The court discussed the need to take notes of meetings in chambers between the judge and counsel. The court set out four principles to be applied: ‘1. There should be freedom of access for counsel to judges, but that does not mean freedom to discuss matters which can perfectly well be discussed in open court. The basic principle is that access to the judge is to enable matters to be discussed which cannot be referred to in court without creating some difficulty.
2. Inquiries about possible sentences should not be entertained by judges unless they are genuinely necessary to permit counsel to advise their clients on their course of action, e.g. if considering pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
3. Where they think it proper to give an indication of the type of sentence which they propose to impose, judges should be cautious about how specific they are. It is rarely advisable to do more than state whether the sentence will take a particular form, whatever the plea, or indicate in general terms how seriously the court views the case.
4. A full and where possible verbatim note should be made of all discussions in chambers, preferably by a shorthand writer. Where this is not practicable, the judge should take a full note or ask counsel to take a note and furnish it for agreement.’
Judges:
Carswell LJ
Citations:
[2001] NI 366
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v McNeill CANI 1993
It is a basic principle that justice must be done in public, for all to see and hear, and all communications between counsel and judge should wherever possible be made in open court. . .
Cited – Regina v Turner CACD 1970
The court considered an appeal where the defendant had entered a plea of guilty but had felt himself under undue pressure from the judge.
Held: The court urged caution in the practice of counsel seeing the judge in his chambers, though . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (Number 8 of 2004) (Dawson and Others) CANI 15-Apr-2005
Defendants had been convicted of offences involving supply of cannabis and cocaine, including the evasion of import controls and conspiracy. The sentences were appealed as too lenient.
Held: Where a prosecutor was aware that a plea of guilty . .
Cited – Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005) CANI 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided. . .
Cited – Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005) CANI 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.224214
