In the last episode of Series 1 of the Defence Barrister Podcast, the jury delivers its verdicts in the murder trial of R v Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams. A Not Guilty verdict will lead to freedom, a Guilty verdict will lead to a sentence of life imprisonment, the mandatory sentence for murder. Of course, the nature of jury trials in England & Wales is that we never get to hear exactly what happens inside the jury room, except - rarely - when something goes wrong or things get out of hand, and one juror reports another which prompts an investigation, and in this episode we look at some examples of what can go wrong in the jury room, and how jurors can sometimes do precisely what the judge has told them not to do, as well as - more generally - why the system of jury trial is still held by many in high regard. We also look at what happens when a jury cannot agree on a verdict. When can a jury return a majority verdict, does a Guilty verdict by a majority carry less weight than a jury’s unanimous verdict of guilt, and what happens when there is a hung jury, meaning that they are split and unable to reach a decision? And yes, there will be a Series 2 of the Defence Barrister Podcast which you’ll hear all about at the end of this episode, but save the date for Wednesday 31st July when the next episode will be available wherever you listen to your podcasts. I hope you enjoy this episode and I look forward to you joining me again for Series 2. As ever, thank you for listening. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. Majority Verdict - S.17 Juries Act 1974 - Majority Verdicts https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/17 Criminal Procedure Rule 25.14(5)(c) - Majority Verdict Procedure https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made Watson Direction - Watson [1988] QB 690, 87 Cr.App.R. 1 CA (not publicly available) - A ‘Watson Direction’ is a ‘give and take’ direction intended to help jurors reach a verdict. The Watson Direction is contained in the Crown Court Compendium, Part 1 at paragraph 21-8 https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/ Juror Responsibilities - ‘Your Legal Responsibilities as a Juror’ - the Notice given to all jurors before a trial commences https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fbe9ee0e90e077ed7351b0a/j001-eng.pdf Jury Irregularity - R v Connor and another; R v Mirza (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] UKHL 2 - evidence of jury irregularities https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040122/conn-1.htm Criminal Practice Direction 8.7 - Procedure to be adopted to investigate a jury irregularity https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1-3.pdf Solicitor-General v Stoddart [2017] EWHC 1361 - Juror in contempt of court for online research https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1361.html Attorney-General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin) - Juror in contempt of court for online research https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/156.html R v Young (Stephen) [1995] QB 324 - Jury consulting ouija board for information - case not publicly available but referred to in Kent Live here: https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/pembury-double-murders-drunken-jury-6116526 PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

In Episode 13, we hear the final closing speech from Ivy Jewell on behalf of Conor Williams, and then the judge sums-up the case to the jury. As the judge explains, the judge is ‘the judge of the law’ and the jury are ‘the judges of the facts’, their task being to evaluate the evidence and apply the law as they are directed to do. And as we will find out, even to trained lawyers, directions on law can be complicated, so to ease their task jurors are now given written legal directions and a written ‘route to verdict’, a step-by-step roadmap to follow which - depending on their view of the facts - will lead them to a verdict of either guilty or not guilty in each defendant’s case. You can see the written route to verdict in our case in the Podcast Legal Notes below. There are a number of standard judicial directions in every summing-up, as well a number of directions tailored to the specific issues in the case, all aimed at ensuring the jury takes the correct approach to their task and delivers a true verdict according to the evidence. When the summing-up is finished, the jury in the case of R v Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams will retire to consider their verdict, a verdict which we will hear in Episode 14, the last Episode in Series 1 of the Defence Barrister Podcast. As ever, thank you for listening. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Summing Up - Crown Court Compendium, Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/ Criminal Procedure Rule 25.14 - Directions to the jury and taking the verdict https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made Criminal Practice Directions 2023 - 8.5 Jury Directions and Written Material https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf R v N [2019] EWCA Crim 2280 (para 19) - the importance of written directions on complex matters of law https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/2280.html WRITTEN ROUTE TO VERDICT Concerning the defendant Aidan Johnson: Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2, if no, the verdict is Not Guilty. Q2 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure he was not acting in self-defence, go to question 3. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe he was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict is Not Guilty. Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he intended to cause Daniel Clarke really serious harm? If yes, the verdict is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty. Concerning the defendant Conor Williams: Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty. Q2 Are you sure that by his words or actions Conor Williams intentionally encouraged Aidan Johnson to attack Daniel Clarke? If yes, go to question 3. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty. Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure that Aidan Johnson was not acting in self-defence, go to question 4. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe Aidan Johnson was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty. Q4 Are you sure that Conor Williams intended by his words or actions that Aidan Johnson would cause really serious harm to Daniel Clarke? If yes, the verdict for Conor Williams is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

