The Legal Eagle Training Podcast

Adjournments: Getting Them, Resisting Them, and What Courts Expect

Adjournments sound procedural, but they can decide outcomes. In this episode, Clive and Colin unpack when adjournments should (and shouldn’t) be granted, how to prepare and argue them, and the traps that lead to exclusion of evidence, wasted costs, or even acquittals. They also cover special wrinkles: absent defendants, “part-heard” perils, motoring totters/exceptional hardship timing, Newton hearings, and youth/adult severance. Hosts Clive Smith [https://www.linkedin.com/in/clive-smith-508243199/] and Colin Beaumont [https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-beaumont-118b01b8/] We start with the culture shift under the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions: courts are under pressure to hear trials on the day, to protect public confidence and manage backlogs. That doesn’t make adjournments “bad”—just more scrutinised. The duo lay out the Picton/CPD factors, show how to use (or resist) them, and stress giving the bench something useful today (disclosure, witness summonses, narrowing issues). We then explore when courts should adjourn of their own motion even if neither party applies, how late evidence can backfire (exclusion vs. adjourn), and how timing your applications can decide the case. Adjournments aren’t dirty words—they’re case-outcome tools. The winning approach: prep early, cite the right factors, give the court progress today, and be tactically honest about timing. Misjudge it and you risk exclusion, wasted costs, or worse; judge it well and you protect fairness without feeding delay. For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com. [http://legal-eagle-training.com] Chapters * 00:00 Welcome & why adjournments decide cases * 04:50 The Picton/CPD test—what benches actually weigh * 10:45 Absent defendants & medical proof (s.11 MCA 1980) * 15:40 Make progress today: disclosure, summonses, narrowing issues * 20:10 First listing: don’t be bounced into contested notices * 26:00 Fault & wasted costs: when late service bites * 29:00 Court’s own motion to adjourn (even if nobody asks) * 33:40 Boardman mindset: timing your applications - R v Boardman [2015] EWCA Crim 175 * 38:10 Part-heard pitfalls in the mags * 44:30 Motoring: timing for exceptional hardship * 47:40 Legal-issue-only trials (no adjournment needed) * 49:55 Newton hearings: when to adjourn (and when not) * 51:40 Adjourn vs. unconditional bail on requisition cases * 54:20 Youth/adult severance & listing realities * 57:20 Fees update & wrap Keywords adjournment, Criminal Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, Picton factors, section 11 MCA 1980, absent defendant, late disclosure, exclusion of evidence, wasted costs, Boardman, part-heard trials, Newton hearing, exceptional hardship, totting, youth court, severance, case management

