Allocation of cases between magistrates' court and Crown Cou...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how trial venue is determined for adult and youth defendants in either-way cases, including:

• the statutory framework under ss.17A–20 and s.22A Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and related provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
• the procedural sequence from charge, plea before venue, and allocation hearing through to final venue determination
• how magistrates apply the Sentencing Council Allocation Guideline, sentencing powers, and CrimPR’s overriding objective when assessing suitability for summary trial
• the defendant’s right to elect Crown Court trial, limits on that right, and strategic factors relevant to advising on election
• the special regime for low-value shoplifting under s.22A, its impact on jurisdiction, and the preservation of jury trial where a not-guilty plea is entered
• powers for direct sending to the Crown Court under ss.50A, 51, 51B and 51C CDA 1998, particularly in serious, complex, or related-offence scenarios
• the handling of multi-count and co-defendant cases, aggregate seriousness, and the effect of one defendant’s allocation or election on others
• the consequences of venue for sentencing options, appeal routes, and case management in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court
• how allocation principles adapt for youths, including grave crime provisions and joint adult/youth proceedings

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the allocation of either-way offences between the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and related provisions, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the operation of plea before venue and allocation hearings for either-way offences
• statutory rules and process under ss.19–20 and s.22A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
• the role of the defendant's election and the court's discretion
• special summary-only procedure for low-value shoplifting
• factors to be weighed when advising on allocation, including Sentencing Guidelines and case complexity
• principles governing joint defendants, related offences, and the possibility of sending cases directly to the Crown Court without allocation

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What is the first step when an adult is charged with an either-way offence in the magistrates' court?
2. Which factors must magistrates consider when deciding whether to accept jurisdiction for an either-way offence?
3. True or false? For low-value shoplifting (goods under £200), the defendant can always elect jury trial in the Crown Court.
4. What is the effect if the magistrates decline jurisdiction for an either-way offence?

Introduction

When an adult is charged with an either-way offence, all criminal proceedings begin in the magistrates’ court. The court must then determine—by a structured legal process—whether the case remains in the magistrates’ court (summary trial) or is sent to the Crown Court (trial on indictment before judge and jury). The decision turns primarily on the seriousness, complexity, and sentencing needs of the case, guided by statutory rules (including ss.19–20 and s.22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), as well as procedural rules and Sentencing Council guidance. The framework is aimed at ensuring less serious cases are tried summarily with the resulting swifter and less formal proceedings, while safeguarding the defendant's right to jury trial where appropriate.

Key Term: either-way offence
An offence triable either summarily in the magistrates’ court or on indictment in the Crown Court, subject to allocation according to the seriousness and other legal criteria.

Allocation procedure is critical in striking the right balance between efficient justice and the rights of the accused. Factors such as potential sentence, the complexity of facts and law, and the presence of vulnerable witnesses, all bear on this assessment, alongside public interest and case management considerations.

Plea Before Venue

The first procedural step for an adult defendant charged with an either-way offence is the plea before venue (PBV) hearing. At this initial stage, the charge is formally read to the defendant, who is invited to indicate whether they would plead guilty or not guilty if the case proceeded to trial. This indication, while not a formal plea in the Crown Court sense, governs the next steps, including whether an allocation decision is necessary and, if so, how it will be handled.

If the defendant indicates a guilty plea, the magistrates may proceed directly to sentence or, if they assess that their sentencing powers are insufficient for the seriousness of the offence(s), commit the defendant to the Crown Court for sentencing. Before deciding, the court must consider the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the full context including any prior convictions. Where summary trial proceeds, the magistrates’ maximum custodial power for a single either-way offence is generally six months’ imprisonment (and up to 12 months in the aggregate if consecutive sentences are imposed on more than one offence). Where the magistrates consider that the case is “so serious” that greater sentencing powers are required, they may commit for sentence to the Crown Court.

Where a not-guilty plea is indicated, or the defendant declines to indicate a plea, the case moves to the allocation hearing, where jurisdiction and trial venue will be determined.

Key Term: plea before venue
The first-stage hearing at which the defendant is asked to indicate a plea to an either-way offence, determining whether allocation or immediate sentencing will follow.

