Summary Trial procedure .docx

***[NEED TO REMEMBER -- Sections 9 and 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967 and Galbraith ]*** *[Subject 1 -- Summary Trial Procedure -- ]* *[What are pre-trial rulings? ]* - Applies to cases that are to be tried summarily where the accused has entered a not guilty plea. - A pre-trial hearing is...

***[NEED TO REMEMBER -- Sections 9 and 10 Criminal Justice Act 1967 and Galbraith ]*** *[Subject 1 -- Summary Trial Procedure -- ]* *[What are pre-trial rulings? ]* - Applies to cases that are to be tried summarily where the accused has entered a not guilty plea. - A pre-trial hearing is a hearing that takes place before the court begins to hear evidence from the prosecution at the trial (or, in those cases where fitness to plead is an issue, before the court considers whether to exercise its power under the Mental Health Act 1983, s. 37(3), to make a hospital order without convicting the accused (s. 8A(2)). - The magistrates may decide any question as to the admissibility of evidence and any other question of law relating to the case. - Such rulings may be made only if the court has given the parties an opportunity to be heard and it appears to the court that it is in the interests of justice to make the ruling. - If the accused is unrepresented, he or she must be given the chance to apply for legal aid. - May be made on the application of the defence or prosecution, or of the court's own motion. - A pre-trial ruling is binding until the case against the accused (or, where there is more than one, against each of them) is disposed of. - The case is disposed of if the accused is acquitted or convicted, or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case, or the case is dismissed (s. 8B(2)). - The court may (on application by a party or of its own motion) discharge or vary a pre-trial ruling provided it appears to the court that it is in the interests of justice to do so, and the court has given the parties an opportunity to be heard. A party can apply for the ruling to be discharged or varied only if there has been a material change of circumstances since the ruling was made or, if there has been a previous application under s. 8B, since that application was made. - It is difficult to accept that it could be in the interests of justice for the court to annul or discharge its own ruling without a compelling reason to do so, such as changed circumstances or fresh evidence; it is not sufficient that a different bench reaches a different conclusion on the same material. - review of a decision 'will be permissible if a change of circumstances has occurred since the original decision was taken' or 'if circumstances are brought to the attention of the court which, although existing when the original decision was taken, were not then drawn to the attention of the court'. - Necessary for the efficacious administration of justice to take a strict approach to the power of a lower court to revisit and revoke an order earlier made by itself. - Cases in which an earlier existing circumstance, not drawn to the attention of the court at the first hearing, would justify the court in later overturning its first decision would be most infrequent. - The common-law rule remains, but would be relevant only to those cases where ss. 8A and 8B do not apply (those sections 'bite' only once the decision has been made that a summary trial will occur). - There is no provision for appeals against rulings under s. 8A. However, an error of law in such a ruling could form the basis of an appeal by way of case stated (under the MCA 1980, s. 111), once there has been a final determination of the proceedings in the magistrates' court. *[What about trial in the absence of the accused? (procedure where party is absent)]* This rule--- a. applies where a party is absent; but b. does not apply where--- i. the defendant has served a notice of guilty plea under rule 24.8 (Written guilty plea: special rules), or ii. the court tries a case under rule 24.9 (Single justice procedure: special rules). Where the prosecutor is absent, the court may--- a. if it has received evidence, deal with the case as if the prosecutor were present; and b. in any other case--- i. enquire into the reasons for the prosecutor's absence, and ii. if satisfied there is no good reason, exercise its power to dismiss the allegation. Where the defendant is absent the general rule is that the court must proceed as if the defendant were present, and had pleaded not guilty (unless a plea already has been taken) but the general rule--- a. does not apply if the defendant is under 18; b. is subject to the court being satisfied that--- i. any summons or requisition was served on the defendant a reasonable time before the hearing, or ii. in a case in which the hearing has been adjourned, the defendant had reasonable notice of where and when it would resume; and c. is subject also to rule 24.11(10)(a) (restrictions on passing sentence in the defendant's absence). \(4) Where the defendant is absent, the court--- a. **must** exercise its power to **issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest and detention** in the terms required by rule 13.3(3) (Terms of a warrant for detention or imprisonment), **if it passes a custodial sentence**; and b. **may exercise its power to issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest in any other case, if it does not apply the general rule in paragraph (3)** of this rule about proceeding in the defendant's absence. \[Note. See sections 11, 15 and 16 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 198056.