioners are:
The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman[1]
Professor Hugh Beale QC
Mr Stuart Bridge
Professor Martin Partington CBE
Judge Alan Wilkie QC
The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ.
The terms of this report were agreed on 3 July 2002.
The text of this report is available on the Internet at:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk
CONTENTS
| Executive Summary | Summary |
| Part I: INTRODUCTION | Part I |
| Part II: THE PROBLEMS | Part II |
| Part III: PRESENT LAW | Part III |
| Introduction | 3.1 |
| The Indictment | 3.2 |
| Duplicity issues and overloading | 3.2 |
| The Evans conundrum | 3.11 |
| Verdicts and sentence – the role of the judge in sentencing | 3.15 |
| The limits of the judge's creative role in sentencing | 3.17 |
| Other common law jurisdictions | 3.22 |
| Sentencing principles | 3.23 |
| Use of substantive offences as a means of prosecuting multiple offending | 3.34 |
| Conclusion | 3.38 |
| Part IV: AMBIT OF PROBLEM | Part IV |
| Introduction | 4.1 |
| Examples of offences other than theft/fraud where the Kidd approach may cause problems | 4.3 |
| Drug dealing | 4.3 |
| Sex offences | 4.6 |
| Child pornography | 4.11 |
| Counterfeiting | 4.15 |
| Other multiple offending where Kidd does not present a problem | 4.16 |
| Conclusion | 4.18 |
| PART V: THE WAY FORWARD | PART V |
| Analysis | 5.1 |
| Consultation | 5.3 |
| The Consultation Paper | 5.3 |
| Informal consultation – July 2000 | 5.4 |
| Seminar paper and seminar held in February 2002 | 5.10 |
| Impact of our recommendations on resources | 5.16 |
| Part VI: COMPOUND ALLEGATIONS | PART VI |
| Cases which are suitable to be tried by way of compound allegations | 6.1 |
| Effective communication of jury's decision to the judge | 6.10 |
| Compound allegation procedure | 6.15 |
| The preliminary hearing | 6.15 |
| Evidence | 6.18 |
| The burden of proof | 6.19 |
| At the close of evidence | 6.21 |
| Special verdicts and directions to the jury | 6.22 |
| Special verdict | 6.22 |
| Directions to the jury | 6.30 |
| Article 6 of the ECHR | 6.33 |
| Method of introducing this change of procedure | 6.37 |
| Should indictments be allowed to contain an unlimited number of counts? | 6.38 |
| Conclusion | 6.44 |
| Recommendation | 6.45 |
| Part VII: TWO STAGE TRIAL PROCESS | Part VII |
| Introduction | 7.1 |
| Preparatory hearing | 7.7 |
| Stage one procedure | 7.9 |
| The outcome of stage one proceedings | 7.10 |
| Acquittal on a sample count | 7.11 |
| Conviction on a sample count | 7.14 |
| Should the trial judge have the power to overrule a prosecution wish to proceed to the second stage? | 7.16 |
| Ruling based on adequacy of sentencing powers | 7.17 |
| Ruling based on merits | 7.21 |
| What powers should the judge have regarding linked offences not proceeded with? | 7.25 |
| Ruling not to proceed with stage two – implication onconfiscation powers | 7.29 |
| Should the trial judge have a power at the end of stage one proceedings to certify that the case is fit for appeal? | 7.30 |
| Should the Crown have a right of appeal against a judge's ruling that the trial will not proceed to stage two? | 7.31 |
| Discount for guilty plea | 7.35 |
| Second stage of two stage procedure | 7.37 |
| Safeguards | 7.37 |
| (i) Requirement of evidence based on similar fact evidence | 7.38 |
| (ii) Rules of evidence and procedure | 7.39 |
| (iii) Reasoned rulings and verdicts | 7.40 |
| Who should preside over the court in the second stage of proceedings? | 7.43 |
| Should it be the same judge as presided at the first stage or a different judge? | 7.43 |
| Should the judge sit alone for the second stage of the trial or would it be necessary for that judge to sit with assessors? | 7.53 |
| Reference at the second stage to evidence adduced at the first | 7.59 |
| Relevance of first stage convictions in second stage proceedings | 7.60 |
| Would the judge at the second stage be free to make his or her own decisions? | 7.63 |
| Inconsistent verdicts | 7.69 |
| Our response to issues arising from our recommendation | 7.76 |
| Dispensing with jury trial in respect of some of the charges | 7.76 |
| Abolition of jury trial by stealth | 7.80 |
| Conviction by a single judge | 7.82 |
| Would the two stage procedure reduce the time taken to deal with a case? | 7.86 |
| Lying on the file: ECHR issues | 7.90 |
| Benefits of two stage process | 7.98 |
| Conclusion | 7.103 |
| Recommendation for a two stage trial procedure | 7.104 |
| Part VIII: FRAUDULENT TRADING | Part VIII |
| The present law | 8.3 |
| Extending section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 | 8.8 |
| Recommendation | 8.15 |
| Part IX: OUR RECOMMENDATIONS | Part IX |
| APPENDIX A: CONSULTATION SCHEDULE | Appendix A |
| APPENDIX B: PERSONS AND ORGANISATIONS WHO COMMENTED ON CONSULTATION PAPER NO 155 ISSUES 10 AND 11 AND ON OUR INFORMAL CONSULTATION IN JULY 2000 | Appendix B |
Note 1 At the date this report was signed, the Chairman of the Commission was the Right Honourable Lord Justice Carnwath CVO. [Back]
