Defendants no longer required to state nationality at the start of criminal cases

9 February 2021 by

The change will affect cases heard in criminal courts in England and Wales, from the Magistrates’ Courts to the Old Bailey (pictured)

On 8 February 2020, small but significant changes were made to the Part 3 (Case Management) of the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions 2020 (“CrimPR”).  These changes remove the requirement that defendants in criminal trials provide their nationality to the court at preliminary hearings. The question is now to be asked only where a court passes an immediate or suspended custodial sentence.

BACKGROUND

The CrimPR are rules pertaining to procedure in the criminal courts of England and Wales, namely the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal and, in extradition appeal cases, the High Court. CrimPR Part 3 contains rules about case management. This includes rules about pre-trial court hearings, such as the hearings where defendants are asked whether they are going to plead guilty or not guilty and when courts give directions to make sure that everyone prepares properly.

Prior to this week, rule 3.16 (Pre-trial hearings in a Magistrates’ Court: general rules) contained the following provision:

(5) The court―

(a) at the first hearing in the case must require a defendant who is present to provide, in writing or orally, his or her name, date of birth and nationality; and

(b) at any subsequent hearing may require such a defendant to provide that information by those means.

A similar provision was to be found in rule 3.22 (Pre-trial hearings in the Crown Court: general rules):

(5) The court―

(a) at the first hearing in the Crown Court must require a defendant who is present―

(i) to provide, in writing or orally, his or her name, date of birth and nationality, or

(ii) to confirm that information by those means, where the information was given to the magistrates’ court which sent the defendant for trial; and

(b) at any subsequent hearing may require such a defendant to provide or confirm that information by those means.

At the time of writing, this is the form of words that still appears on legislation.gov.uk. Section 86A of the Courts Act 2003 as amended by s.162 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, require criminal courts to require a defendant to state their name, date of birth and nationality at a stage or stages of proceedings specified by the CrimPR.

In short, the effect of these provisions was to impose a mandatory requirement on criminal courts to have defendants state their nationality at first appearance hearings in the Magistrates’ Court and at the first hearing of a given case in the Crown Court.

Refusal by the defendant to comply could attract criminal sanctions. Section 86A(5) of the Courts Act 2003 (as amended) provides that a person commits a criminal offence if, without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with such a requirement.

In July, 2020, the Rule Committee received a paper suggesting that this practice, as required by the CrimPR, was incompatible with the data protection principles prescribed by the Data Protection Act 2018. It suggested that the collection of a defendant’s nationality under section 86A could not lawfully take place unless and until that defendant had been convicted and had received such a sentence as would render a foreign national offender susceptible to deportation under immigration law. The Committee accepted that suggestion.

THE NEW RULES

The offending provisions have been rephrased in new rules, which took effect this week. Although the new rules were not at time of writing reflected on the legislation.gov.uk website, the updated versions can be downloaded part by part on the relevant gov.uk page. Rule 3.16 now reads

(5) The court―

(a) at the first hearing in the case must require a defendant who is present to provide, in writing or orally, his or her name and date of birth; and

(b) at any subsequent hearing may require such a defendant to provide that information by those means.

Similarly, rule 3.22 now reads

(5) The court―

(a) at the first hearing in the Crown Court must require a defendant who is present―

(i) to provide, in writing or orally, his or her name and date of birth, or

(ii) to confirm that information by those means, where the information was given to the magistrates’ court which sent the defendant for trial; and

(b) at any subsequent hearing may require such a defendant to provide or confirm that information by those means.

The provisions are nearly identical, but the ‘nationality’ requirement has been removed, meaning that defendants are now only required to provide their name and date of birth. The amendments were made by virtue of Rules 6(d) and 6(e) of The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021.

Consequent amendments were also made to Part 24 (Trial and sentence in a magistrates’ court) and Part 25 (Trial and sentence in the Crown Court) by Rules 12(c) and 13(c) of The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021 respectively. These add statutory requirements to those already applied by custody staff and ensure that the defendant be required to provide his or her nationality only where the court passes a sentence of immediate imprisonment or detention or orders a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

COMMENTARY

The old provisions had been the subject of considerable criticism, as the requirement for defendants to declare their nationality prior to trial was arguably prejudicial. ‘The State of Innocence’ report by Commons in 2020 argued that the old policy was undermining criminal justice and the rule of law and having a negative impact on the perception of fairness in the justice system. The report highlighted a number of concerning statistics in relation to the old provisions:

  • 96% of the legal practitioners surveyed did not believe in the policy;
  • 90% of practitioners surveyed felt that the nationality requirement has a negative impact on the perception of fairness in the justice system;
  • 79% of the legal practitioners surveyed had had a client provide the Court with their ethnicity or race instead of or in addition to their nationality (with almost 60% saying that this happened frequently);
  • 69% of practitioners surveyed felt that the nationality requirement had a negative impact on protection against discrimination; and
  • 35.5% of practitioners surveyed felt that the requirement had an impact on the right to a fair trial.

Court staff including District Judges, Magistrates and Legal Advisors self-reported as being embarrassed about asking the question and that on occasion they felt it necessary to apologise for doing so.

Unsurprisingly then, campaigners such as Commons Legal have welcomed the move, calling it “one positive step towards a fairer, less racist justice system.” David Lammy MP, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, also took to Twitter yesterday, responding to Commons, to say that

It was always wrong to ask defendants to state their nationality before they had been convicted of any crime. Congratulations to all those who campaigned to end this unfair, unnecessary and discriminatory practice.

The changes themselves have been implemented quietly. The official announcement from the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee simply reads

The first group of changes to the Criminal Procedure Rules made by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021 came into force on Monday 8 February 2021. The Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions 2020 page now includes those changes.

Samuel March is a pupil at 5 Paper Buildings. He tweets at @Sam_Oscar_March

Leave a Reply

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editors: Darragh Coffey
Jasper Gold
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Fair Trials Family Fertility FGM Finance football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction injunctions Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die right to family life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine UK Supreme Court unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Fair Trials Family Fertility FGM Finance football foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction injunctions Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die right to family life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine UK Supreme Court unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe

Discover more from UK Human Rights Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading