No rule of statute or practice prevented a judge from ordering a separate preparatory hearing in respect of one defendant jointly charged (with money laundering) if he considered that it was in the interests of justice to do so.

 

The Crown appealed against a decision granting K's application for a writ of habeas corpus. K was one of 11 defendants named on a single indictment. At an initial Crown Court hearing, which the prosecution requested be treated as preparatory in nature pursuant to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s. 29, the judge arraigned all defendants except K and one other. K raised the issue of his fitness to plead and accordingly he was arraigned at a separate hearing a few weeks later. On K's application for habeas corpus the judge concluded that (1) it was not possible for a preparatory hearing to take place against only some of the defendants on an indictment; (2) neither of the hearings in K's case had been a preparatory hearing, and (3) K was entitled to release on bail as his custody time limit had expired. The House of Lords held no rule of statute or practice prevented a judge from ordering a separate preparatory hearing in respect of one defendant jointly charged (with money laundering) if he considered that it was in the interests of justice to do so. The Crown’s appeal was successful.