The procedure of PBV is governed by ss.17A–20 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and is further supplemented by the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR), which require:

• The charge to be read out and explained.
• The defendant to be informed whether the offence can be tried summarily or on indictment.
• The consequences of the plea indication to be explained, including sentencing powers and committal for sentence where applicable.
• On a guilty indication, the court proceeds to sentence or committal for sentence.
• On a not-guilty indication (or no indication), the court commences the allocation hearing.

Notably, the defendant is under no obligation to indicate a plea; remaining silent is treated as a not-guilty indication for the purpose of allocation. Where there are multiple counts, the PBV indication applies to each; in practice, if any count produces a not-guilty indication, an allocation hearing will be required. If more than one either-way offence is charged, the court must keep aggregate sentencing powers in mind (the overall custodial exposure if convicted on multiple counts) when considering summary jurisdiction.

Practical points at PBV:

• A request for a brief “sentence indication” is sometimes made to help a defendant decide whether to plead guilty; any indication should be carefully limited and reflect the relevant sentencing guidelines.
• Credit for an early guilty plea (usually one-third reduction if indicated at the first reasonable opportunity) is a material consideration for defendants when deciding plea at PBV.
• Where the magistrates consider summary trial appropriate but later find their powers insufficient after conviction, they can commit for sentence; defendants must be told this at PBV to ensure an informed indication.

Worked Example 1.1

A defendant is charged with burglary (an either-way offence). The legal adviser reads out the charge and asks for a plea. The defendant replies, "Not guilty." What are the immediate next steps?

Answer:
The magistrates’ court must conduct an allocation hearing to determine whether the matter is suitable for summary trial or should be allocated to the Crown Court for trial.

Allocation Hearing (ss.19–20 MCA 1980)

The allocation hearing forms the central decision-making stage in the allocation process. The statutory structure requires the magistrates, having heard the indication of plea (or none), to assess the venue for trial based on specified legal factors. The hearing must be conducted in open court, and the procedure is governed not only by ss.19–20 MCA 1980 but also by CrimPR (Part 9) and the Sentencing Council’s Allocation Guideline.

During the allocation hearing:

• The prosecution sets out the facts of the case (including any aggravating features) and the defendant’s antecedents (previous convictions, relevant cautions).
• Both prosecution and defence are given the opportunity to make representations on the suitability of summary trial versus indictment.
• The court must specifically consider:
  • The nature, facts, and factual circumstances of the offence(s).
  • Representations from both the prosecution and defence.
  • Any prior convictions that affect seriousness or sentencing (including pattern, recency, and similarity).
  • The adequacy of magistrates’ sentencing powers, considering the maximum custodial sentence in the magistrates’ court for summary conviction of an either-way offence (generally six months for a single offence, or up to 12 months in the aggregate if consecutive sentences are imposed).
  • The relevant Sentencing Council Allocation Guideline and the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines.
  • Case complexity, including legal or factual issues likely to arise (such as points of law, involvement of expert evidence, vulnerability or number of witnesses).
  • Any connected offences or co-defendants, to ensure proper case management and avoid inconsistent outcomes.
  • Whether the case raises issues of significant public interest or sensitivity.

The Allocation Guideline provides a presumptive approach: unless the outcome is likely to exceed the magistrates’ sentencing powers or the case raises issues of special difficulty (including highly complex factual disputes, technical evidence, or major public interest), summary trial should be favoured. The court is reminded that neither the defence nor the prosecution may rely on perceived procedural advantages or party convenience as a basis to influence allocation; the focus must remain on legal and sentencing considerations.

Where multiple either-way offences are charged, magistrates must consider their aggregate sentencing powers as well as the combined seriousness, since the combination may, in sum, place the case beyond the appropriate summary jurisdiction even if each offence alone would not. For example, a sequence of thefts with aggravating features (targeting vulnerable victims, abuse of trust, or offences committed on bail) can move a case beyond summary appropriation.

When considering allocation, the court must also keep in mind the overriding objective of CrimPR: dealing with cases justly, including fairness to prosecution and defence, efficient case management, and expeditious resolution while recognising the gravity of the offence, the complexity of what is in issue, and the severity of consequences for the defendant.

