Arrangement of the CrimPR

The structure of the CrimPR was rearranged in October 2015 to remove empty rules created over ten years of amendments and to create a more logical and coherent form. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that the correct part numbers are being used in court documents.

The CrimPR are arranged to reflect the main stages of a criminal case and are divided into parts and each part runs consecutively. There are a total of 50 parts.

Parts 1-3 are particularly significant. These parts give effect to the intention of the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system. They deal with:

• the overriding objective of the CrimPR (Part 1)
• understanding and applying the rules (Part 2), and
• case management (Part 3)

The overriding objective of the CrimPR is that cases are dealt with ‘justly’. This includes acquitting the innocent, convicting the guilty and dealing with the prosecution and defence fairly. The concept of ‘justly’ also means dealing with a case ‘efficiently and expeditiously’.

Part 1 sets out the duties of the participants in relation to the overriding objective. A participant is defined in the CrimPR as anyone involved in any way with the case. For example, participants include legal representatives, expert witnesses, court staff and probation officers. Crucially the rules require a participant to inform the court of any significant failure to take any step required by the rules. If a participant fails to do this the court has the power to impose ‘sanctions’.

Part 3 of the CrimPR applies to the management of all cases in the magistrates’ court and in the Crown Court (including an appeal to the Crown Court) until the conclusion of the case.

Part 3 states that all courts must further the overriding objective by active case management.

Active case management includes:

• early identification of the issues in a case
• early identification of witness requirements
• setting a procedural timetable, and
• monitoring the progress of the case and compliance with directions

The CrimPR also impose a duty on the parties to a case to assist the court in active case management. This means there is a duty on the defence to identify the ‘real issues’ in a case at an early stage. Under the Rules the parties are also required to apply to the court for any directions that are needed to ensure that cases are dealt with justly.

The court is given wide-ranging powers to manage the case under Part 3 of the CrimPR, particular relating to the conduct of a trial or an appeal. For example, a court may require a party to identify which witnesses the party wants to give evidence in person, the order in which that party wants those witnesses to give their evidence or whether that party requires an order compelling the attendance of a witness.

Non-compliance with the CrimPR

If a party fails to comply with a rule or direction the CrimPR give the court power to make a costs order or impose ‘other sanctions’ as appropriate.

Even before the implementation of the CrimPR, the courts have always adopted the principal that a defendant can derive no benefit from a failure to identify the issues in the case at an early stage.
The leading case prior to the coming into force of the Crim PR in April 2005 was R v Gleeson.

In R v Gleeson Lord Justice Auld, quoting from a passage in the Report of the Criminal Courts Review (October 2001) said

‘A criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance. It is a search for truth in accordance with the twin principles that the prosecution must prove its case and that a defendant is not obliged to inculpate himself, the object being to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Requiring a defendant to indicate in advance what he disputes about the prosecution case offends neither of those principles.’

Terrorism Act 2000

Under this act, the definition of terrorism came to be applied to domestic terrorism and it also included acts that use or threaten violence against either people or property that are motivated by ‘political, religious or ideological’ causes.
 
Also, a new offence of inciting terrorism was created. Police were given new powers such as stop and search and holding people prior to charging them for seven days. The enhanced powers it provided the police proved controversial, leading to legal challenges in British and European courts and noted cases of alleged abuse. The Act also outlawed terrorist groups, such as Al Qaeda.

Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

This was formally introduced on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001. It came into force in December 2001. At first, the act meant that suspected terrorists could be held indefinitely, without being charged or facing trial. Later, these powers were replaced with control orders, which allow for the imposition of an extensive set of conditions on the movements of the suspected person. Another feature of this act was to allow bank accounts and assets of suspected terrorists to be frozen.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

In 2004, a ruling was made stating that detaining foreign nationals without trial was unlawful and breached the European Convention on Human Rights. In response to this, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced, implementing the control orders mentioned above. This new act meant while suspected terrorists could not be detained, since there was lack of evidence to charge, their actions could be restricted by the Government.

