From Guidance to Binding Code: The 2020 Consolidated Criminal Practice Directions establish a unified, enforceable framework for active case management, remote participation, vulnerability safeguards and open justice

Introduction

This commentary examines the Criminal Practice Directions 2015 as consolidated and amended through Amendment No. 11, issued with the citation [2020] EWCA Crim 1347. The Directions (CPD), promulgated by the Lord Chief Justice under statutory powers, sit alongside the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) to form a comprehensive, binding code of criminal court practice in England and Wales. The 2020 consolidation does not merely collate; it modernises and cements core principles: the overriding objective and active case management; mandatory safeguards for vulnerable witnesses and defendants; the default, criteria-led use of live links and virtual hearings; enhanced clarity on open justice, reporting and access to information; robust, deadline-driven abuse of process and disclosure disciplines; and strengthened guidance on expert evidence reliability, jury management and sentencing practices (including Newton hearings and Goodyear indications).

The Directions apply across the criminal courts—magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—and cover the life cycle of a criminal case, from first appearance to appeal, including specialist regimes (extradition, confiscation, investigation orders, terrorism cases, and organised crime prosecutions).

Summary of the Judgment / Directions

• Binding force and code-like status: CPD I 1A.3 states unambiguously that the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Criminal Practice Directions are “the law”. Participants must comply with both and with court directions. The CPD thereby converts best practice into enforceable standards promoting consistency.
• Active case management as a judicial duty: CPD 3A operationalises CrimPR Part 3. It standardises Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings (PTPH), sets firm expectations about pre-hearing prosecution materials (including in bail/not-guilty scenarios), discourages unnecessary case management hearings, and creates compliance hearings when parties breach timetables.
• Remote participation and virtual hearings: CPD 3N elevates live-links and telephone hearings from contingency to a mainstream tool: courts should use technology where lawful and in the interests of justice. The CPD defines “appropriate” facilities, secures open justice in remote formats, clarifies when a judge may sit remotely, and prescribes how to maintain public access and accurate records.
• Vulnerability safeguards: CPD 3D–3G require early identification of needs, the routine use of ground rules hearings (3E), and principled use of intermediaries (3F) for witnesses and, exceptionally, defendants. The Directions integrate The Advocate’s Gateway toolkits and Achieving Best Evidence protocols.
• Section 28 YJCEA pre‑recorded cross‑examination: CPD 18E provides a detailed end‑to‑end framework for pre‑recorded cross‑examination and re‑examination of eligible witnesses, including strict listing, continuity of counsel, ground rules, storage, editing controls, and the narrow statutory gateway for any further questioning.
• Open justice and media access: CPD 5B, 6B–6E modernise the approach to court information, reporting restrictions, use of live text-based communications (including Twitter), and the provision of transcripts—balancing media/public access with privacy, PII and statutory limits.
• Jury management and irregularities: CPD 26A–26M codify best practice on jury selection, directions, materials, majority verdicts, and a structured seven‑step protocol for dealing with jury irregularities, including device surrender orders and referral pathways for possible offences under the Juries Act 1974.
• Expert evidence reliability: CPD 19A–19C incorporate a Dlugosz‑aligned reliability analysis; require “statements of understanding and declarations” from experts; encourage pre‑hearing expert discussions and joint statements; and oblige disclosure of matters potentially undermining reliability.
• Sentencing practice: The CPD reaffirms key sentencing tools—Underwood-framed bases of plea, Newton hearings, and Goodyear indications—plus guidance on Victim Personal Statements, Impact Statements for Businesses, mandatory and discretionary life sentencing (Schedule 21), and variation of sentence (with open justice safeguards).
• Specialist jurisdictions and listing: Detailed listing responsibilities (CPD XIII) emphasise that listing is a judicial function; set out classifications for allocation; direct strong management of custody time limits (CTLs); and establish specialist handling for extradition (CPD 50A–F), terrorism (Annex 4), and organised crime (Annex 5).

