This month’s episode tackles one of the most technical yet practical areas of criminal law - bail. From time limits to informal hearings and changes in circumstances, Clive Smith and Colin Beaumont explore why bail occupies “an entirely separate train carriage” in criminal practice, and why understanding its quirks is essential for every advocate.

The discussion begins by contrasting bail with other areas of law: less formal, full of exceptions, and uniquely centred on the liberty of the subject. Colin and Clive highlight the paradox between rigid procedural timeframes and the informality of evidence rules, both examples of how liberty can be limited and then granted back by exception.

From there, the episode moves through practical advocacy — how to shine in bail applications, the importance of preparation, and why even losing well can build trust with clients and their families. They share anecdotes from youth court, Crown Court, and the magistrates’ court, bringing to life the strategy behind every application — when to speak, when to hold back, and how to balance persuasion with precision.

The conversation dives deep into core legal principles and case law:

• Whether the court must accept the prosecution’s case at its highest;
• The importance of Regina v Lee and common law disclosure duties;
• Tactical approaches to “insufficient information” under paragraph 5;
• Key statutory references from the Bail Act 1976, PACE, and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and
• The exceptional circumstances test under section 25 CJPOA and its human rights evolution.

They also explore the two bites of the cherry rule, bail appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court, and the process for varying pre-charge bail conditions under section 47.1E PACE — complete with cautionary tales of advocates caught off guard by procedural time limits.

As the discussion unfolds, the hosts turn philosophical again: can the passage of time itself constitute a change in circumstances? Drawing on European case law such as Letellier v France and Clouth v Belgium, they argue that it can - particularly in today’s climate of backlogs and delays.

Finally, the episode closes with a reminder that bail remains one of the most important protections in criminal justice - a daily safeguard of liberty, a test of advocacy, and a constant reminder of why precision and fairness matter in every courtroom.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com.

“You do not have to say anything…” – the familiar police caution opens this episode, but Colin Beaumont and Clive Smith unpack what those words really mean in practice, and how adverse inferences can transform the course of a trial.

From the erosion of the absolute right to silence since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, through to pre-prepared statements, special warnings, and defence statements, this episode traces the piecemeal development of the erosion of the absolute right to silence and its impact on everyday practice.

The discussion covers the police station interview, where decisions about silence, admissions, or prepared statements can later affect jury perceptions. It moves through the special warning provisions of sections 36 and 37 (objects, substances, marks and presence at the scene), and examines the strategic dilemmas around intimate samples, non-intimate samples, x-rays, and ultrasounds. Colin and Clive highlight key authorities including Knight, Harewood & Raymond, Green, and Hackett, showing how context and judicial discretion shape the drawing of inferences.

They also explore the Crown Court stage under section 35: when a defendant chooses not to testify, how endorsements and practice directions safeguard fairness, and whether “double inferences” are permissible (Chenier). The conversation rounds off with analysis of adverse inferences from failure to serve defence statements and failure to notify witnesses under CPIA provisions, with practical insights for defence practitioners operating at the coalface.

In short, this episode considers the balance between a suspect’s right to silence and the court’s ability to draw adverse inferences, illustrating how both statutory framework and case law have reshaped trial advocacy.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit:

legal-eagle-training.com.

Referenced Information:

1. Samples at the Police Station

Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without reasonable cause, to provide intimate samples – see Section 62 (10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without reasonable cause, to undergo an x-ray or ultrasound scan – see Section 55A (9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

2. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 34 – Failure to mention when questioned

R v Harewood & Rehman [2021] EWCA Crim 1936

Section 35 – Failure to give evidence

Physical or mental condition makes it undesirable…

Double inferences? R v Chenia [2002] EWCA Crim 2345

Adverse inference or lies direction – R v Hackett [2011] EWCA Crim 380

Section 36 – Failure to account for objects, substances or...

With significant changes proposed to the way judges and magistrates calculate credit for guilty pleas, this episode examines current practice, Court of Appeal guidance and potential reforms, with the practical realities faced by those advising clients at the coal face.

Retired solicitor (now barrister - non practising) Colin Beaumont and barrister Clive Smith explore the Sentencing Council’s Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea guidelines, the key Court of Appeal judgments shaping current practice, and the impact of the Leveson Review’s recommendations. They tackle the nuances of “indicating willingness” to plead guilty, the effect of minimum sentence provisions, and the interplay between starting points and credit in both adult and youth cases.

The conversation also delves into strategic considerations: when a timely indication can mean the difference between custody and a community order, why the cases of Plaku, Hodgin, and Caley are essential reading for advocates, and how police station advice can influence sentencing outcomes months later. The hosts address the “perverse incentive” created by fee structures, discuss how credit can still be argued for late pleas that save significant court time, and highlight judicial flexibility in today’s backlogged system.

Closing with a look at the broader policy aims — encouraging genuine early pleas while safeguarding against wrongful admissions — this episode is an indispensable guide to understanding the subtleties of guilty plea credit and its application in practice.

LINKS:

The Leveson Review:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686be85d81dd8f70f5de3c1f/35.49_MOJ_Ind_Review_Criminal_Courts_v8b_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Sentencing Council - June 2017 – 'Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea'

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/magistrates-court/item/reduction-in-sentence-for-a-guilty-plea-first-hearing-on-or-after-1-june-2017/

Section 73 of the Sentencing Act 2020

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/73

R v Caley and Others [2012] EWCA Crim 2821

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2821.html&query=(caley)+AND+(2012)

R v Plaku, Plaku, Bourdon & Smith (2021) EWCA Crim 424

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/568.html&query=(plaku)

Rex v Derie [2024] EWCA Crim 1337

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1337.html

(The Court of Appeal considering the appropriate percentage reduction to reflect the age of the offender at the time of the commission date of the offence and also considering whether or not greater credit should have been given for the...