\] Under section 27 of the 1980 Act, **where a magistrates' court dismisses an allegation of an offence classified as one that can be tried either in a magistrates' court or in the Crown Court (in other legislation, described as triable either way), that dismissal has the same effect as an acquittal in the Crown Court.** Under section 11 of the 1980 Act, the court **may pass a custodial sentence in the defendant's absence if the case started with the defendant's arrest and charge (and not with a summons or requisition).** Section 11(3A) requires that, **in that event, the defendant must be brought before the court before being taken to a prison or other institution to begin serving that sentence**: see also rule 13.3. Under section 7(1) of the Bail Act 197657, the court has power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant released on bail who has failed to attend court when due to do so. Under section 13 of the 1980 Act, **the court has power to issue a warrant for the arrest of an absent defendant, instead of proceeding, where---** \(1) the case started with--- a. the defendant's arrest and charge, or b. a summons or requisition, if--- i. the court is satisfied that that summons or requisition was served on the defendant a reasonable time before the hearing, or ii. the defendant was present when the hearing was arranged; and \(2) the offence is punishable with imprisonment; or \(3) the defendant has been convicted and the court considers imposing a disqualification. *[Trial in the absence of accused? ]* - If the accused fails to appear for the trial in the magistrates' court, the case may (if the accused is under 18) or must (if the accused has attained the age of 18 and it does not appear to the court to be contrary to the interests of justice to do so) proceed in the accused's absence. - Where the prosecution commenced by issue of a summons or requisition, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that either the summons (or requisition, as the case may be) was served a reasonable time before the hearing or the accused appeared on a previous occasion to answer the charge. *[What is the power to adjourn? ]* - If the one or both of the parties is absent, or witnesses fail to attend, the court must consider what action to take. If the trial does not proceed on the appointed day, the court may adjourn the case (under the MCA 1980, s. 10(1)). Under s. 10(2), the court may either set the date for the hearing to resume when it adjourns the case or, unless it also remands the accused (in which case a date must be fixed), leave the time and place to be determined. - The trial can resume only where the court is satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice; if the accused was not present when the case was adjourned, it will therefore be necessary to send the accused an adjournment notice. *[What are the powers and procedure for trial in the absence of the accused? ]* - At the time and place appointed for the trial, the prosecutor appears but the accused does not, and the accused has attained the age of 18, the court must proceed in the absence of the accused 'unless it appears to the court to be contrary to the interests of justice to do so'. - Unless a plea was entered on an earlier occasion, had pleaded not guilty; the court must give reasons if it does not do so. - Where proceedings were commenced by summons or by written charge and requisition then (unless the accused has appeared on a previous occasion in answer to the summons or requisition) it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the summons (or requisition) was served on the accused a reasonable time before the hearing. - Where the case has previously been adjourned, it is necessary to satisfy the court that the accused has had 'adequate notice' of the adjournment date or 'reasonable notice' of when and where the hearing would resume. - If the accused does not appear and the conditions for proceeding in his or her absence are satisfied, a not guilty plea is entered on behalf of the accused. - The burden is then on the prosecution to prove the case to the normal criminal standard, whether by calling oral evidence or by reading statements served on the accused under the CJA 1967, s. 9 (such statements are admissible in the absence of objection from the defence --- positive consent is not required: see s. 9(2)(d)). - Should the prosecution evidence turn out to be insufficient, the court is of course obliged to acquit the accused. - Assuming, however, that the case is proved, the court may either proceed immediately to sentence or, in certain circumstances, it may adjourn to give the