If the magistrates decline jurisdiction—concluding, for example, that their sentencing powers would be inadequate or the case is too serious or complex—the defendant must be sent to the Crown Court for trial under s.51(1) Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In such a case, the defendant has no right to insist on summary trial.

If, on the other hand, the magistrates accept jurisdiction, the defendant must then be offered a clear and informed choice: to consent to summary trial or to elect Crown Court trial.

Key Term: allocation hearing
The formal stage at which magistrates determine whether an either-way offence is to be tried summarily or on indictment, guided by statutorily prescribed factors and Sentencing Council guideline.

Decision-making prompts for magistrates at allocation:

• Are the likely facts and culpability consistent with a sentence within summary powers? If yes, presume summary.
• Does the case involve unusual legal complexity (e.g., technical legal argument on admissibility, expert causation evidence) that points to Crown Court trial?
• Are vulnerable or very young witnesses likely to require special measures that are more conveniently available in the Crown Court? The magistrates’ court can still accommodate special measures, but the judge-led environment of the Crown Court may be preferable for very complex special-measures management.
• Are there co-defendants, some of whom must be tried on indictment (e.g., indicted-only offences)? If so, consider the s.50A CDA 1998 “related offences” and “related offenders” sending powers.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant faces two counts of theft (either-way offences), both involving modest sums, but has a prior conviction for theft within the last year. The magistrates are considering jurisdiction.

Answer:
The magistrates must consider the seriousness of both offences together (the aggregate), the prior conviction, and consult the Sentencing Guidelines. If, after considering these factors, they judge their powers sufficient, they may accept jurisdiction; if not, the case must be allocated to the Crown Court.

Defendant's Election

If summary jurisdiction is accepted by the magistrates, it is the defendant who decides whether their trial will remain in the magistrates’ court or proceed to the Crown Court. At this stage, the court must:

• Inform the defendant of their right to elect trial on indictment.
• Explain the implications of each route, including the right to jury trial, potential sentencing outcomes, speed and formality of summary trial, and the risk that even on conviction after summary trial, they could still be committed to the Crown Court for sentence if the magistrates later find their powers inadequate.
• Clarify appeal routes (appeal to the Crown Court by way of rehearing if convicted and sentenced in the magistrates’ court, versus appeal with leave to the Court of Appeal if convicted on indictment).

A key point is that the opportunity to elect Crown Court trial exists only if the magistrates first accept jurisdiction. If they decline jurisdiction (determining that the case is not suitable for summary trial), the defendant has no right to insist on a summary trial; the case must be sent to the Crown Court.

For co-defendants, the position is consistent: if any one co-defendant elects jury trial or is allocated to Crown Court, all co-defendants are sent for trial together to avoid severance that could lead to inconsistent verdicts or duplication of evidence.

Key Term: defendant's election
The right—when magistrates accept summary jurisdiction—for the defendant to opt for trial by jury in the Crown Court instead of summary trial.

Practical advice to clients deciding election:

• Consider whether any complex legal issues (admissibility, bad character, expert disputes) are better ventilated before a jury with a judge ruling on law.
• Balance overall exposure to sentence: the Crown Court has higher powers and greater sentencing maxima.
• Consider delay and public attention: Crown Court trials usually take longer, and publicity may be greater.
• Reflect on the guideline sentence: if conviction is likely and a summary conviction would fall within six months, summary trial may be strategically advantageous.

Worked Example 1.3

A defendant charged with handling stolen goods (an either-way offence) is told by magistrates that they are prepared to deal with the case summarily. The defendant wishes to be tried in the Crown Court. What occurs?

Answer:
The case is sent to the Crown Court for trial on indictment, as the defendant has the right to elect trial by jury.

Low-Value Shoplifting – s.22A MCA 1980

A special summary procedure applies to low-value shoplifting—where the value of goods stolen does not exceed £200. Section 22A MCA 1980 stipulates that such offences are triable only summarily. However, notable features remain:

• If the defendant pleads guilty, the magistrates must deal with the case summarily; there is no power to commit to the Crown Court for sentence, even if aggravating features are present or the defendant has previous convictions.
• If the defendant pleads not guilty, they may still elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. This preserves the right to Crown Court trial even for the lowest-value thefts.
• The procedure for low-value shoplifting applies only where the theft is from a shop or similar premises and involves goods for sale with a value of £200 or under. It does not apply to thefts of property not offered for sale, to higher-value items, or to non-shop theft.

