K & Ors, R v

In preliminary criminal proceedings, a trial judge may use case-management powers to require written submissions, limit their length, and dispense with oral argument where appropriate. The public character of the hearing is preserved if defendants and attending media representatives can obtain the written submissions.

Case-management choices remain case specific. The Criminal Procedure Rules impose responsibilities on all trial participants. Where all prosecution material has been disclosed, or lawful redactions have been upheld on public-interest-immunity grounds, there is no further undisclosed prosecution material. Trial judges and advocates should apply and be familiar with the applicable disclosure protocol.

The heading records a Crown appeal against K and other respondents from a decision of Sir Michael Astill, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge at the Central Criminal Court.

Only two paragraphs were authorised for publication. They address the management of pre-trial submissions and the position reached in a lengthy disclosure process. The published text does not state the substantive issue on appeal or the appeal’s formal disposition.

1. The published judgment does not record the formal disposition of the appeal. Its two published paragraphs give guidance on pre-trial management and disclosure.

2. A trial judge seeking to save time may invite written submissions and curtail oral argument. Under the new Criminal Procedure Rules, the judge may, if appropriate, determine preliminary trial issues exclusively from written submissions. The judge may also impose a limit on their length. There is no obligation to permit oral submissions in every case.

3. That procedure does not, of itself, undermine the public character of a hearing. It is sufficient that defendants who wish to see the written submissions may receive them, and that media representatives attending court may do the same.

4. The court did not prescribe a universal procedure. Case-management decisions depend on the circumstances of the individual case. The Rules impose duties on the judge, prosecution and defence, and trial preparation and conduct are subject to them.

5. On disclosure, the court stated that all prosecution material then available had either been disclosed or, where redacted, had been the subject of justified non-disclosure at a public-interest-immunity hearing. There was accordingly no further undisclosed prosecution material for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Investigations Act 1996 or the governing disclosure principles. The Protocol on Disclosure dated 20 February 2006 should be applied by trial judges, and prosecution and defence representatives should familiarise themselves with it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): issued the published guidance in [2006] EWCA Crim 835. The formal result of the appeal is not stated in the published text.

• Central Criminal Court: decision of Sir Michael Astill, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, was under appeal. Its outcome and citation are not stated in the judgment.