DOI :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.01   IUP :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.01    Full Text (PDF)

Pre-trial Procedure of England and Wales

Edward JohnstonDan Jasinski

This chapter analyses the core functions of the adversarial pre-trial process of England and Wales. The chapter takes a chronological approach to the how the operation of the process. Here we examine the role of the custody officer, the regulation of the investigative stage, the right to pre-trial disclosure and the rules surrounding the charging decision. Our chapter argues that, whilst the due process protections afforded within each stage appear rigorous, the reality is something very different, as there are many inhibiting factors that prevent the due process protections working as enshrined in law. The authors call to dispense with these inhibiting factors, in order to allow the due process protections to work as intended, thereby re-emphasising the suspects’ rights in the pre-trial process, putting the right to a fair trial at the heart of English criminal procedure. 


  • Literature google scholar
  • Ed Johnston ‘Howzat?!’ (2017) 181 JPN 828 google scholar
  • Ed Johnston and Tom Smith, Criminal Procedure and Punishment (Hall and Stott Publishing 2018) google scholar
  • Vicky Kemp ‘Digital legal rights: exploring detainees’ understanding of the right to a lawyer and potential barriers to accessing legal advice’ [2020] 2 Crim Law Rev 129 google scholar
  • Peter N. Mirfield ‘Two side-effects of sections 34 to 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994’ [1995] Aug Crim L Rev 612–614 google scholar
  • David Ormerod, David Perry and Peter Murphy (eds), Blackstones Criminal Practice, (30th Edn, OUP, 2019) google scholar
  • Hannah Quirk, The rise and fall of the right of silence (Routledge 2017). google scholar
  • Gregory W. O’Reilly ‘England limits the right to silence and moves towards an inquisitorial system of justice’(1994) 85(2) J Crim L & Criminology 402 google scholar
  • Legislation and Guidance google scholar
  • Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2013 google scholar
  • Courts Act 1971 google scholar
  • Crown Prosecution Service, Charging (The Director’s Guidance) 2103 – fifth edition, May 2013 (revised arrangements) google scholar
  • Crown Prosecution Service, Code for Crown Prosecutors google scholar
  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 google scholar
  • Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 google scholar
  • Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 google scholar
  • Justice Committee, Disclosure of Evidence in Criminal Cases, (HC 2017-19, 859)Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 google scholar
  • Police and Crime Act 2017 google scholar
  • Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice C google scholar
  • Cases google scholar
  • Al-Fayed v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis (No 3) EWCA Civ 1579 google scholar
  • Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988] NLJR 180 google scholar
  • Dallison v Caffery [1964] All ER 610 CA google scholar
  • Dawes v DPP [1995] 1 Cr App R 65 google scholar
  • Lord Hanningfield v Chief Constable of Essex [2013- EWHC 243 (QB) google scholar
  • Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29 google scholar
  • R v Bryant and Dickson [1946] 31 Cr App R 146 google scholar
  • R v Richardson [2011] 2 Cr. App. R. 1 62 google scholar
  • R v Rochford [2010] EWCA Crim 1928. google scholar
  • Saunders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 313 google scholar
  • Spicer v Holt [1977] AC 987 google scholar
  • Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897 google scholar
  • Wood v DPP [2008] EWHC 1056 (Admin) google scholar


Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.