Advisory points:

• Credit for guilty plea applies in the usual way; where evidence is strong and sentence on guilt would remain at the lower end of guideline ranges, guilty indication at PBV may secure the highest credit.
• Despite no committal for sentence power, serious repeat offending will still be reflected in guideline movement within the summary range. Ancillary orders (compensation, costs, surcharge) also apply.

Key Term: low-value shoplifting
Shop theft of £200 or below, subject to mandatory summary-only venue under s.22A MCA 1980, except the defendant maintains a right to elect trial by jury in the Crown Court if a not-guilty plea is entered.

Key Term: summary-only offence
An offence triable exclusively in the magistrates’ court and not subject to trial on indictment in the Crown Court.

Worked Example 1.4

A defendant is charged with shoplifting £180 of groceries. She pleads guilty and has a previous record of similar offences. The prosecution propose committal to the Crown Court for sentence.

Answer:
The magistrates have no power to commit for sentence; for low-value shoplifting, when a guilty plea is entered, the magistrates must sentence and are not permitted to commit to Crown Court, regardless of record.

Special Cases and Related Offences

There are various important procedural exceptions and complexities that affect allocation:

• Co-defendants: If two or more defendants are jointly charged and any co-defendant elects jury trial or is allocated for Crown Court, all must be sent together for trial in the Crown Court regardless of the others’ wishes. This prevents fragmented trials and inconsistent verdicts.

• Multiple or Related Offences: Where a defendant is charged with an indictable-only offence and related either-way or summary offences, the court may, under s.50A Crime and Disorder Act 1998, send all connected offences for trial without a separate allocation hearing. The test is whether the related offences arise out of the same facts or are so closely connected that joinder on the same indictment would be permitted. Similarly, where an indicted-only co-defendant appears with an either-way co-defendant on the same occasion, both may be sent.

• Direct Sending for Serious or Complex Cases: In cases of serious or complex fraud (s.51B CDA 1998), or where cases involve child witnesses whose protection could be compromised (s.51C CDA 1998), the prosecutor may certify that the evidence is sufficient and, in the public interest, require the case to be sent to the Crown Court for trial without allocation. These certification powers are reserved to designated authorities (e.g., the DPP, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office) and reflect the pragmatic need for judge-led case management at an early stage.

• Repeat Burglary and Statutory Restrictions: Certain repeat domestic burglary scenarios (e.g., where statutory provisions or guidelines deem the case likely to exceed summary powers) will steer allocation towards the Crown Court, although the offence remains either-way; the mode of trial decision must reflect guideline seriousness.

Exam Warning

If the magistrates decline jurisdiction, the defendant cannot insist on summary trial. The case must proceed to the Crown Court. Always check for special statutes that may govern the specific offence or sending (e.g., s.50A CDA 1998, s.51B/51C CDA 1998, s.22A MCA 1980).

Revision Tip

When analysing allocation procedure and making recommendations, closely consider:

• The anticipated sentence as indicated by the Sentencing Guidelines.
• The complexity of the case and whether adequate management is possible in a summary hearing.
• The presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
• Procedural or substantive differences with respect to co-defendants or multiple charges.
• Magistrates’ sentencing powers in aggregate for multiple offences.
• The practical influence of witness vulnerability and special measures management.

Worked Example 1.5

Two defendants, Alice and Ben, are jointly charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (an either-way offence). Magistrates accept jurisdiction for summary trial. Alice elects jury trial; Ben wishes a summary trial.

Answer:
As one co-defendant has elected jury trial, both are sent to the Crown Court for trial together.

Consequences of Venue and Appeal

The choice of venue for trial is not only procedural, but has significant impacts on the overall handling of the case, sentencing, and subsequent avenues of appeal:

• Sentencing Powers: The magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers for either-way offences are typically capped at six months’ imprisonment for a single offence (with up to 12 months in the aggregate if consecutive sentences are imposed). By contrast, the Crown Court may impose the statutory maximum for the offence (for example, theft up to seven years), subject to guideline ranges and totality.

