Child jointly charged with an adult: separate or joint trial

A joint charge does not erase childhood. At an adult-linked first appearance, the magistrates establish the adult’s plea and route and then apply the child’s own statutory rules. If the adult remains for summary trial, joint proceedings in the adult magistrates’ court may be possible under CYPA 1933, section 46. Consider whether the child’s matter should instead go to the youth court. If the adult is sent to the Crown Court, a different test governs whether the child follows. Sources: Judicial College — Child Defendants in the Crown Court, June 2025, Sentencing Council — Sentencing Children and Young People, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 51

Under CDA 1998, section 51(7), the court must send the child where the child is jointly charged with the adult with the relevant indictable offence, or the qualifying related indictable offence, and sending is necessary in the interests of justice. The starting point is separate youth-court trial. “Indictable” here includes either-way offences; it does not mean only offences which an adult must have tried on indictment. Shared evidence and administrative convenience do not remove the necessity assessment. Sources: Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 51

The court weighs concrete consequences: injustice to witnesses or the case from separate trials; the child’s age and maturity; the age gap; relative culpability; whether the child’s alleged role was minor; previous findings of guilt; overlapping evidence and inconsistent-verdict risks; witness impact; and delay. A younger child with a peripheral role and an earlier available youth trial presents a stronger case for separation. Equally, genuinely inseparable evidence or serious injustice caused by repeated evidence may support a joint trial. Give reasons linked to those facts, not a formula that all jointly charged defendants must stay together. Sources: Sentencing Council — Sentencing Children and Young People

An independent Crown Court gateway takes priority. A child who must be sent under section 51A does not acquire a right to youth trial merely because separation from an adult would otherwise be appropriate. Conversely, the adult’s election does not confer an election on the child. Identify whether the child is being sent because of the child’s own offence/sentence gateway or because a joint Crown Court trial is necessary. Sources: Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 51A, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 51

Revisit the reason for Crown Court involvement. If the adult pleads guilty or the joint case separates, consider whether there is still a reason for the child to remain there. After conviction for an offence other than homicide, Sentencing Code, section 25, requires the Crown Court to remit an under-18 offender to the appropriate youth court for sentence unless it would be undesirable. This is a separate sentencing decision, not automatic retention because the Crown Court conducted the trial. Age-crossing cases still require section 1’s analysis. Sources: Sentencing Council — Sentencing Children and Young People, Sentencing Act 2020 (Sentencing Code) — base provisions with amendments separately identified