Active case management: the objective, duties and issue definition

Justice first; preparation makes justice possible

The overriding objective is to deal with criminal cases justly. That includes acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty, fairness to prosecution and defence, respect for participants’ rights and the defendant’s Convention rights, efficient and expeditious proceedings, and a proportionate use of procedure and resources. Speed is therefore one part of justice, not a reason to abandon it. A trial that starts promptly but denies a proper opportunity to test the evidence is not well managed. Equally, unnecessary hearings and avoidable delay can harm defendants, witnesses and victims. CrimPR 1.1–1.2 provide the governing standard.

Active case managementGlossary termActive case management means that the court identifies the real issues early and turns them into concrete preparation. Under CrimPR 3.2 and 3.5, it identifies witness needs, sets and monitors timetables, promotes cooperation, keeps evidence intelligible and concise, uses appropriate technology, and discourages unnecessary delay or hearings. It can act on its own initiative, require an issue to be identified in writing, determine issues separately and state the consequences of a direction. Those powers regulate the proceedings; they do not authorise a direction inconsistent with legislation or another rule.

A real issue is a factual or legal question whose resolution can affect the result. “The prosecution is put to proof” describes the prosecution’s burden but does not necessarily explain what is disputed. “The defendant accepts presence and contact but says the force was reasonable self-defence” identifies matters that witnesses, disclosure and legal argument must address. Issue identification must not be used to compel a false admission or disclosure of privileged advice. The prosecution still has to prove the charge according to the applicable burden and standard. CrimPR 1.1, 3.2–3.3 require useful identification, not a transfer of that burden.

The parties must communicate and expose problems early

Under CrimPR 3.3, the parties must actively assist the court, seek a direction where one is needed and communicate at the first available opportunity, in any event no later than the beginning of the day of the first hearing. Communication continues until the case concludes. It should establish the likely plea, agreed and disputed matters, information or material required from another party and why it is required, and the next task, responsible person and timetable. A lawyer should not arrive at a hearing having left an obvious disclosure or witness problem unexplored.

Every participant must inform the court and the other parties at once of a significant procedural failure, whether or not that participant caused it. “Significant” concerns the risk of hindering the overriding objective, not whether blame can already be allocated. A missing expert report that threatens the trial is significant even when the expert, rather than the solicitor, caused the delay. Efforts to repair the problem do not justify concealing it while the deadline passes. CrimPR 1.2(c) imposes this immediate notification duty; 3.12 also requires prompt reporting of anything that may affect the trial’s date, duration or progress.

Each party must ordinarily nominate and identify a case progression officer unless the court directs otherwise. This is the person responsible for monitoring compliance, keeping the court informed and providing a usable contact. The officer must be promptly contactable during ordinary business hours, respond promptly and reasonably, and arrange a substitute when unavailable. Naming an officer does not release advocates and solicitors from their own obligations. If the named person leaves the case, the contact arrangement must continue, not disappear until the next hearing. CrimPR 3.4.

Make a direction operational

A useful preparation entry identifies the issue, the required material or decision, the responsible party, the trigger and deadline, the dependency, and the response to failure. That is a practical way to carry out CrimPR 3.2–3.4, 3.8 and 3.12; it is not a new mandatory form. For example, “CCTV” is not a plan. “Prosecution to provide the relevant original-format footage, necessary playback arrangements and an explanation of the disputed clock offset by the court’s specified date; defence then to identify any remaining authenticity issue” is capable of being monitored. A date should be inserted only after identifying the actual direction or rule that fixes it.

These outputs assist the court; they do not replace the separate rules governing formal admissions, expert evidence, witness attendance or admissibility. The management duty asks the parties to expose those dependencies before the trial is endangered. CrimPR 3.2–3.3, 3.8–3.9 and 3.12–3.13.