Analysis

Precedents and authorities shaping the Directions

• Vulnerability and questioning:
  • R v Wills [2011] EWCA Crim 1938 and R v E [2011] EWCA Crim 3028 underpin the CPD’s insistence on adapted cross‑examination for vulnerable witnesses, including the acceptance that “putting the case” may be constrained to avoid confusion or distress (CPD 3E).
  • R v Lubemba; R v Pooley [2014] EWCA Crim 2064 confirms that advocates cannot insist on conventional cross‑examination where it would undermine the witness’s ability to give best evidence; the CPD’s ground rules hearing regime reflects this.
  • R v Cox [2012] EWCA Crim 549 recognises the court’s power to appoint intermediaries for defendants in rare cases and emphasises the court’s overarching duty to adapt proceedings; CPD 3F, 3G adopt and systematise these principles.
  • OP v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1944 (Admin) informs the nuanced approach to non‑registered intermediaries and funding routes in defendant cases (CPD 3F.15–3F.16).
• Open justice and reporting:
  • R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420 anchors the CPD’s presumption in favour of access to court documents (CPD 5B) and frames the balancing exercise when competing rights are engaged.
  • Taylor [2013] UKPC 8 is cited for the premise that jurors follow judicial directions; CPD 26G builds on this by structuring early directions (e.g., internet use) and reinforcing the “Your Legal Responsibilities as a Juror” notice.
• Adjournments and case readiness:
  • DPP v Petrie [2015] EWHC 48 (Admin) endorses robust resistance to last‑minute adjournments; CPD 24C consolidates the governing principles and faults‑based scrutiny in magistrates’ courts.
  • R v Boardman [2015] EWCA Crim 175 supports the remedy of excluding late‑served evidence over adjournment; reflected in CPD 24C.21–24C.22.
• Jury irregularities:
  • R v Connors; R v Mirza [2004] UKHL 2 and Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 shape CPD 26M’s seven‑step process (isolating jurors, consulting advocates, establishing basic facts, deciding to continue/discharge) and bias test (fair‑minded observer).
  • R v Pinkerton [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 47; R v Warren [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 5: stress that sentence adjustments should occur openly; mirrored in CPD XII S (Variation of sentence) and open justice reminders.
• Expert evidence reliability:
  • R v Dlugosz [2013] EWCA Crim 2: requires a sufficiently reliable scientific foundation; CPD 19A codifies non‑statutory reliability factors (data quality, method validity, peer review, margins of uncertainty, departure from established practice).
• Abuse of process and sensitive material:
  • CPD 3C draws on general appellate authority to impose tight timetables for abuse applications and skeletons; CPD 3R reflects R v Ali [2019] EWCA Crim 1527 with procedures for “hearing to inform the court of sensitive material”, balancing risks while preserving fairness and records.
• Sentencing tools:
  • R v Underwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2256 structures the proper use of agreed bases of plea and when to insist on a Newton hearing; CPD VII B adopts these safeguards in detail.
  • R v Newton (1982) 77 Cr App R 13: resolves factual disputes material to sentence through a mini‑trial before the judge, criminal standard; codified in CPD VII B.
  • R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888: permits judicial indication of the maximum sentence for a guilty plea; CPD VII C reiterates conditions and the prohibition on judicial “plea bargaining”.
• CACD procedure and grounds of appeal:
  • R v James and Others [2018] EWCA Crim 285: sets a high hurdle for adding grounds late; CPD 39C embeds those criteria and the diligence required of fresh representatives.
  • R v Erskine; R v Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425; Standard Bank v Via Mat [2013] EWCA Civ 490: enforce succinct, principled advocacy; CPD XII D standardises citation discipline and skeleton argument limits.