accused notice to attend for sentencing (MCA 1980, s. 10(3)). - Where a written charge is to be tried using the single justice procedure (see D22.33), s. 11 does not apply (s. 11(8)). *[How to determine whether to proceed to trial in accused's absence? ]* - 'The court shall not proceed in the absence of the accused if it considers that there is an acceptable reason for his failure to appear'; however, s. 11(6) provides that the court is not required to inquire into the reasons for the accused's failure to appear before deciding whether to proceed in his or her absence. - Section 11(7) requires the court to state in open court its reasons for not proceeding in the absence of an accused who has attained the age of 18 and who fails to attend. - In 'marked contrast to the position in the Crown Court', in magistrates' courts proceeding in the absence of an accused who fails to attend is the 'default position' where the accused is aware of the date of trial and no acceptable reason is offered for absence. The court is 'not obliged to investigate if no reason is offered'. - The court is 'not obliged to investigate if no reason is offered'. In assessing where the interests of justice lie, the court will take into account all factors, including: i. 'such reasons for absence as may be offered'; ii. the 'reliability of the information supplied in support of those reasons'; iii. the date on which the reasons for absence became known to the accused, and what action the accused took in response to those reasons. - where the accused provides a medical note to excuse non-attendance, the court must consider and 'give reasons if deciding to proceed notwithstanding'. After his case had been called on, it was discovered that D had been excluded from the court building by the security staff because of disorderly behaviour. The justices ruled that D had, by virtue of his conduct, voluntarily absented himself from the hearing of his case, and that he should be tried in his absence. Underhill J ruled that D's misbehaviour did not justify excluding him from his own trial. Moreover, the justices erred in treating him as being voluntarily absent, since he had wanted to be in court but was prevented by the exclusion. While it could be said that the exclusion was his own fault, that was not the same as it being his own choice; the position was no different than if he had committed an offence on the way to court and then been arrested (and so unable to attend court). The district judge had formed the view that D had brought his arrest on himself and should therefore be regarded as having excluded himself deliberately from court. Pitchford J said (at \[27\]) that the district judge was wrong to take that approach. *[What about warrants for arrest? ]* - Where the court, instead of proceeding in the absence of the accused, adjourns or further adjourns the trial, it has the option of issuing an arrest warrant, provided that the offence in question is punishable with imprisonment, or the court, having convicted the accused, proposes to impose a disqualification. - It must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the summons or requisition was served on the accused within a reasonable time before the trial (s. 13(2A)), unless the current adjournment is a second or subsequent adjournment of the trial, the accused was present on the last occasion when the trial was adjourned and the date for the present hearing was fixed then. - If the accused appears to be evading service of the summons or requisition, and the offence is an indictable one, it is open to the prosecution to start proceedings again by seeking an arrest warrant. - Where the offence charged is an indictable offence, a warrant under this section may be issued at any time notwithstanding that a summons has, or a written charge and requisition have, previously been issued. - Arrest for FT attend court on bail. *[Abuse of process in the magistrates' courts will consist of the court's discretion not to proceed on account of delay, and the effect of delay -- ]* - Even where proceedings were commenced within time, a magistrates' court has a discretion to refuse to try a case, and so to acquit the accused without trial, if there has been delay amounting to an abuse of the process of the court. - Where the delay is deliberate, it is likely to amount to an abuse of process, as in Brentford Justices, ex parte Wong, where the prosecutor deliberately delayed in effecting service of the summons in order to gain more time in which to decide whether or not to continue the case against the accused. - Where deliberate delay in bringing the case to court cannot be shown, the defence may nonetheless apply for the magistrates to exercise their discretion not to proceed if i. there has been inordinate or unconscionable delay due to the prosecution's inefficiency. ii. prejudice to the defence from the delay is either proved or to be inferred. - However, the delay was in part attributable to the accused's own conduct, an application to stay is unlikely to succeed. ***[The procedural steps in a summary trial -- ]*** *[The start of the trial -- ]* - If a plea was not entered on an earlier occasion, the accused is asked to enter a plea. If the accused entered a not guilty plea on an earlier occasion, he or she will be asked to confirm that plea. - Immediately prior to the commencement of the trial, the authorised court officer must summarise for the court the agreed and disputed issues, together with the way in which the parties propose to present their cases. This will usually be based on the contents of the PET form that the parties are required to complete. If it is done by way of a 'pre-court briefing', it should be confirmed in court or agreed with the parties. *[The Prosecution Case -- ]* - Assuming the accused pleads not guilty, the prosecution representative has the right to make an opening speech. - The purpose of the prosecutor's summary of the prosecution case is to explain briefly what the case is about (including any relevant legislation or case law relevant to the particular case) and that it will not usually be necessary, or helpful, to present a detailed account of all the prosecution evidence that will be adduced. - (After first speech and post presenting evidence) There was nothing unfair in the prosecutor being asked to remind the court of evidence which had been given, subject to the safeguard that the defence should invariably be asked to address the court in reply, to correct any errors or draw attention to any differences of recollection. - In order to help the members of the court to understand the case and resolve any issue in it, the court (immediately after the prosecution opening) may invite the accused 'concisely to identify what is in issue'. - The purpose of this is to provide the court with 'focus as to what it is likely to be called upon to decide', so that the justices will be 'alert to those issues from the outset and can evaluate the prosecution evidence that they hear accordingly'. - It follows that a party who has nothing of substance to add should say so. - If the accused refuses to identify the issues at the case management stage, 'the court may limit the proceedings on the day of trial' which empowers the court to limit the questioning of witnesses and the duration of any stage of the hearing. - Moreover, 'any significant divergence from the issues identified at case management at this late stage may well result in the exercise of the court's powers under CrimPR 3.5(6), the powers to impose sanctions'. *[Prosecution calling the witnesses -- ]* - After the opening speech (if any), the prosecutor must call evidence. - Where a prosecution witness attends court to give evidence in a summary trial, the prosecutor is obliged to call that witness to give evidence if the defence so requests, or at least tender the witness for cross-examination. - If, as should happen, the prosecutor serves a bundle of witness statements on the defence prior to summary trial, the prosecution must call as witnesses all the people whose statements have been served, unless any of the exceptions which relate to Crown Court trials are applicable. - Otherwise, the prosecutor retains an unfettered discretion until the case starts, and the outline of the evidence is given to the court in the opening speech. - If the prosecution choose not to call a particular witness, the court cannot compel the prosecutor to call that witness. However, if the court is satisfied that the prosecution are so conducting the case that the accused cannot obtain a fair trial, the court has the power to dismiss the case as an abuse of process. - Moreover, in an appropriate case, the justices may call the witness themselves however, it is submitted that it will rarely be appropriate to do so, given the need for the justices to show impartiality in the proceedings. *[S9 Evidence -- ]* A party wishing to tender a written statement as evidence at a summary trial rather than calling the maker of the statement may make use of the provisions of the **CJA 1967, s. 9.** - The statement must (at the beginning) contain the name and (if under 18) the age of the maker (r. 16.2(a)). It must be signed by the maker, and must contain a declaration that it is true to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, and that it is made knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, the maker might be prosecuted for wilfully stating in it anything he or she knew to be false or did not believe to be true. (declaration on the statement referred to two pages, when there were in fact three, did not render the statement inadmissible). - A copy of the statement (together with a copy of any documentary exhibit it refers to) must be served on each of the other parties. (within five business days of service, any of them serves a counter-notice objecting to the statement being put in evidence, it may not be used). (served more than a week before the hearing and no objection to its being read was indicated, the court may, of its own volition or on the application of a party, require the maker of the statement to attend and give oral evidence). - It is either read in full to the court or, at the court's discretion, parts of it may be