• Disclosure and Case Management: Crown Court proceedings generally involve more comprehensive prosecution disclosure obligations and structured case management (PTPH, bespoke directions). Complex admissibility arguments (hearsay, bad character, confessions) are also commonly dealt with more extensively in the Crown Court.

• Speed and Publicity: Summary trial is generally faster, less formal, and attracts less publicity, which may weigh for or against summary trial depending on the defendant’s situation.

• Appeal Routes: Appeals from conviction or sentence in the magistrates’ court are brought to the Crown Court and are heard afresh (de novo). If convicted on indictment, appeals to the Court of Appeal require leave; those appeals focus on questions of law, unsafe conviction, or sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Professional Conduct: If a client admits guilt but seeks to plead not guilty for tactical reasons, the solicitor must respect ethical limits: cross-examining prosecution witnesses, testing identification, or making a submission of no case to answer remains permissible, but advancing a positive (false) defence or knowingly misleading the court is prohibited and would require withdrawal from acting further for the client. Confidential admissions cannot be used to mislead the court; if the client instructs the solicitor to put forward a case the solicitor knows to be untrue, the solicitor must decline to do so.

• Practical Case Management: Early assessment of trial venue is essential for defence representatives. Factors such as the strength of evidence, likelihood of an early guilty plea (which attracts higher sentence reduction), funding (legal aid eligibility and contributions), and the personal circumstances of the defendant (such as previous convictions, youth, vulnerability, mental health, or community ties) all inform advice on allocation.

Worked Example 1.6

A defendant has previous convictions for burglary and is now charged with a further domestic burglary (either-way). The magistrates consider their sentencing powers.

Answer:
The magistrates must evaluate guideline seriousness and aggregate powers. If they conclude that their powers would be inadequate—e.g., the case is likely to require a sentence exceeding the six-month single-count ceiling—they must decline jurisdiction and send the case to the Crown Court for trial.

Case Complexity, Vulnerable Defendants, and Allocation

Certain cases, by their very nature, are likely to be unsuitable for summary trial despite fitting other criteria. These include:

• Cases involving substantial points of law, complex expert evidence, or allegations across multiple jurisdictions.
• Cases where the anticipated trial would be lengthy, involve a disproportionately high number of witnesses, or raise major public interest considerations.
• Cases involving vulnerable or young witnesses, or where the defendant is under 18 (for youths, see dedicated rules determining when and how the matter may be referred to Crown Court, especially in grave crimes or joint adult/youth scenarios).
• Where there is risk of prejudice to the welfare of a child witness or co-defendant, or the conduct of the trial in the magistrates’ court would be especially problematic.

Procedural fairness, efficient management, and the rights of the defendant and witnesses are all factors which, by operation of statute and CrimPR, must be weighed. Appropriate special measures (e.g., screens, live link, intermediaries) are available in both courts, but the Crown Court may be preferred where multiple complex measures require the coordination of a resident judge and specialist listing, particularly in cases involving child witnesses or vulnerable complainants.

Worked Example 1.7

A defendant, aged 19, is jointly charged with a 17-year-old. The 19-year-old is charged with theft and the 17-year-old with handling stolen goods. Both appear in the magistrates’ court.

Answer:
As the adult is charged with an either-way offence and is over 18, normal allocation applies; the youth is subject to youth court procedure. Depending on whether the charges are factually related and how the court determines the interests of justice, both could be sent together to the Crown Court if joint trial is required, or the adult’s venue could determine the youth's venue if the interests of justice test for joint trial is met; otherwise the youth will usually be remitted to the youth court.

Practical Considerations for Defence

When advising on plea and venue, solicitors must carry out a detailed analysis, balancing the legal factors against the likelihood of successful defence, the anticipated procedural journey, and the potential practical and personal impacts of venue choice. Key practical considerations include:

• Sentencing maxima and powers: The Crown Court can impose higher sentences; the magistrates’ court has lower maxima but may still commit for sentence post-conviction where powers are inadequate.

• Risks and benefits of jury trial versus summary trial: Juries may be more receptive on certain issues (e.g., identification disputes), but the Crown Court also brings increased sentencing exposure and delay.

• Credit for early guilty plea: The earlier the plea is indicated, the greater the credit; in practice, this often means highest credit at PBV for either-way offences.