Children & Young People In The Criminal Justice System

This episode takes a deep dive into the youth justice system - exploring how children and young people are treated differently to adults by the criminal law, and why practitioners often find the youth court one of the most challenging, yet rewarding environments in which to work. Hosts Clive Smith [https://www.linkedin.com/in/clive-smith-508243199/] and Colin Beaumont [https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-beaumont-118b01b8/] share their experiences from decades of youth court advocacy, highlighting the importance of understanding unique procedures, sentencing principles, and jurisdictional nuances. From trial allocation and the concept of "persistent young offenders”, to the role of parents and guardians in proceedings, this episode covers the full landscape of youth justice in practice. Colin explains why the youth court feels like “an entirely separate carriage” in criminal law — familiar principles applied in unfamiliar ways — while Clive reflects on how the informality of process belies the immense responsibility involved. Together they walk listeners through twelve core discussion points, blending legal updates, practical tips, and courtroom anecdotes that will resonate with both experienced and aspiring practitioners. The conversation begins with jurisdiction, when cases should remain in the youth court and when they must go to the Crown Court, using BH and Norwich Youth Court as a case study and drawing on Judicial College guidance on youth defendants. The pair then move through sentencing powers, then ZA (2023) case on courtroom setup, and the principles from Lang on assessing dangerousness. They unpack persistent young offenders under the Sentencing Council’s guidance, referral orders, and the latest statutory instrument enhancing youth court fees, before tackling more complex issues such as children/youth defendants charged alongside adults, age at first appearance, and remands into custody under LASPO 2012. The episode closes with reflections on training and the Youth Justice Charter, reminding listeners that youth advocacy demands both technical skill and humanity a blend of law, communication, and empathy rarely found elsewhere in practice. For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com. [http://legal-eagle-training.com] Judicial College - Child Defendants in the Crown Court (Formerly Youth Defendants in the Crown Court) June 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Child-Defendants-in-the-Crown-Court-June-2025-Final-v2.pdf [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Child-Defendants-in-the-Crown-Court-June-2025-Final-v2.pdf] BH v Norwich Youth Court [2023] EWHC 25 Admin https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/25.html&query=(bh)+AND+(norwich) [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/25.html&query=(bh)+AND+(norwich)] Sentencing Act 2022 - The Sentencing Code https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/sentencing-code/ [https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/sentencing-code/] R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596 https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2023/596.html&query=(za) [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2023/596.html&query=(za)] B v Leeds Crown Court [2016] EWHC 1230 (Admin) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1230.html&query=(b)+AND+(leeds)+AND+(crown)+AND+(court) [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1230.html&query=(b)+AND+(leeds)+AND+(crown)+AND+(court)]  Chapters 00:25 – Introduction and recent early release headlines 03:20 – Why the youth court feels different 05:17 – Where trials should take place: BH and Norwich Youth Court 08:50 – Homicide and driving offences: jurisdictional boundaries 12:20 – The Judicial College’s guidance on youth defendants 13:27 – Where sentencing should take place: ZA (2023) and committals 17:20 – Persistent offenders and detention thresholds 19:55 – Referral orders for first-time and repeat offenders 25:22 – Using the Crown Court Guidance and practice 25:57 – Enhanced youth court fees (SI 2024/1163) 28:31 – Why better advocacy and pay must go hand in hand 35:44 – Age at first appearance and its consequences 41:22 – Jointly charged defendants: severance and fairness 44:34 – Remand powers and LASPO 2012, sections 98–99 47:58 – Orders against parents or guardians 49:25 – The principle from B v Leeds Crown Court 51:12 – The case for youth court training and the Youth Justice Charter 52:24 – Closing reflections on advocacy, empathy, and reform

BAIL - A Dozen Issues to Digest

This month’s episode tackles one of the most technical yet practical areas of criminal law - bail. From time limits to informal hearings and changes in circumstances, Clive Smith and Colin Beaumont explore why bail occupies “an entirely separate train carriage” in criminal practice, and why understanding its quirks is essential for every advocate. The discussion begins by contrasting bail with other areas of law: less formal, full of exceptions, and uniquely centred on the liberty of the subject. Colin and Clive highlight the paradox between rigid procedural timeframes and the informality of evidence rules, both examples of how liberty can be limited and then granted back by exception. From there, the episode moves through practical advocacy — how to shine in bail applications, the importance of preparation, and why even losing well can build trust with clients and their families. They share anecdotes from youth court, Crown Court, and the magistrates’ court, bringing to life the strategy behind every application — when to speak, when to hold back, and how to balance persuasion with precision. The conversation dives deep into core legal principles and case law: * Whether the court must accept the prosecution’s case at its highest; * The importance of Regina v Lee and common law disclosure duties; * Tactical approaches to “insufficient information” under paragraph 5; * Key statutory references from the Bail Act 1976, PACE, and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and * The exceptional circumstances test under section 25 CJPOA and its human rights evolution. They also explore the two bites of the cherry rule, bail appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court, and the process for varying pre-charge bail conditions under section 47.1E PACE — complete with cautionary tales of advocates caught off guard by procedural time limits. As the discussion unfolds, the hosts turn philosophical again: can the passage of time itself constitute a change in circumstances? Drawing on European case law such as Letellier v France and Clouth v Belgium, they argue that it can - particularly in today’s climate of backlogs and delays. Finally, the episode closes with a reminder that bail remains one of the most important protections in criminal justice - a daily safeguard of liberty, a test of advocacy, and a constant reminder of why precision and fairness matter in every courtroom. For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING: Adverse Inferences at Trial