summarised. where a written statement is tendered in accordance with s. 9, the court must read the statement, and (unless the court directs otherwise), if any members of the public, or reporters, are present, each relevant part of the statement must be read or summarised aloud. - not to be taken conclusively to be true, but is merely 'admissible as evidence to the like extent as oral evidence to the like effect'. defence fail to serve a notice objecting to the admissibility of the statement, they are not precluded at trial from adducing evidence inconsistent with it. If there are differences between the defence case and the contents of a proposed s. 9 statement, then a notice should be served objecting to the statement. failure to give such notice and defence witnesses then contradicting the statement, the prosecution should ask for an adjournment so that the maker of the statement can be called. Ought not only agree to the adjournment but also order costs. - Prosecution should hesitate before making use of the s. 9 procedure in respect of evidence that is central to their case. Where statements are to be tendered under s. 9 in the course of summary proceedings and the statement contains evidence which is inadmissible or prejudicial, that evidence should not be excised by means of striking out or bracketing (a method that would otherwise be permissible) and so there will be a need to prepare fresh statements excluding any inadmissible or prejudicial material. *[What are formal admissions? ]* - Where a party introduces into evidence a fact admitted by another party or the parties jointly admit a fact a written record must, unless the court otherwise directs, be made of the admission. **(s10 evidence)** The difference between statements being read by consent (under the CJA 1967, s. 9) and formal admissions (under s. 10) -- - The account of a witness whose statement is adduced under s. 9 is treated no differently than if that account had been given by witnesses from the witness box. In either case, the tribunal of fact is entitled to accept or reject the witness's account as it sees fit, and then by contrast, where an admission is made pursuant to s. 10, that is conclusive of the matter stated and it is not open to the court to reject that fact. *[How to object prosecution evidence? ]* - The procedure to be followed where the defence object, during the course of a summary trial, to proposed prosecution evidence (or have some other preliminary point of law to argue before the magistrates) raises the difficulty that the magistrates are the judges of both fact and law. - If the issue is one of admissibility of evidence, there is a danger that the magistrates will learn the nature of the evidence in the course of hearing arguments about its admissibility. - The stage of the trial at which the magistrates rule upon a question of admissibility of evidence (or other incidental issue) is a matter for their discretion. - However, delaying the determination of a question of admissibility of a confession until after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence may be unfair to the defence, in that the accused will not be able to give evidence about alleged irregularities in the obtaining of the confession unless he or she testifies (thus becoming exposed to cross-examination about the general issues). Where the admissibility of a confession was at issue: - It is impossible to lay down any general rule as to when magistrates should announce their decision on this type of point, and indeed when the point itself should be taken. Every case will be different. Some sort of preliminary point, for instance with regard to the admissibility of a document or something like that, can plainly, with the assistance of the clerk, be decided straight away. Other points ... may require a decision at a later stage of the case, possibly after further argument. It may be that in some cases the defendant will be entitled to know what the decision of the justices with regard to the admissibility of a confession is at the close of the prosecution case in order to enable him to know what proper course he should take with regard to giving evidence and calling evidence and so on. *[Objecting evidence and PACE s78 -- ]* Whereas under the PACE 1984, s. 76 (see D22.47), the court is obliged to hear evidence about the obtaining of the confession (as the prosecution have to prove that the confession was not obtained in the manner forbidden by s. 76), - where the admissibility of prosecution evidence falls to be considered under the general exclusionary power in s. 78, the court has a discretion to hear evidence on the issue of admissibility but is not obliged to do so (and so may rule on the matter following submissions on behalf of the parties). - It remains a matter for the justices' discretion when they determine admissibility. - In some cases, the justices should deal with an application to exclude evidence when it arises, but in other cases they may leave the decision until the end of the hearing. Nonetheless, his lordship said that it was impossible to lay down any general rule, other