Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Thank you for your reply - I will reccomed to others the quality of this servicce.
One thing to clarify. If there is no legislation or case law to support the view that the prosecution can decide the above then how can you be sure that they have this discretion.
In fact all the case law suggests that it is settled law that it is in the interest of justice that co-conspirators are tried jointly in one trial. The cases of miller, lake, suggest that miscarriages of justice can occur in separate trials. The proposition of joint trials was confirmed in the house of lords in hayter 2005. Does the sheer weight of case law not suggest that its settled law that co-conspirators should be tried together. How then can the prosecution have this discretion or right.
this is an uneven power. essentially what you are saying is that a defendant cannot make an application for joinder but the prosecution can. Its a colossal advantage and open to abuse.
thank you so much
As the final message:
Do you think that this is a point which can be argued in the court of appeal
particularly so where there is no case law or legislation which supports this claim that the prosecution have total discretion. Most defendants are not going to argue against separate trials, but some defendants may want a joint trial and it could also be in the interests of justice to have one.
I don't know if you got my last message before this. but this is the last response required. thanks
thank you for your help.
can i get a second opinion on this question with another expert or are you the only one available for criminal law
Does the prosecution have complete discretion in deciding whether to join co-conspirators (co-defendants) in one indictment for one trial. If the one defendant wants a joint trial with his fellow conspirators does the prosecution have the discretion to refuse to join them in one indictment and one trial or is it up to the judge. If the Prosecution do have this discretion is there any case law or legislation to support this.
essentially can the defence make an application for joinder
I agree with you that it is established rule for over half a century. I thought that starting point for co-conspirators is joinder and then either the defence or pros could make applications for severance.
The prosecution are saying that it is totally their decision and that no legal mechanism exists to force them to join. they are saying that the defence cannot make an application for joinder.
Why is it unusaul for a defendant to want to be tried with his co-defendant s - one jury can then hear all the evidence and facts. especially where there is no cut throat.
is there any case law - based on an appeal where the prosecution has refused to join co-conpirators in one indictment - in one trial - in a situation where the codefendants all wanted a joint trial. but the pros refused and the court failed to intervene.
I cannot afford the 35 at present possibly in a few days. I will contact you as soon as I have it.
However, I have looked at Blackstones and there is not one case on similar facts. The closest case is r v moghal 77 - howver facts are different as there was joinder, and the pros. applied to sever and the defence did not object to it at the time. I cannot find any case (i have also looked on case track and bailii) an appeal based where the prosecution have refused to join co-conpirators against the defence wishes.
if i agree to the payment and you cant find a similar case - will i be able to get a refund or is it payaable regardless thanks