HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc170-1W
Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 599W, on his proposals to restrict the right to elect trial by jury, (a) if it is his intention to allow (i) either the prosecution or defence, or both, to petition the Crown court for an oral hearing of an appeal against the determination of mode of trial by magistrates, where an oral hearing is not requested by the judge and (ii) only circuit judges to hear appeals in the Crown court against the determination of mode of trial by magistrates, and (b) if the prosecution and defence will be able to adduce additional evidence, over and above that presented to the magistrates, during the course of an appeal to the Crown court against the determination of mode of trial by magistrates, and if they will be able to call witnesses and expert witnesses to give oral testimony. [109208]

Mr. Charles Clarke

[holding answer 8 February 2000]: The appeal would be a re-hearing by a circuit judge of the magistrates decision. It would be open to either of the parties to seek an oral hearing in the notice of appeal, and it would be for the discretion of the judge whether to allow an oral hearing to take place. It would also be for his discretion whether to allow the parties to adduce further evidence (including, in the unlikely event that it would be necessary, evidence from expert or other witnesses) in support of their representations.

Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 599W, what parts of criminal proceedings in the Crown Court may at present be heard in chambers by a single judge; what estimate he has made of the number of Crown Court sitting days that would be taken up by the hearing of appeals against the determination of mode of trial by magistrates, what items are included in the cost of (i) a written and (ii) an oral appeals; and on what basis he reached his estimate of the number of defendants who would appeal against magistrates' decisions on mode of trial. [109209]

Mr. Charles Clarke

[holding answer 8 February 2000]: Business which may be heard in chambers by a single judge (pursuant to Crown Court Rule 27) includes applications for bail and for the extension of time-limits, and appeals against the decision of magistrates on those issues. In estimating the cost of appeals against mode of trial, the generous assumptions have been made that in 25 per cent. of cases the defendant might appeal, and that 17.5 per cent. of cases will require an oral hearing. In total, less than 650 judicial hours would be spent on these appeals per year. The costs have been based on court time, prosecution costs and legal aid standard fee rates. The reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), on 2 February 2000, Official Report, column 599W, contained a typographical error: it is estimated the number of defendants who would appeal is 3,000, and not 3,900 as stated.