In Brooker v R. [2024] EWCA Crim 103, February 13, 2024, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales made the following comments concerning the importance of compliance with the court’s rules and a judge’s orders (at paragraphs 120 to 122):
We cannot leave this case however without making some observations arising from the procedural defaults with which it was replete, and the number of hearings these and other issues engendered. In this relatively straightforward criminal case, listed for four days, there were numerous pre-trial hearings of one sort or another and a catalogue of failures on the part of both parties to comply with court orders and/or to ensure that the timetable for case preparation was adhered to. This lamentably lackadaisical approach did not merely have serious implications for the progress of this particular case; it will have had an impact on the ability of the court to deal with other cases and was a waste of precious court resources.
The Criminal Procedure Rules were introduced in 2005 as a result of a recommendation of Lord Justice Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. As the rules state in terms, each participant in the conduct of the case must prepare and conduct the case in accordance with the overriding objective; they must comply with the rules, practice directions and directions made by the court; and they must inform the court and all parties at once of any significant failure (whether or not that participant is responsible for that failure) to take any procedural step required by the Rules, any practice direction or any direction of the court: see Crim. PR 1.2. It should not be necessary to state that the objectives Lord Auld identified of fairness, efficiency and effectiveness are more critical than ever to the working of the criminal justice system given the significant pressure under which it is now operating; or that the achievement of those objectives requires close attention and adherence to the rules.
Although the particular circumstances of this case are unusual, the history we have set out above reveals some concerns of general and current importance. The current outstanding workload of the Crown Court is very high because of various events which have happened over the past few years. The level of receipts into the Crown Court is presently rising. This situation requires that cases are managed as efficiently as possible so as to use the limited resources of the system to the best possible effect. For this reason, the Crown Court Improvement Group was established by the former Lord Chief Justice and has met monthly over the last 2½ years to attempt to improve the functioning of this jurisdiction. All major executive agencies which contribute to the running of the Crown Court are represented on it. It is chaired by a judge. The efforts which have been made by all involved to run the Crown Court effectively require participants, including counsel, to assist in that end. Wasted hearings and trials which do not proceed when they should are to be avoided as far as possible. In this case the PTPH was on 7 January 2021. There were then 5 further hearings before the trial. One of these, on 2 March 2022, involved the case being listed for trial but not proceeding. When the trial did eventually start, the whole of the first day was taken up by legal argument about Mr Martin-Sperry’s approach to the evidence of Ms Brooker. This was the reason for all the delay, and this was compounded by a repeated failure, by both parties, to comply with the directions of the court.
