Threat to Kill

[midgie]

I attended Magistrates court as a witness for the defence in an assault case. The day before the hearing, revealed on the morning of the hearing, the CPS elected to add the charge of 'Threat to kill'. Is it normal for a last minute addition such as this? It now means the proceedings are elevated to Crown Court which is fine.

Also, In the Director's Guidance Streamlined Process form, from the prosecutor's perspective, there is a box 'Unused Material'. The box reads: 'Victim's antecedents: Past complaints against victim. Past retractions/changed account. NA'.

Does this mean the past events of this nature are not going to be included? Or does it mean they cannot be included?

Enlightenment much appreciated.

[daffy654]

N/A means not applicable so I would assume it means it would not be included as there are no applicable entries.
Since when did witneses get to see this form anyway? It used to be police and court officials/legal teams only.

[midgie]

Hi, thanks for the response. This box states 'NA' whereas many other boxes state 'N/A', hence the query.

Don't know about the form - it's just one of many in a bundle.

[midgie]

btw, I am not connected with courts, police, solicitors or any other body relating to this case.

I am an ordinary pleb seeking input on whether such late escalations of charges are the norm from the CPS, from anyone who has experience of this. The form referred to was amongst many others presented to the defence.

I do know however, that there are at least two antecedent and relevant cases from the prosecution side.

[daffy654]

Do those other charges have any bearing on the current case? are they similar offences for example.
The escalation of charges is not uncommon where new evidence may have been brought to the attention of the police and prosecution.

[midgie]

Hi again Daffy, thanks for posting. There is a bearing and has been all along to the alleged (in capital letters)offence. There has been no new evidence - it remains exactly as was in the prosecution statement from 5 months ago. That's what struck me as odd really. The alleged attack was always accompanied by references in the statement to a perceived threat to kill. I realise you don't have the benefit of reading it but in fact, there are ten references to a fear for life over three A4 pages.

[daffy654]

It does all sound very odd midgie. I'm sure one of the legal minds of AB will be along at some point with more help for you.
I'm baffled as to why the charge has been escalated if there isn't new evidence.

[sara3]

any evidence on a case has to be disclosed under the Rules of Disclosure. if documents do not form a part of the trial they have to be listed as unused material and can be made available to the defendant and their legal representative.

charges can be changed, added and dropped, even on the day of the trial.

"like" offences may discussed, and certainly considered for sentencing purposes. I don't know what NA is.

[tamborine]

Not appendiced.....ealier info coming to light and not listed/added (appendiced).

[midgie]

Hi Sara and thanks for your response.

Would you expect to see in that section then, reference to previous court cases that are relevant? Maybe somebody vs somebody on such a date, for example. Or maybe a description of the reason for the court appearance?
To put it bluntly, I know this person has made the same accusation, in court, about two other people so would have expected a reference to those cases in that box??

[sara3]

firstly, I have to say this isn't the area of legal work I'm involved with.

Unused Material could be police officers, notes, records of phone calls made, documents obtained that have to bearing on the case, etc. some items could be marked "sensitive and therefore not disclosed to the defence (past allegations that might reveal the name of the informant, for example). I would guess that such info as that you've suggested would be marked as sensitive.

[midgie]

Thanks all who have posted on this question, it's much appreciated by the uninitiated! Tamborine - thanks for decodifying NA and N/A - who'd have thought a slash would have such significance!