“You do not have to say anything…” – the familiar police caution opens this episode, but Colin Beaumont and Clive Smith unpack what those words really mean in practice, and how adverse inferences can transform the course of a trial. From the erosion of the absolute right to silence since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, through to pre-prepared statements, special warnings, and defence statements, this episode traces the piecemeal development of the erosion of the absolute right to silence and its impact on everyday practice. The discussion covers the police station interview, where decisions about silence, admissions, or prepared statements can later affect jury perceptions. It moves through the special warning provisions of sections 36 and 37 (objects, substances, marks and presence at the scene), and examines the strategic dilemmas around intimate samples, non-intimate samples, x-rays, and ultrasounds. Colin and Clive highlight key authorities including Knight, Harewood & Raymond, Green, and Hackett, showing how context and judicial discretion shape the drawing of inferences. They also explore the Crown Court stage under section 35: when a defendant chooses not to testify, how endorsements and practice directions safeguard fairness, and whether “double inferences” are permissible (Chenier). The conversation rounds off with analysis of adverse inferences from failure to serve defence statements and failure to notify witnesses under CPIA provisions, with practical insights for defence practitioners operating at the coalface. In short, this episode considers the balance between a suspect’s right to silence and the court’s  ability to draw adverse inferences, illustrating how both statutory framework and case law have reshaped trial advocacy. For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit: legal-eagle-training.com. Referenced Information: 1.         Samples at the Police Station   Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without  reasonable cause, to provide intimate samples  – see Section 62 (10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984   Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without reasonable cause, to undergo an x-ray or ultrasound scan – see Section 55A (9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984   2.         Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994               Section 34 – Failure to mention when questioned               R v Harewood & Rehman [2021] EWCA Crim 1936               Section 35 – Failure to give evidence               Physical or mental condition makes it undesirable…               Double inferences? R v Chenia [2002] EWCA Crim 2345               Adverse inference or lies direction – R v Hackett [2011] EWCA Crim 380               Section 36 – Failure to account for objects, substances or marks               Section 37 – Failure to account for presence               Can the prosecution refuse to adduce the interview   R (Gonzales) v Folkstone MC [2010] EWHC 3428 (Admin)   2.         Witness Notices – Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996               Section 6C – R (Tinnion) v Reading Crown Court [2009] EWHC 2930 (Admin) [https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff72660d03e7f57ea8b44#:~:text=The%20Plaintiff%20was%20convicted%20of,during%20the%20Youth%20Court%20proceedings.]   3.         Defence Statements – Section 6               Can you refuse to serve a defence statement?               R v Rochford [2010] EWCA Crim 1928               Contempt of Court or Adverse Inference?               Admissibility of the defence statement – R v Roehrig [2024] EWCA Crim 539

