Court Procedure

Waiting for an internal review by HM Courts and Tribunals Service of their handling of this request.

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

In a Crown Court case, can the Court use a different judge for the sentencing hearing if he had no part in what was agreed at the trial?

Can he also sentence on the original offence even though a defendant did not enter a plea to the original offence?

Can a defendant be thus robbed of a trial because of this as the sentencing judge has taken a different view to the trial judge?

Yours faithfully,

Mark Ritchie

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

In general, it is a judicial decision to decide who sentences a case If a case is adjourned for sentence after trial, generally the trial Judge will reserve the case and sentence the defendant. There may, of course, be exceptions to this.

Again in most cases the defendant will have entered a plea to the counts on the indictment. There are some exceptions, including where a defendant is unfit to plead, where the defendant will not have entered a plea.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service | Customer Investigations Team | Customer Directorate
10th Floor (10.34) | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ
e-mail: ComplaintsCorres&[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

So how can a sentencing judge sentence on a completely different agenda to what the trial judge agreed? Thats a case of double jeopardy. A sentencing judge should only sentence based on what was agreed at the trial. If the sentencing judge does not agree with sentencing on the trial facts then he should send it back in the form of a newton hearing. Why is this acceptable? Its simply duping the defendant into believing something at trial then dismissing all of that and doing what you like anyway which makes having a trial a complete waste of time.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

You have failed to respond to this request. By law you were meant to respond promptly and by now. Please respond asap so as to comply with the law.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Dear Mr Ritchie

Your enquiry did not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and was treated by the department as 'Official Correspondence'. There is no law on the time limit to respond to official correspondence.

Double Jeopardy is a legal principle which prevented people being tried for the same crime twice and was scrapped in England and Wales in 2005. Sentencing is a further function of a trial and remains a judicial function done in an independent capacity in accordance with guidelines produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. If any defendant is concerned about their sentence they may be able to appeal. They may also wish to discuss this with their counsel. Information about appealing a conviction is available at: https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-senten...

Kind regards

Karen Hamilton
Customer Investigations Officer | HMCTS Customer Directorate

show quoted sections

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Absolute nonsense and you know it. You have blocked me from appealing and wouldnt even produce the transcript from the appeal application hearing as you sent out notice of my hearing AFTER it had already taken place!

This was not official correspondence as i am asking for general information. Please now respond amd comply with FOI law.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie

HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Dear Mr Ritchie

Your request could not be considered under FOI as you were asking for general information and not recorded information. It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.

There is nothing further I can add and in line with HMCTS' procedures, I will not be replying further on this issue.

Kind regards

Karen Hamilton
Customer Investigations Officer | HMCTS Customer Directorate

show quoted sections

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service's handling of my FOI request 'Court Procedure'.

I require a more detailed response and you still havent given an explanation as to why you think it appropriate to flout FOI law and fail to respond to my requests within the timescale set out under the FOI act.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

Mark Ritchie

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

I would appreciate a response to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

Still no response. You are in breach of law by refusing to respond. Please comply with FOI law and respond asap.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie

Dear HMCTS Customer Service (Correspondence),

You are duty bound to carry out an internal review and I expect a timeframe as to how long you will drag this procedure out for.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Ritchie