Terrorism Act 2006

This act was introduced in the aftermath of the July 7th bombings in the UK and it encountered opposition from those who felt that it was an undue imposition on civil liberties. It was initially proposed that the limit of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects be increased to 90 days; however, this was reduced to 28 days following a vote in the House of Commons. This was still an increase from the previous 14-day period. This act also introduced a prohibition on the ‘glorification’ of terrorism.

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

This, the most recent anti-terror legislation, allowed for terrorist suspects to be questioned post charge, it amended the definition of terrorism by inserting a racial clause, and allowed the police to take fingerprints and DNA samples from individuals who are subject to control orders.

More and more Britons are turning to cosmetic surgery to improve their appearance, with the number of procedures topping 50,000 a year. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (Baaps) said there were 51,140 surgical procedures last year – up from 45,406 the year before.

The industry generated £2.3 billion in 2010 and that figure likely to exceed £3.6 billion by the end of 2016.

Those treating patients in the cosmetic industry can provide patients with surgical treatment such as face-lifts, tummy tucks and breast implants – or non-surgical procedure which include dermal fillers, Botox or the use of laser or intense pulsed light (IPL).

Non-surgical treatments account for up to 75% of the market value and can have major and irreversible adverse impacts on health and wellbeing.

Given these statistics and the scale of the industry it is striking that until recently as far as non-surgical procedures are concerned the industry has been largely unregulated, this prompted Professor Sir Bruce Keogh KBE to conclude in his recent report:

“In fact, a person having a non-surgical cosmetic intervention has no more protection and redress than someone buying a ballpoint pen or a toothbrush”

The absence of any proper regulation has resulted in patients receiving treatments from practitioners who have not had any appropriate training whatsoever. There have also been cases of inaccurate and misleading statements failing to properly manage patient expectations in relation to both the skill and expertise they expected and the outcome of treatment.

Given these circumstances, the General Medical Council has now issued guidance to doctors carrying out cosmetic procedures.

The chief executive of the Patients Association, Katherine Murphy, said: “We welcome the guidelines. I think it’s really important that the professionals, the doctors, think about the patient and that people have cosmetic surgery for many different reasons. Explaining fully to the patient and providing them with the relevant information and support is very important”.

The new GMC guidance comes into force from June, and covers both surgical (such as breast augmentation) and non-surgical (such as Botox) procedures.

The guidance says that doctors must:

Advertise and market services responsibly – any advertising must be clear, factual, and not use promotional tactics, such as ‘two-for-one’ offers to encourage patients to make ill-considered decisions. It also includes a ban on offering procedures as prizes. Doctors must not allow others to misrepresent their services.

Give patients time for reflection – make sure they have the time and information about risks, to decide whether to go ahead with a procedure. Patients should not feel rushed or pressured.

Seek a patient’s consent themselves – the doctor carrying out a cosmetic procedure is responsible for discussing it with the patient, providing them with the information and support they need, and for obtaining their consent. This responsibility must not be delegated.

Provide continuity of care – the doctor must make sure patients know who to contact and how their care will be managed if they experience any complications, and that they have full details of any medicines or implants.

Support patient safety – making full and accurate records of consultations, using systems to identify and act on any patient safety concerns, and contributing to programmes to monitor quality and outcomes, including registers for devices such as breast implants.

Later this year the RCS will also launch a new certification scheme, allowing patients to more easily search for a surgeon who has the necessary skills and experience to perform the procedure they are considering.

Details of all UK doctors, including any specialisms they have, are published on the GMC’s online List of Registered Medical Practitioners. The GMC is continuing to explore how additional information about doctors and their qualifications, in areas such as cosmetic practice, can be made available to patients via the register. This may require legislative change, and was the subject of a public consultation by the GMC in 2015.

In addition, the GMC is currently developing a guide for patients considering cosmetic procedures, which will give advice and information on things to consider and the questions they should ask their doctor.