than that 'the object should always be to secure a trial which is fair and just to both sides'. - In most cases, it is generally better for the magistrates to hear all the prosecution evidence (including the disputed evidence) before considering an application to exclude evidence under s. 78. *[Objecting evidence and PACE s76 -- ]* - Where the defence object to the admissibility of a confession on the basis of the PACE 1984, s. 76, the terms of s. 76 require that the court shall not admit the confession unless satisfied that it was not obtained by oppression or by words or conduct likely to render a confession unreliable. It follows that magistrates (just like the Crown Court) are obliged to hear evidence on the obtaining of the confession. *[What are closing speeches? ]* - CRimPR 24.3 (3) After the defence have adduced any evidence they wish and after any rebuttal evidence), the prosecutor 'may make final representations in support of the prosecution case' (i.e. a closing speech) if the accused is represented or (whether represented or not) the accused has called evidence other than his or her own testimony. - The accused may then 'make final representations in support of the defence case' (in other words, make a closing speech). Thus, if any prosecution representations are made, the accused is given the chance to reply, and so will always have the last word before the magistrates consider their verdict. - if a party wishes to introduce evidence or make representations after the specified opportunity to do so under r. 24.3(3), the court is entitled to refuse to receive any such evidence or representations. It is submitted that the court should refuse to receive additional evidence or representations save in the most exceptional circumstances. *[What is the role of the authorised court officers? ]* - CrimPR 2.2 (see Supplement, R2.2) now refers to an 'authorised court officer', instead of justices' clerk, and the term 'justices' legal adviser' is replaced by 'a person authorised under section 28 of the Courts Act 2003 to give advice about law to justices of the peace'; r. 2.4 now refers to 'authorised court officers'. Lord Chief Justice to authorise a person: a. to give advice to justices of the peace about matters of law (including procedure and practice) on questions arising in connection with the discharge of their functions, including questions arising when the person is not personally attending on them, and b. to bring to the attention of justices of the peace, at any time when the person thinks appropriate, any point of law (including procedure and practice) that is or may be involved in any question so arising. Duties -- - Drawing the court's attention, before the hearing begins, to the prosecution allegations, - what is agreed and what is in dispute, and what the parties have said about how they expect to present their cases; - whenever necessary, giving the court legal advice (and, if necessary, attending the members of the court outside the courtroom to give such advice, so long as the parties are informed of any advice given outside the courtroom); - assisting the court in the formulation of its reasons and the recording of those reasons; - assisting the accused if unrepresented; and assisting the court by making a note of the substance of any oral evidence or representations, marking as inadmissible any parts of written statements introduced in evidence that are ruled inadmissible; - ensuring that a record is kept of the court's decisions and the reasons for them, and making any announcement (other than of the verdict or sentence). Provides a list of matters on which the authorised court officer may legitimately advise the magistrates: a. questions of law; b. questions of mixed law and fact; c. matters of practice and procedure; d. the process to be followed at sentence and the matters to be taken into account, together with the range of penalties and ancillary orders available, in accordance with the relevant sentencing guidelines; e. any relevant decisions of the superior courts or other guidelines; f. the appropriate decision-making structure to be applied in any given case; and g. other issues relevant to the matter before the court. The authorised court officer is also required to assist the court, where appropriate, as to the formulation of reasons and the recording of those reasons The court officer may also ask questions of witnesses and the parties in order to clarify the evidence and any issues in the case, and must ensure that every case is conducted justly. *[What about a submission of no case to answer? ]* - The magistrates may acquit the accused on the ground that the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict. They may do so following an application by the defence or on their own initiative but, in either case, the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to make representations. Thus, at the close of the prosecution evidence, the defence may submit that there is no case to answer (see D16.53 for the position in trial on indictment). - No reasonable court could properly convict. Thus, the decision depends not