NOTE TO PROSECUTING ADVOCATES

For this exercise, and to assist your preparation, you are being provided with Defendant’s documents. They do not form part of your case papers, and may not be used to put to the witnesses in cross-examination. 

REX

-v- 

JOHN JONES

BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT

Counsel will see below for their instructions.

In addition, those instructing have included the link to the Digital Case System (DCS) file, where Counsel will find the cases papers, including the Indictment, Prosecution Witness Statements & Exhibits, Bad Character Application, Defendant's Antecedents, and Defence witness statements.

The link is here: R v JONES DCS

Counsel should note that only the Green coloured links in the side bar work.

INSTRUCTIONS

1.        Counsel is instructed on behalf of the defendant, John Jones, who is due to face trial in Bristol Crown Court in the second week of November. Mr Jones pleaded guilty to the count of common assault at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing before H.H.J Simmonds on 9th October. Accordingly the trial will be in respect of the ABH count alone.

2.    Those Instructing went through the papers with the client after the PTPH. We went through the interview in some detail. The client confirms that the interview is complete and accurate in every respect and that it sets out his case. Accordingly those instructing are of the view that to take a proof of evidence from Mr Jones is not an appropriate use of public funds (which are meagre enough anyway), so we would invite Counsel to refer to Mr Jones's interview for the evidence he will (hopefully!) give at trial.

3.    Counsel will also be advised that there is no Defence Case Statement because the client's defence remains unchanged from his interview.

4.    Counsel will also find enclosed, along with the prosecution papers, the statements from the client's two witnesses. Firstly Mrs Bradey, who is an old lady, who saw some of what happened, and secondly the client's girlfriend Minty, who has proved somewhat difficult to get a statement from.

5.    Mr Hack who held this matter on our behalf at the PTPH agreed the statements of the doctor, the OIC and the photographer.

6.    One matter that the client did draw to our attention at the PTPH was that, when spoken to by PC Ackland at the scene, he never said 'I should not have hit him' but in fact said 'I should not have hit him back'. Those instructing have listened to the tape of interview, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of this.

7.    Finally, HHJ Simmonds was a little unhappy with the extent of the Bad Character Application. He rather implied that it was a trifle on the vague side. He has directed that both Prosecution and Defence trial advocates file skeleton arguments setting out their respective cases in respect of the Bad Character Application which is to be argued at the start of the trial. Counsel will find the law in Archbold and the relevant facts for this case in the Antecedent history and Precon resume, both of which are in the brief.

8.        We were provided with the antecedents and resume at court and have taken instructions. It was indicated to HHJ Simmonds by Mr Hack that we would not be saying that we require further proof of the bad character material by way of memorandum of convictions or witness statements [as Mr Jones has confirmed the antecedents and summary as accurate].

9.    We would be most grateful if Counsel's best endeavours could be employed, along with Counsel's usual skill, in drafting and arguing the Bad Character Application and representing Mr Jones in the forthcoming trial.

10.    Unfortunately, there will be no one from the office to assist prior to the trial, as Counsel's instructing solicitor will be away on vacation. We have every confidence that Counsel will be able to deal with any issues that arise.

David Philips