Crown Court: PTPH, disclosure planning and trial readiness

What the PTPH does

The Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing, or PTPHGlossary termPlea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), is the Crown Court’s structured hearing for the plea and effective preparation. An indictment is the formal document containing the offences for Crown Court trial; a count is one numbered allegation of an offence within it. Arraignment is the formal process of identifying the operative charges and taking the defendant’s plea. These terms describe different things: the document, each accusation, the plea-taking act, and the hearing that organises the case.

CrimPR 3.21(1)(b) requires the Crown Court to conduct a PTPH. Under 3.21(2), the court checks that guilty-plea credit has been explained understandably, takes the plea or establishes the likely plea if none can yet be taken, gives the required trial and absence explanations where the defendant does not plead guilty, and makes effective-trial and public-information directions. A ten-minute administrative mention taking no plea or likely plea and giving no trial directions does not satisfy that function.

Do not treat a specialist preparatory hearing as a general exception cancelling the PTPH. The current rule separately provides for preparatory hearings in 3.21(1)(a) and requires the PTPH in 3.21(1)(b). At a preparatory hearing the court announces that status and takes the plea unless already taken under 3.26. Hearings and their functions may need coordinated listing, but it is inaccurate to teach that ordering a preparatory hearing automatically removes the current PTPH requirement. The specialist hearing’s different triggers and consequences are explained in section 5.

Preparation before the hearing, not improvisation during it

Unless the court directs otherwise, the indictment should be uploaded to the Digital Case System at least seven days before the PTPH. This is the Criminal Practice Directions, paragraph 5.2.1 preparation expectation, not “seven business days” and not a rule that a later upload automatically nullifies the indictment. The defendant needs to understand what is alleged and give meaningful instructions. Where the defendant first indicates an intention to plead guilty after sending but before the PTPH, the defence representative must notify the Crown Court and prosecution immediately under paragraph 5.2.2. Communicating an authorised plea intention does not require publication of privileged advice.

Where a defendant was remanded in custody after being charged and sent for trial without service of initial prosecution details, paragraph 5.2.7 says the prosecutor should serve the listed minimum preparation material at least seven days before the PTPH. It comprises summary circumstances including any interview account; statements and exhibits important for plea or initial case management, including relied-on CCTV and any streamlined forensic reports; witness availability; the defendant’s criminal record; any available Victim Personal Statement (the victim’s account of the impact of the offence); an indication of likely prosecution expert evidence; and applicable information about special measures, bad character or hearsay. This is the prescribed minimum preparation expectation for that situation, not a substitute for full prosecution evidence or CPIA disclosure. A charge sheet alone does not meet that expectation.

Service of prosecution evidence after sending is governed by CrimPR 3.19 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Service of Prosecution Evidence) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/902, as amended by SI 2012/1345. Under regulation 2, documents containing the prosecution evidence on the sent charges must be served on the defendant and given to the Crown Court at which that person is to be tried. The ordinary outer limit is 70 days after sending, reduced to 50 days for a person committed to custody under section 52(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Under regulation 3, the prosecutor may apply to that Crown Court, orally or in writing, for an extension or further extension. An oral application requires prior written notice; a written application states its grounds and is copied to the defendant, who may make written representations within three days of service. Regulations 4–6 govern those notices and communication of a decision made without an oral hearing. These are evidence-service periods, not custody time limits and not a licence to withhold material needed earlier for an effective PTPH. Keep a separate entry for each relevant hearing, disclosure, evidence-service and custody clock; do not use one as a substitute for another.

Before arraignmentGlossary termArraignment, the court and parties must identify which indictment and counts the prosecution actually wishes to pursue, including what is not being proceeded with, and ensure that the allegations are intelligible. CrimPR 3.32 controls this process. A potential application to dismiss a sent charge must be considered before the plea is taken: its statutory window closes at arraignment. Defence counsel should not allow routine plea-taking to overtake an unresolved, properly identified dismissal application. This is different from merely reserving a trial-stage no-case submission.

What an effective PTPH should settle

The charge and plea. Is the operative indictment clear and lawful? Does a count need particularisation, amendment, deletion or a separate-trial application? Is dismissal sought before arraignment? What plea can be taken now, and what prevents plea-taking where it cannot? The hearing should not proceed on an unidentified draft and vague assumptions about later repairs. CrimPR 3.20–3.21, 3.29–3.32 and Part 10.

The real issues and evidence. Identify the prosecution case, defence position, genuine admissions, necessary witnesses and contested evidence. Prepare notices for expert evidence, hearsay, bad character, special measures or other admissibility issues under the correct Part rather than relying on a generic promise to “raise it at trial”. A management direction fixes when the application is made; it does not predetermine its substantive outcome. CrimPR 3.2–3.3 and 3.21, with Parts 17–23 where relevant.

Disclosure and investigation. Establish what has been reviewed, what initial disclosure has been served, the defence-statement trigger, any incomplete enquiries, digital review method, third-party request, sensitive-material issue and prospective court application. The Disclosure Management Document, explained in section 6, makes the prosecution approach and outstanding work intelligible. Under the 2024 Attorney General’s Guidelines, paragraphs 95–107, it should be used in all Crown Court cases and disclosure should be achieved before the PTPH where possible. A justified outstanding exercise needs an explicit plan, not an unsupported declaration that everything is complete.

Witnesses, participation and trial length. Identify availability, reasonable attendance steps, necessary summonses, interpretation, special measures, ground rules, document and video arrangements, and the time needed for evidence and legal argument. A fair estimate allows for questioning adaptations and breaks. The court can regulate presentation and questioning proportionately; it cannot remove the defendant’s fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution merely to fit an unrealistic slot. CrimPR 3.8–3.9 and 3.12–3.13.

Responsibility and continuity. Record the next action, responsible party, verified date and what must happen if it cannot be done. The defendant must identify the intended defence trial advocate to the court officer as soon as practicable and no later than the day of the PTPH, either in writing or orally at that hearing. A later change requires written notice as soon as practicable and within five business days of the change, even where both advocates practise from the same chambers. CrimPR 3.27. The fact that a trial date remains unchanged does not remove the notification duty.

The workstreams overlap

A further Crown Court case-management hearing is permitted under CrimPR 3.21(1)(c) only where a guilty plea is anticipated, it is necessary to give directions for an effective trial, or it is required for ground rules. More than one can be held if necessary. Routine extra hearings are not the default response to every missed date. Written case progression and a focused judicial direction may resolve a problem without consuming another hearing; a problem requiring argument or protective handling must not be hidden behind administrative correspondence. CrimPR 3.4–3.8; Criminal Practice Directions, paragraphs 5.2.9 onwards.

Pre-trial case-management hearings are generally public, may be wholly or partly private on the court’s direction, and must be recorded in the Crown Court. A decision on a pre-trial application determined in private must be announced in public, subject to the lawful protection of information and applicable reporting restrictions. CrimPR 3.21(3)–(4). Sensitive-material rules give specific additional controls; they are not a reason to make all routine PTPHs private.