Legal reasoning and structure of the Directions

• The overriding objective and adversarial fairness (CPD I 1A): The Directions premise that trials are a truth‑seeking process within an adversarial framework; procedural manoeuvres should not determine guilt or innocence. Courts must actively identify issues early and prevent parties from leveraging non‑compliance for advantage.
• Active case management (CPD 3A): Courts are directed to interrogate plea intent, fix PTPHs within 28 days (unless standard circuit directions say otherwise), and secure meaningful party engagement pre‑hearing (pre‑completed PTPH forms, witness availability, issues lists). Further case management hearings are exceptional and reserved for defined classes (e.g., Class 1 cases, vulnerable witnesses, longer trials, complex disclosure, expert evidence).
• Remote and virtual hearings with open justice safeguards (CPD 3N):
  • Courts must consider live link/telephone for pre‑trial events; once directed, a live link applies until discharged.
  • “Appropriate” means reliable audio/visual quality, secure/fit‑for‑purpose, with parties able to hear/see each other; security needs scale with the sensitivity of the hearing.
  • Judges themselves may attend remotely for pre‑trial hearings. Full virtual hearings are permissible if the public can witness proceedings (e.g., through a courtroom relay), preserving open justice.
  • The Directions codify when remote attendance is inappropriate (e.g., where it impairs a defendant’s effective participation or proper interpretation) and emphasise youth‑specific caution.
• Vulnerability framework (CPD 3D–3G; 18A; 18E):
  • Courts must identify needs early; give directions for special measures proactively (child/qualifying witnesses do not need to apply: CrimPR 18.9); and hold ground rules hearings to structure questioning in line with communication needs.
  • Intermediaries: the CPD balances independence, scarcity and funding realities with clear thresholds for witness and (rarer) defendant appointments, including fallback adaptations if an intermediary cannot be secured.
  • Section 28 YJCEA 1999 process is treated as a mini‑litigation track with strict timetables, continuity of counsel, storage and editing controls, and circumscribed criteria for any further examination.
• Open justice and access to information (CPD 5B; 6B–6E; 3N.17):
  • The Directions articulate what information must or may be supplied, how to assess requests, how to handle automatic/discretionary reporting restrictions, and when it is proportional to release documents or provide transcripts (with warning notices).
  • Live text‑based reporting in court is permitted (with a media presumption) unless it risks interference with justice; note‑taking is generally allowed and should not be curtailed merely due to reporting restrictions.
• Expert evidence reliability (CPD 19A–19C): Courts are encouraged to actively interrogate scientific reliability factors; experts must give full declarations; parties must disclose matters affecting reliability; and experts are expected to confer and generate joint statements to narrow issues.
• Jury practice (CPD 26): The CPD standardises preliminary instructions, written routes to verdict and split summings‑up to focus jurors. For irregularities, a seven‑step, judge‑led process manages fact‑finding, safeguards deliberation confidentiality (reflecting new Juries Act offences), and provides for referrals to the Attorney General/police where appropriate.
• Sentencing tools (CPD VII): The CPD integrates appellate jurisprudence to prevent sentence by ambush: it clarifies when a Newton hearing is needed, what an agreed basis of plea must contain, how Goodyear indications are to be sought and constrained, and how VPS/ISBs are to be used without importing views on sentence.
• Specialist domains and listing (CPD XIII; 50A–50F; Annexes): The CPD asserts judicial control over listing, sets classification/authorisation requirements for serious offences (Class 1/2), prescribes CTL vigilance, and provides special case management for extradition (including High Court appeals logistics), terrorism (centralised handling), and organised crime (designated centres and early judicial allocation).

Impact

• From discretion to discipline: By declaring CPD + CrimPR “the law” (CPD 1A.3), the 2020 consolidation reduces regional variation, narrows scope for tactical delay, and anchors sanctions for non‑compliance (compliance hearings; wasted costs; exclusion of late material; refusal of adjournments).
• Technology mainstreamed: CPD 3N converts the ad hoc use of live links into an expectation. It supplies workable criteria for “virtual hearings” while safeguarding open justice through public relay and robust records. This has had profound practical effect on pre‑trial logistics, witness management, and judicial deployment.
• Enhanced witness care and fairness: The ground rules + intermediary architecture has reshaped everyday trial practice. Advocates must prepare differently (toolkits, written plans, short questions) and judges must be interventionist to protect fairness without diluting adversarial testing.
• Clarity for the media and public: The granular approach to access and reporting reduces inconsistent practice, supports accurate reporting, and provides predictable routes to materials while protecting data‑privacy and statutory prohibitions.
• Improved expert evidence quality: The CPD’s reliability framework, disclosures, and joint statements encourage scientific rigour, narrow expert disputes, and reduce the risk of wrongful reliance on untested or novel hypotheses.
• Predictable sentencing process: Front‑loaded bases of plea, the disciplined use of Newton hearings, and restricted Goodyear indications make sentencing more transparent, reduce “satellite” litigation and foster consistent appellate outcomes.
• System capacity and listing integrity: By codifying CTL prioritisation, classification‑based judicial allocation, and specialist listing (extradition, terrorism, organised crime), the CPD improves timeliness, reduces last‑minute instability, and ensures suitably authorised judges handle the most serious work.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Overriding Objective (CrimPR Part 1; CPD 1A): A set of aims that guide the court—deal with cases justly and expeditiously, identify issues early, ensure equality of arms, and manage proceedings actively.
• PTPH (Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing): The first major Crown Court hearing at which pleas are taken, issues identified, timetables and directions set, and trial dates fixed. Parties are expected to confer beforehand and come prepared.
• Ground Rules Hearing: A judge‑led conference (usually before a vulnerable witness gives evidence) to agree how questioning will be conducted, in plain language, with time limits and topics allocated among co‑defendants to avoid repetition.
• Intermediary: A communication specialist who assists a witness (and rarely a defendant) to understand and answer questions. They help shape the form of questions; they do not act as an advocate.
• Live Link / Virtual Hearing: Participation via video/telephone. Must be “appropriate” (reliable, secure enough for the task) and consistent with effective participation and open justice. Judges may also attend remotely for pre‑trial events.
• Witness Anonymity Order (CPD 18D): A statutory order (Coroners and Justice Act 2009) shielding a witness’s identity where necessary for safety/justice. Strict statutory tests apply and the court controls measures (e.g., screens, voice modulation) and records reasons.
• Section 28 YJCEA 1999: Pre‑recorded cross‑examination of certain vulnerable witnesses. The CPD sets tight timelines (ABE transcript, defence statement, ground rules hearing) and controls editing, storage and playback at trial.
• Newton Hearing: A fact‑finding hearing where the defendant pleads guilty but disputes facts relevant to sentence. The judge hears evidence and decides the disputed facts; the criminal standard applies to aggravating facts.
• Goodyear Indication: A judge may indicate the maximum sentence that would follow an immediate guilty plea. It must be at the defendant’s request, is not a negotiation, and binds the court only if a plea immediately follows (subject to exceptional circumstances).
• Jury Irregularity Protocol: A stepwise procedure for suspected juror misconduct or external influence: isolate; consult advocates; establish basic facts; decide whether to continue or discharge juror/jury; consider contempt/offences; preserve deliberation secrecy; maintain records.
• Custody Time Limit (CTL): The statutory maximum time a defendant can be held in custody pre‑trial. The court must prioritise CTL cases and extensions require stringent justification
• Expert Evidence Reliability (CPD 19A): Courts evaluate data quality, method validity, peer review, margins of error and whether the opinion strays beyond expertise—before admitting or relying on it.
• Open Justice & Reporting Restrictions: The default is transparency. Restrictions (automatic or discretionary) must meet statutory tests and be proportionate. Media may use live text‑based reporting unless it risks unfairness.

Conclusion

The 2020 consolidation of the Criminal Practice Directions transforms disparate practice into a binding, judicially enforced code. It aligns daily criminal practice with principled goals: disciplined case management; humane, evidence‑based accommodations for vulnerability; secure and routine technological participation that respects open justice; a rigorous approach to the reliability of expert opinion; and clear, consistent jury and sentencing practices. Its detailed frameworks—particularly for remote hearings and s.28 pre‑recorded cross‑examination—anticipate and address modern courtroom realities. For practitioners, the message is plain: mastery of the CPD is no longer optional—compliance is the law, and the CPD’s architecture is now integral to fair, efficient and transparent criminal justice.