• Legal aid: Means testing is generally stricter in the magistrates’ court, with less scope for contributions in Crown Court trials. Representation orders must be sought early.

• Publicity and stress: Crown Court trials are lengthier and can attract more media attention; the magistrates’ court is less formal, often quicker.

• Evidential challenges: Consider admissibility applications, bad character, hearsay, or confession challenges; Crown Court may be preferable if complex evidential rulings are anticipated.

• Witness management: The logistics of special measures (especially for children and vulnerable adults) may point to the Crown Court where a bespoke ground-rules hearing and judge-led management is useful.

• Totality and multiple counts: Where multiple allegations are charged, counsel the client on totality principles and cumulative sentencing risk.

Worked Example 1.8

A defendant faces three either-way counts of fraud by false representation. The prosecutor indicates complex digital evidence and multiple expert reports. The magistrates consider jurisdiction.

Answer:
Complexity (expert digital evidence, multiple expert witnesses) may well push the case beyond summary trial suitability. Even if individual counts could be within summary powers, the aggregate complexity and sentencing exposure likely require Crown Court trial; magistrates should decline jurisdiction.

Worked Example 1.9

A defendant charged with ABH (either-way) has no prior convictions. The injury is a single bruise and short-lived swelling. The magistrates accept jurisdiction.

Answer:
Summary trial is appropriate. The defendant may choose either summary trial or elect Crown Court trial. Given guideline harm and no prior convictions, summary trial is generally advantageous (lower powers, less delay), unless there are strategic reasons to elect jury trial (e.g., disputed identity or complex evidential rulings).

Youth Defendants and Venue

While this article focuses on adult defendants, allocation intersects with youth procedure when youths appear with adults or when grave crimes are alleged:

• General rule: Youths (under 18) are tried in the youth court.

• Grave crimes: Youths may be sent to the Crown Court for grave crimes where there is a real prospect of a sentence exceeding two years’ detention (for example, robbery, s.18 GBH with intent, aggravated arson), or where dangerousness criteria point to extended sentences beyond youth court powers.

• Joint adult/youth charges: The general approach is to keep cases separate to avoid exposing youths to the Crown Court unless the interests of justice strongly support joint trial. Where the adult is sent on indictment and the factual matrix is inextricably linked, the youth may be sent with the adult to the Crown Court; otherwise, remit the youth to the youth court.

• Sentencing in youth cases: Youth sentencing (referral orders, Youth Rehabilitation Orders, DTOs) is distinct from adult sentencing. Even where a youth is found guilty in the adult magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court, remittal or youth-specific sentences apply.

Advisers must be familiar with the Sentencing Children and Young People Definitive Guideline and the statutory framework governing youth allocation and sending (including dangerousness and grave crime provisions).

Professional Ethics at Allocation

Ethical obligations run throughout PBV and allocation:

• Client admissions vs. plea: A client may privately admit guilt yet wish to plead not guilty; a defence solicitor cannot advance a positive case they know to be untrue but can test the prosecution, put them to proof, and rely on evidential deficiencies.

• Confidentiality: Private admissions are confidential, but the defence must not mislead the court; if the client’s intended trial narrative would mislead, the solicitor must not put that narrative forward and may need to withdraw.

• Judicial assistance: Legal advisers assist the bench with law and guideline references but must keep within their advisory role; submissions must be properly arguable and not designed to “game” venue.

• Case management cooperation: Under CrimPR, parties must assist the court in active case management (e.g., identifying the real issues early). Defence counsel should engage constructively without compromising client interests or privilege.

• Mitigation and indication requests: Requests for sentence indication must be carefully handled to avoid unfairness or pressure on pleas. Any indication must be limited and in accordance with guideline ranges.

Worked Example 1.10

A client admits guilt to their solicitor in conference but wants to enter a not-guilty plea and asks the solicitor to assert an alibi the solicitor knows to be false.

Answer:
The solicitor must not mislead the court or advance a false case. They can put the prosecution to proof, challenge the reliability of identification, or argue legal points, but cannot assert a false alibi. If the client insists, the solicitor must explain the ethical limit and may have to withdraw from the case.

