Adjournments sound procedural, but they can decide outcomes. In this episode, Clive and Colin unpack when adjournments should (and shouldn’t) be granted, how to prepare and argue them, and the traps that lead to exclusion of evidence, wasted costs, or even acquittals. They also cover special wrinkles: absent defendants, “part-heard” perils, motoring totters/exceptional hardship timing, Newton hearings, and youth/adult severance.

Hosts Clive Smith and Colin Beaumont We start with the culture shift under the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions: courts are under pressure to hear trials on the day, to protect public confidence and manage backlogs. That doesn’t make adjournments “bad”—just more scrutinised. The duo lay out the Picton/CPD factors, show how to use (or resist) them, and stress giving the bench something useful today (disclosure, witness summonses, narrowing issues). We then explore when courts should adjourn of their own motion even if neither party applies, how late evidence can backfire (exclusion vs. adjourn), and how timing your applications can decide the case.

Adjournments aren’t dirty words—they’re case-outcome tools. The winning approach: prep early, cite the right factors, give the court progress today, and be tactically honest about timing. Misjudge it and you risk exclusion, wasted costs, or worse; judge it well and you protect fairness without feeding delay.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com.

• 00:00 Welcome & why adjournments decide cases
• 04:50 The Picton/CPD test—what benches actually weigh
• 10:45 Absent defendants & medical proof (s.11 MCA 1980)
• 15:40 Make progress today: disclosure, summonses, narrowing issues
• 20:10 First listing: don’t be bounced into contested notices
• 26:00 Fault & wasted costs: when late service bites
• 29:00 Court’s own motion to adjourn (even if nobody asks)
• 33:40 Boardman mindset: timing your applications - R v Boardman [2015] EWCA Crim 175
• 38:10 Part-heard pitfalls in the mags
• 44:30 Motoring: timing for exceptional hardship
• 47:40 Legal-issue-only trials (no adjournment needed)
• 49:55 Newton hearings: when to adjourn (and when not)
• 51:40 Adjourn vs. unconditional bail on requisition cases
• 54:20 Youth/adult severance & listing realities
• 57:20 Fees update & wrap

adjournment, Criminal Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, Picton factors, section 11 MCA 1980, absent defendant, late disclosure, exclusion of evidence, wasted costs, Boardman, part-heard trials, Newton hearing, exceptional hardship, totting, youth court, severance, case management

This episode takes a deep dive into the youth justice system - exploring how children and young people are treated differently to adults by the criminal law, and why practitioners often find the youth court one of the most challenging, yet rewarding environments in which to work.

Hosts Clive Smith and Colin Beaumont share their experiences from decades of youth court advocacy, highlighting the importance of understanding unique procedures, sentencing principles, and jurisdictional nuances. From trial allocation and the concept of "persistent young offenders”, to the role of parents and guardians in proceedings, this episode covers the full landscape of youth justice in practice.

Colin explains why the youth court feels like “an entirely separate carriage” in criminal law — familiar principles applied in unfamiliar ways — while Clive reflects on how the informality of process belies the immense responsibility involved. Together they walk listeners through twelve core discussion points, blending legal updates, practical tips, and courtroom anecdotes that will resonate with both experienced and aspiring practitioners.

The conversation begins with jurisdiction, when cases should remain in the youth court and when they must go to the Crown Court, using BH and Norwich Youth Court as a case study and drawing on Judicial College guidance on youth defendants. The pair then move through sentencing powers, then ZA (2023) case on courtroom setup, and the principles from Lang on assessing dangerousness. They unpack persistent young offenders under the Sentencing Council’s guidance, referral orders, and the latest statutory instrument enhancing youth court fees, before tackling more complex issues such as children/youth defendants charged alongside adults, age at first appearance, and remands into custody under LASPO 2012.

The episode closes with reflections on training and the Youth Justice Charter, reminding listeners that youth advocacy demands both technical skill and humanity a blend of law, communication, and empathy rarely found elsewhere in practice.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com.

Judicial College - Child Defendants in the Crown Court (Formerly Youth Defendants in the Crown Court) June 2025:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Child-Defendants-in-the-Crown-Court-June-2025-Final-v2.pdf

BH v Norwich Youth Court [2023] EWHC 25 Admin

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/25.html&query=(bh)+AND+(norwich)

Sentencing Act 2022 - The Sentencing Code

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/sentencing-code/

R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596

This month’s episode tackles one of the most technical yet practical areas of criminal law - bail. From time limits to informal hearings and changes in circumstances, Clive Smith and Colin Beaumont explore why bail occupies “an entirely separate train carriage” in criminal practice, and why understanding its quirks is essential for every advocate.

The discussion begins by contrasting bail with other areas of law: less formal, full of exceptions, and uniquely centred on the liberty of the subject. Colin and Clive highlight the paradox between rigid procedural timeframes and the informality of evidence rules, both examples of how liberty can be limited and then granted back by exception.

From there, the episode moves through practical advocacy — how to shine in bail applications, the importance of preparation, and why even losing well can build trust with clients and their families. They share anecdotes from youth court, Crown Court, and the magistrates’ court, bringing to life the strategy behind every application — when to speak, when to hold back, and how to balance persuasion with precision.

The conversation dives deep into core legal principles and case law:

• Whether the court must accept the prosecution’s case at its highest;
• The importance of Regina v Lee and common law disclosure duties;
• Tactical approaches to “insufficient information” under paragraph 5;
• Key statutory references from the Bail Act 1976, PACE, and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and
• The exceptional circumstances test under section 25 CJPOA and its human rights evolution.

They also explore the two bites of the cherry rule, bail appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court, and the process for varying pre-charge bail conditions under section 47.1E PACE — complete with cautionary tales of advocates caught off guard by procedural time limits.

As the discussion unfolds, the hosts turn philosophical again: can the passage of time itself constitute a change in circumstances? Drawing on European case law such as Letellier v France and Clouth v Belgium, they argue that it can - particularly in today’s climate of backlogs and delays.

Finally, the episode closes with a reminder that bail remains one of the most important protections in criminal justice - a daily safeguard of liberty, a test of advocacy, and a constant reminder of why precision and fairness matter in every courtroom.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit legal-eagle-training.com.