GOING DOWN - Credit For Guilty Pleas

With significant changes proposed to the way judges and magistrates calculate credit for guilty pleas, this episode examines current practice, Court of Appeal guidance and potential reforms, with the practical realities faced by those advising clients at the coal face.   Retired solicitor (now barrister - non practising) Colin Beaumont and barrister Clive Smith explore the Sentencing Council’s Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guidelines, the key Court of Appeal judgments shaping current practice, and the impact of the Leveson Review’s recommendations. They tackle the nuances of “indicating willingness” to plead guilty, the effect of minimum sentence provisions, and the interplay between starting points and credit in both adult and youth cases.  The conversation also delves into strategic considerations: when a timely indication can mean the difference between custody and a community order, why the cases of Plaku, Hodgin, and Caley are essential  reading for advocates, and how police station advice can influence sentencing outcomes months  later. The hosts address the “perverse incentive” created by fee structures, discuss how credit can still be argued for late pleas that save significant court time, and highlight judicial flexibility in today’s backlogged system.  Closing with a look at the broader policy aims — encouraging genuine early pleas while safeguarding against wrongful admissions — this episode is an indispensable guide to  understanding the subtleties of guilty plea credit and its application in practice.  LINKS: The Leveson Review: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf] Sentencing Council - June 2017 – 'Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea' https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/reduction-in-sentence-for-a-guilty-plea-first-hearing-on-or-after-1-june-2017/ [https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/reduction-in-sentence-for-a-guilty-plea-first-hearing-on-or-after-1-june-2017/] Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/73 [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/73] R v Caley and Others [2012] EWCA Crim 2821 https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2821.html&query=(caley)+AND+(2012) [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2821.html&query=(caley)+AND+(2012)] R v Plaku, Plaku, Bourdon & Smith (2021) EWCA Crim 424 https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/568.html&query=(plaku) [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/568.html&query=(plaku)] Rex v Derie [2024] EWCA Crim 1337  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1337.html [https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1337.html] (The Court of Appeal considering the appropriate percentage reduction to reflect the age of the offender at the time of the commission date of the offence and also considering whether or not greater credit should have been given for the guilty plea) Rex v Saunders [2024] EWCA Crim 1059  (The Court of Appeal looking at the issue of credit where the defence held off the plea until they had obtained their own expert report in a back calculation alcohol reading case) Regina v Morrow [2021] EWCA Crim 574 (should the defendant have been afforded full credit when the charge of burglary was not before the Court at the Magistrates’ Court stage) Regina v Martin [2022] EWCA Crim 342 (the Court of Appeal confirming that 10% credit should have been afforded to a defendant who pleaded guilty on the day of trial) R v Morrisey [2021] EWCA Crim 1673 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/1673.html [https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/1673.html] (the Court of Appeal considering the appropriateness of a reduction in credit due to the fact that the defendant was caught red-handed after a police chase!) Paddon v Regina [2021] EWCA Crim 1485 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/1485.html [https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/1485.html] The issue of credit where psychiatric reports may be required in order to advise on plea Regina v Nikoro [2021] EWCA Crim 1634 The percentage of credit available to a defendant who changes their plea during the trial. Regina v McQueen [2021] EWCA Crim 1303 The Court of Appeal restored full credit because the defendant had not had an opportunity to plead guilty to this earlier in the proceedings. Regina v Sule [2021] EWCA Crim 1348 The Court of Appeal made the point, yet again, about a plea at the PTPH and credit of 25%. Regina v RB JS and HG [2020] EWCA Crim 643 The correct approach when sentencing children or young people – find the appropriate relevant length of sentence for an adult – deduct whatever percentage should be deducted to reflect the youth of the offender and, as the final stage, deduct from that figure any reduction that needs to be made concerning credit for the stage at which the plea was indicated or taken. R v Lee Hodgin [2020] EWCA Crim 1388 A case in which the Court of Appeal had to consider the issue of whether or not the Crown Court judge should have given full credit of one third rather than 25% where there had been an indication at the Magistrates’ Court that it was “likely” the defendant would plead guilty.   For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit: legal-eagle training.com.   ⸻  Chapters   00:25 – Introduction and context for proposed reforms  02:10 – The Leveson Review’s recommendations on credit percentages  04:12 – When “indicating willingness” starts the credit clock  06:51 – Minimum sentences and capped credit  13:49 – Key case law: Plaku, Hodgin, and Kayley  21:36 – Strategic plea decisions and real-world magistrates’ court issues  31:26 – Financial incentives and the legal aid gap  33:31 – Court of Appeal rulings on timely pleas and fitness to plead  36:34 – Indicating alternatives and plea negotiation at PTPH  45:47 – Youth sentencing guidelines and the correct calculation order  48:41 – Beyond the basics: reducing the starting point vs. credit  50:17 – Judicial flexibility, policy aims, and ethical considerations  ⸻