Managing Multi-Count and Co-Defendant Cases

In multi-count or multi-defendant cases, the allocation decision frequently turns on aggregate seriousness and complexity:

• Aggregate sentence risk: Consider the overall custodial exposure if convicted on multiple counts; if likely to exceed summary powers, decline jurisdiction.

• Joinder and severance: Where counts are related and joinder is appropriate (same facts or series of facts), hearing them together avoids duplication and inconsistent verdicts.

• Related offenders: If a co-defendant is sent on indictment, consider s.50A CDA to send related offenders without allocation.

• Linked summary offences: Where indicted-only offences are charged, related summary offences can be sent to the Crown Court without allocation if they arise out of the same or connected circumstances and are punishable with imprisonment.

Worked Example 1.11

Three defendants are charged: D1 with robbery (indictable-only), D2 with ABH (either-way) arising from the same facts, D3 with common assault (summary-only) during the incident. All appear together.

Answer:
D1 must be sent to the Crown Court. Under s.50A CDA 1998, D2’s either-way offence and D3’s related summary-only assault (punishable by imprisonment) can be sent to the Crown Court without allocation because they arise out of the same facts and can be joined on the indictment or dealt with as related matters.

Using the Allocation Guideline

The Sentencing Council’s Allocation Guideline, read alongside offence-specific guidelines, directs magistrates to:

• Keep cases to be tried summarily unless the outcome is likely to exceed summary powers or special complexity warrants Crown Court trial.
• Approach seriousness by assessing harm and culpability for the offence charged.
• Consider defendant antecedents (relevant previous convictions, recent offending).
• Evaluate aggravating features (e.g., offence on bail, abuse of trust, targeting vulnerability).
• Reflect mitigating features (e.g., good character, remorse).

Examples of when Crown Court trial is often appropriate:

• Serious assaults with sustained attacks or weapons, or where guideline starting points exceed summary maxima.
• Repeated dishonesty offences demonstrating significant culpability and harm (e.g., high-value fraud).
• Cases involving complex expert evidence, multi-jurisdictional elements, or elaborate conspiracies.

Examples favouring summary trial:

• Lower harm and culpability, single incident with minor injury or low value.
• First-time offending with strong mitigation.
• Simple facts and law, no expert evidence.

Worked Example 1.12

A defendant is charged with aggravated criminal damage (either-way), causing a wall to collapse with risk to life. The magistrates consider guideline seriousness and powers.

Answer:
Aggravated criminal damage (endangering life) is generally unsuitable for summary trial due to seriousness; likely sentence exceeds summary powers. The magistrates should decline jurisdiction and send the case to the Crown Court.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• PBV and allocation are essential stages for any adult charged with an either-way offence; the process is open court, structured by statute and CrimPR, with advice tailored to guideline sentence and powers.
• Magistrates must evaluate facts and antecedents, guideline seriousness (harm/culpability), adequacy of summary powers, and complexity, applying the Allocation Guideline and CrimPR’s overriding objective.
• The default is summary trial unless likely sentence exceeds summary powers or special difficulty/complexity warrants Crown Court trial.
• On accepting jurisdiction, defendants are offered a clear right to elect jury trial; defendants must be told of implications, including possible committal for sentence post-conviction.
• If jurisdiction is declined, the case goes to the Crown Court and the defendant cannot insist on summary trial.
• Low-value shoplifting under s.22A is summary-only on a guilty plea, with no committal for sentence; a not-guilty plea preserves the right to elect Crown Court trial.
• s.50A CDA 1998 enables direct sending without allocation for related offences/offenders; serious fraud (s.51B) and child-witness cases (s.51C) can be sent without allocation.
• Venue affects sentencing powers, appeal routes, case management, and publicity. Defence ethics require non-misleading advocacy; private admissions cannot underpin false cases.
• Multi-count/co-defendant cases require aggregate seriousness assessment and careful joinder/severance decisions; co-defendant election or indictable-only charges often require a single venue.
• Youth allocation differs; grave crimes and dangerousness may send youths to Crown Court, whereas most youth matters remain in youth courts, especially when unrelated to adult proceedings.

Key Terms and Concepts

• either-way offence
• plea before venue
• allocation hearing
• defendant's election
• low-value shoplifting
• summary-only offence