The murder trial of Aidan Johnson & Conor Williams continues. We have now reached the penultimate stage of the trial - closing speeches by the prosecution and the defence - where each advocate will pull together the strands of the evidence and seek to put together a compelling argument with the intention of finally persuading the jury to reach what they say is the correct verdict. As we will discover, at the heart of a closing speech is good advocacy - the power of persuasion, the ability for each side to make a closing argument when each side has precisely the same material to work from. When are the prosecution and defence entitled to make a closing speech? And when making one, does anything go, or are there restrictions on what an advocate can say? Listen on to find out. As you listen to the closing speeches in this episode, you might want to place yourselves in the position of the jury, and if you have followed this case from the outset, to put to one side everything you know about this case that the jury has not heard, remembering that all the jury know is from the evidence that has been presented to them. How convinced, or otherwise, are you by the closing speeches you hear? Will the prosecution barrister, Keith Lowe, persuade you that either or both the defendants are guilty, and will the defence barrister Gabriella Hadden (for Aiden) persuade you that there is a reasonable doubt in his case, such that you are simply not satisfied so that you are sure of guilt, and your verdict will be Not Guilty. And after this episode, we will be moving ever closer to the final outcome, to Ivy Jewell’s closing speech for Conor Williams, followed by the judge’s summing-up of the facts and his directions on law to the jury, and from there to the stage when the jury retires to consider its verdict. After that, Aidan and Conor can only wait to hear what their ultimate fate will be. As ever, thank you for listening. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Closing speeches - Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(j) - when the prosecution can make a closing speech - and Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(k) - defence are always entitled to make a closing speech https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made Ekaireb [2015] EWCA Crim 1936 - in this case the Court of Appeal was critical of a practice of personal criticism being made of opposing advocates in closing speeches and made clear that such practice would not be tolerated. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/1936.html ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading and further information on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence -https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

The murder trial continues, and we hear the defence cases on behalf of Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams. And now there are just two defendants left in our case, Bianca Jones having been acquitted on the direction of the judge following a successful submission of no case to answer by her barrister Henry Irwin. Having been formally found Not Guilty, it means that Bianca has left the case and moved on to pick up her life, leaving behind Aidan and Conor who are still facing the charge of murdering 23-year-old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley’s nightclub in the early hours one Saturday morning in late January. For Aidan and Conor, the stakes could not be higher. Before long, they will reach the ultimate conclusion of this trial, the jury’s verdict. A Not Guilty verdict will secure their freedom, but a guilty verdict can lead to only one outcome - a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. At the end of Episode 10, Aidan was called to give evidence by his barrister Gabriella Hadden and in this episode we will join them back in court. As we find out, sometimes the end of the prosecution case is the high point for the defence. In this episode we find out why. What are the risks involved for a defendant giving evidence, versus staying silent? Listen to find out more, including what an adverse inference means for defendants who choose to stay nothing, and what cross-examination can mean for defendants who choose to give evidence. If you want to catch up on what’s led us to where we are now, from the scene of the alleged crime in Episode 1 to the close of the prosecution case in Episode 10, please feel free to start from the beginning to discover how this case has developed from the outset, and exactly why we have arrived at where we are now. As ever, thank you for listening. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Adverse Inference from not giving Evidence - s. 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - Effect of accused’s silence at trial https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/35 ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

In Episode 10, we move through the remainder of the prosecution case against our three defendants, Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones & Conor Williams, all of whom are accused of murdering 23 year old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley's Nightclub in the early hours one Saturday morning in late January. The prosecution are still to call the next main prosecution witness, Ethan Green, but - the last we knew - he wasn’t too keen on helping, and the fact that a warrant was issued for his arrest to bring him to court - whether he liked it or not - may not help matters. We’ll see. What does it mean to be competent to be a witness? What does it mean to be compellable? When can a witness refuse to answer questions? And what can happen if a witness simply refuses to play ball? How does the prosecution present agreed evidence? Why is a defendant’s police interview presented as part of the prosecution case? And why is the record of the police interview edited before it is shown to the jury? On top of all that, Ivy Jewell, Conor’s barrister, is wrestling with Conor’s revelation about Bianca, and we’ll find out what approach Ivy now takes in her client’s defence. What is a cut-throat defence and how does it usually play out? And, after the prosecution case, comes the defence case unless, as we’ll see, the barristers for each defendant can do something to bring the case to an early conclusion - which means we’ll go into detail about what’s known as a Submission of No Case to Answer. If you want to catch up on what’s led us to where we are now, from the scene of the alleged crime and the defendants' arrest in Episode 1, to the opening of the prosecution case in Episode 7 and the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first witness in Episodes 8 and 9, then please go back to the beginning and discover how this case has developed from the outset. As ever, thank you for listening. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Competence to give Evidence - s.53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - Competence of witnesses to give evidence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/53 Exceptions to Compellability - s.80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Competence and compellability of accused's spouse or civil partner https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/80/enacted Agreed Facts - s.10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 - Proof by formal admission https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/10 Hearsay - Interests of Justice - s.114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Admissibility of hearsay evidence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/114 Submission of No Case to Answer - Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(e) - Procedure and basic test for a submission of no case to answer https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 1060 - the case which sets out the detailed approach to submissions of no case to answer (not publicly available but helpful summary on Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_case_to_answer R v Craig and Bentley (1952) - Derek Bentley Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

The murder trial continues, with the prosecution witness Finn Hawkins facing cross-examination by barristers Gabriella Hadden (for Aidan Johnson), Henry Irwin (for Bianca Jones) and Ivy Jewell (for Conor Williams). In Episode 8 we looked in detail at the first stage of questioning a witness - examination-in-chief - which is the process of eliciting from a witness their account of what took place. But as we saw, there can often be a difference between what a witness says in their written witness statement, and what they actually say in court. And Finn Hawkins was no exception. In this episode, we move to the next stage of questioning - Cross-Examination. How does cross-examination really work? What are the key purposes of cross-examination, as well as the restrictions imposed in criminal cases? And why, sometimes, is less really more? We also discover the hidden power of the final stage of questioning - Re-Examination - and why both Henry Irwin and Ivy Jewell - on behalf of their clients Bianca and Conor - will have to tiptoe extremely carefully. And, as often arises in criminal cases, there is a surprise in store, a revelation which goes to the heart of the case against our three defendants, and the murder charge which they all face. As the case proceeds, we’ll find out that criminal cases can be far from a search for the truth. Thank you for listening. I very much hope that you enjoy this episode. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Cross-Examination - Part 2 C1 - rule C7 in the Bar Code of Conduct (Barristers - Not abusing your role as an advocate) https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/the-bsb-handbook.html?part=E3FF76D3-9538-4B97-94C02111664E5709&audience=&csrfToken=&q= s.41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - restrictions on asking complainant’s in cases involving allegations of a sexual nature questions about their sexual history except with the leave (permission) of the court https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/41 See also s.41 information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-11-sexual-history-complainants-section-41-yjcea s.34 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - prohibition on defendants in person cross-examining complaints in sexual cases https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/34 s.35 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - prohibition on defendants in person cross-examining child complainants and other child witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/35 s.36 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - Power of the court to prohibit in the interests of justice defendants in person cross-examining witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/36 A Life of Crime: The memoirs of a High Court Judge - Sir Harry Ognall. Published by William Collins. (Interesting insight into cross-examination in the Peter Sutcliffe trial). Recommended John Mortimer Books - A Voyage Round My Father (play) (Penguin Classics) Clinging to the Wreckage (Autobiography Part 1) (Penguin) Rumpole of the Bailey series (Penguin) ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

As the trial gets underway, the prosecution calls Finn Hawkins to give evidence, the first witness in the case against our three defendants, Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones & Conor Williams, all of whom are accused of murdering 23 year old Daniel Clarke outside Bradley's Nightclub in the early hours of Saturday morning in late January. In this episode we follow the questioning by the prosecution of Finn Hawkins. And in this episode, we delve into trial advocacy: What exactly is examination-in-chief? What does it really mean not to lead a witness? What does it mean to ‘come up to proof’ and how do you elicit evidence from a forgetful or hostile witness? And, as we’ll find out, prosecution witnesses can say something that might surprise you. Finn Hawkins is no exception, and his new evidence will give the jury - and all the barristers - food for thought. As we move through the trial, we also look at the duties of a prosecution barrister and what it means to be ‘a minister of justice’, as well as the rules on when the defence can make an opening speech in a criminal trial. We know that our three defendants have a barrister and solicitor representing each of them, but who exactly represents each prosecution witness? As ever, thank you for listening. I very much hope that you enjoy this episode. NOTES Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself. You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you. CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Defence Barristers - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Defence Solicitors - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The Deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) LEGAL NOTES Defence Opening Speech - Criminal Procedure Rule 25.9(2)(g) - When the defence can make an opening speech in the Crown Court https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.9/made Prosecution Duties - Farquharson Guidelines: the Role of Prosecuting Advocates https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/farquharson-guidelines-role-prosecuting-advocates Treasury Counsel https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/treasury-counsel Memory Refreshing - s.139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Refreshing the memory of a witness https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/139 Hostile Witnesses - s.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 - Cross-examining your own ‘hostile’ witness during examinination-in-chief https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/28-29/18/section/3 Eye Witnesses - R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 - Turnbull Guidelines on CPS website https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification#:~:text=The%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20in,the%20quality%20of%20the%20identification. ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