on whether the justices would at that stage convict or acquit but on whether the evidence is such that a reasonable tribunal might convict. If a reasonable tribunal might convict on the evidence so far laid before it, there is a case to answer. The submission should therefore succeed if a conviction would be perverse, in the sense that no reasonable bench could convict. - There is no obligation on justices to give reasons for rejecting a submission of no case to answer. *[What about the credibility of the prosecution witness, during a no case to answer submission? ]* - An important issue is the extent to which justices may have regard to the credibility of prosecution witnesses when considering a submission of no case to answer. - The test to be applied by the judge when ruling on a submission of no case (set out in Galbraith \[1981\] 2 All ER 1060 ) is whether the prosecution evidence is so tenuous that, even taken at its highest, a jury properly directed could not properly convict on it. The requirement that the Crown Court judge should 'take the prosecution evidence at its highest' is intended to leave questions of credibility to the jury. - Questions of credibility should, except in the clearest of cases, not normally be taken into account by justices considering a submission of no case. Nonetheless, it is submitted that some justices may well take the pragmatic view that it would be inappropriate for them to go through the motions of hearing defence evidence if they have already formed the view that the prosecution evidence is so unconvincing that they will not be able to convict on it in any event. However, the general principle remains that, so long as the necessary minimum amount of prosecution evidence has been adduced so as to raise a case on which a reasonable tribunal could convict, the justices should allow the trial to run its course rather than acquitting on a submission. *[What is the prosecutions right of reply in a no case to answer? ]* - When the justices are provisionally minded to uphold the submission of no case to answer, they should first call on the prosecution to address them, so that the prosecutor has an opportunity to address the court to show why the case should not be dismissed. **This means that the prosecution have the right to reply to the defence submission that there is no case to answer unless**, having heard the defence submission, the magistrates decide to rule that there is a case to answer and indicate this fact to the prosecutor. *[What is the duty to give reasons on verdict? ]* - The court, if it convicts the accused (or makes a hospital order instead of doing so), must give 'sufficient reasons to explain its decision'. However, the justices are not required to state their reasons in the form of a judgment or to give reasons in any elaborate form. - If a party wishes to obtain more detailed reasons, a request can be made to the magistrates to state a case. - The essence of the exercise in a criminal case such as this is to inform the defendant why he has been found guilty. That can usually be done in a few simple sentences.' However, great care must be taken when formulating those reasons. D was charged with the offence of tampering with a motor vehicle. The magistrates convicted him, saying that D 'did not say anything to persuade us that he did not tamper with the moped' and they were therefore 'sure' that he was guilty. The conviction was quashed. The words used by the magistrates created the impression that they had convicted D because he had not proved his innocence (thus reversing the burden of proof). If the court acquits the accused, it may (but is not required to) give an explanation of its decision. *[When will the court find the accused guilty of a lesser offence? ]* - The justices are restricted to reaching a decision of guilty or not guilty on the charge actually before them. They have no power to find an accused not guilty as charged but guilty of a lesser offence (Lawrence v Same \[1968\] 2 QB 93 ). This applies even when a jury, on an equivalently worded count for an either way offence, would be entitled (under the CLA 1967, s. 6(3); see D19.41 et seq.) to return an alternative verdict. - A purported summary conviction for common assault on a charge of unlawful wounding was quashed. It would have been otherwise had there been two separate charges, and the court had decided to convict only on the lesser offence. A number of exceptions to this rule: - Whenever trying certain driving offences, to find the accused not guilty of the offence charged, but guilty of another specified driving offence (e.g., convicting the accused of careless driving instead of dangerous driving, even though the only charge before the court is one of dangerous driving. - An accused who is charged with aggravated vehicle taking may instead be convicted of the lesser offence of vehicle taking contrary to s. 12; s. 12A(5) applies to summary trials as well as to trials on indictment. If the accused is charged with alternative offences at the outset and pleads not guilty to both, the magistrates should not convict of both offences.