The trial begins. Today Aidan, Bianca and Conor face trial in the Crown Court on a single count of murder. After the end of Episode 6, Ethan Green - a vital prosecution witness - is now in a bit of bother himself, which causes more than a few problems for our prosecution barrister - Keith Lowe - in deciding how to proceed. But Ethan Green will soon be facing even greater problems himself. Join our solicitors Georgina Hale (for Aidan), Holly Ibsen (for Bianca) and Ramesh Jayanshankar (for Conor) as they work with our barristers Gabriella, Henry and Ivy to put the finishing touches to the defence cases. What is a Defence Statement? What does it contain and how does it differ from a defendant’s proof of evidence? As the case moves forwards, we discover that a defence is only as good as the information available to support it. And who decides on the defence - the client, the solicitor or the barrister? Does it really matter whether a lawyer believes in their client’s innocence? Find out in this episode. What are custody time limits? How long can a person remanded in custody be held before trial? Can these time limits be extended and what happens if they expire? Join us in court as the jury are sworn in, ready to hear the trial of Aidan, Bianca and Conor. What will the judge say to the jury and what warnings will they receive? Is it possible to object to a juror, or is it just a question of getting what you are given? And today the case starts. Listen as the prosecution barrister - Keith Lowe - opens the prosecution case to the jury, the start of the murder trial against Aidan Johnson, Bianca Jones and Conor Williams. By the end of this episode, you’ll have a good idea of the impact of the case on all of them, and - in truth - this is just the beginning. NOTES Criminal cases backlog - HM Courts & Tribunals Service - backlog of cases November 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-management-information-november-2023 Custody Time Limits - s.22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 - Custody Time Limits https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/section/22/enacted s.43 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (amendments to s.22 above) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/43 Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 299) (these contain the applicable time limits) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/299/contents/made s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (No bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction of such offences) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/25 Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McDonald [1998] EWHC 319 (Admin), Lord Bingham CJ. (The approach to extending Custody Time Limits) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1998/3532.html Representing clients - Bar Code of Conduct - Part 2 Rule C15 - barristers acting in the best interests of their clients https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/the-bsb-handbook.html?part=E3FF76D3-9538-4B97-94C02111664E5709&audience=&csrfToken=&q= Defence Statements - s. 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Contents of a Defence Statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/6A Rule 15.4 Criminal Procedure Rules (Defence Statements) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/15.4/made Defence Statement Form (template) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-statement Defence Witnesses - s.6C of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Notification of Defence Witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/6C (see also rule 15.4 Criminal Procedure Rules above) Defence Witnesses Notice (template) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-witness-notice Adverse Inferences - s.11 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 - Adverse inferences from Defence Statements and Defence Witness Notices https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/section/11 Witness Summons and Arrest - s.2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 - Issue of a Crown Court Witness Summons https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/69/section/2 s.4 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 - Warrant of Arrest for Unwilling Witness https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/69/section/4 Witness Summons form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n20-witness-summons The Jury - Crown Court Compendium Part 1, Chapter 2 (Jury Management); Chapter 3 (Trial Management) https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/ ‘Your Legal Responsibilities as a Juror’ (A Notice given to all Jurors) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fbe9ee0e90e077ed7351b0a/j001-eng.pdf ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

As Aidan, Bianca and Conor head for trial at the Crown Court on a charge of murder, the prosecution and defence are preparing their cases. In this episode, we focus on evidence, and the potential problems with evidence when putting a case together. How does the prosecution prove a case to the criminal standard of proof, and how do they go about building a case which is strong enough to convince a jury to convict? What exactly does a prosecution case consist of? The next hearing before trial will be the PTPH (or Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing), which is the main case management hearing at the Crown Court, when the indictment is put to the defendants and where the judge gives directions to ensure that both the prosecution and defence are ready for trial. Not only do we look at how the prosecution builds a case, but we also start to look at how the defence prepares. How do they approach their task of defining the defence, and preparing to undermine the prosecution evidence to such an extent that the jury will find a defendant not guilty of the crime they are charged with. During this episode and when the trial gets underway, we’ll find out. And what happens if a defendant or prosecution witness has previous convictions or some other troubling past? We’ll look at this too - at what is known as Bad Character evidence - and the implications it can have for a case going to trial. What approach should be taken when a witness is unwilling to attend court, or becomes so unreliable that it would be dangerous to call them as a witness? What are Special Measures and how are they used to help witnesses give evidence? And is it possible to introduce a witness’s written witness statement at trial when you cannot get that witness to court? This introduces the Hearsay Rule, but like with most rules, there are exceptions. As we will find out, there’s more than a few witness problems in this case and, by the end of this episode, we’ll discover why the prosecution have at least one very good reason to be concerned. NOTES - CHARACTERS Defendants - Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt) Bianca Jones - (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair) Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build) Prosecution Barrister - Keith Lowe Barristers for the defendants - Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan Henry Irwin - representing Bianca Ivy Jewell - representing Conor Solicitors for defendants - Georgina Hale - representing Aidan Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor The deceased - Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing) Main Prosecution witnesses - Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke) Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke) Unused Material Witnesses George Ingram (nightclub security) Harvey Jenkins (nightclub security) LEGAL NOTES Links to statutes and other material referred to in this podcast: PTPH - Criminal Practice Directions 2023, 5.2 Case progression and trial preparation - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf PTPH forms (versions for a single defendant or for cases involving multiple defendants) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/plea-and-trial-preparation-hearings-ptph-for-1-to-5-defendants Written witness statements - s.9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 - Proof by written statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/9 Criminal Procedure Rule 16.2 - Content of written witness statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/16.2/made Template - a blank s.9 statement https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/written-witness-statement s.89 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 - offence of providing a false witness statement https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/89 Hearsay - s. 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Admissibility of hearsay evidence where a witness is unavailable https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/116 Application to rely on hearsay evidence https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-to-introduce-hearsay-evidence Bad Character - s.98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - meaning of Bad Character https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/98 S.112 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - meaning of ‘misconduct’ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/112 s.101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Applying to introduce the Bad Character of a defendant https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/101/enacted Application form to introduce a defendant’s Bad Character https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-to-introduce-evidence-of-a-defendants-bad-character R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/824.html s.100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 - Applying to introduce the Bad Character of a non-defendant (such as a witness) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/100/enacted Application form to introduce a non-defendant’s defendant’s Bad Character https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-introduce-evidence-of-a-non-defendants-bad-character Special Measures - Chapter 1 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - Special Measures for young, vulnerable or intimidated witnesses https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/part/II/chapter/I Special Measures Application Form https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-for-a-special-measures-direction ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Barristers and solicitors are the principal criminal lawyers in the criminal justice system. How do they work together and individually, what are the similarities and what sets them apart? As Aidan, Bianca and Conor arrive at the Crown Court, they meet their barristers Gabriella Hadden for Aidan, Henry Irwin for Bianca, and Ivy Jewell for Conor. It’s now time for the bail application in the Crown Court. What is the test for granting bail in standard criminal cases, and is the test any different for murder? Hear the bail application take place and find out whether our three defendants are remanded in custody or on bail. And what is it that Conor says to Bianca at the end of this episode? It might just give you a taste of things to come. For all three defendants, we march on towards trial. Thank you for listening and I hope you enjoy this episode. Throughout this podcast I have referred to information and various pieces of legislation. Please refer to the links in the notes below to access this information yourself. NOTES Barristers - Direct Access Barristers https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/direct-public-access-barristers Bail - s.4 of the Bail Act 1976 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/section/4 Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/schedule/1 s.51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - Witness Intimidation (s.51(1)) and Taking Revenge (s.51(2)) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/51 s.25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 - No bail for defendants charged with or convicted of homicide or rape after previous conviction of such offences https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/25 ADDITIONAL READING - DEFENCE-BARRISTER.CO.UK For additional detailed reading on many aspects of what is covered throughout this series, please go to Defence-Barrister.co.uk https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk written by Chris Kessling, Criminal Barrister. PLEASE NOTE: It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to: Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor. Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court. Thank you for your understanding. CONTACT Email: [email protected] X https://twitter.com/defencebar Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/ COPYRIGHT Music and content created and recorded by Chris Kessling © 2024. All rights reserved. External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/