Triable either way meaning

How does the jury system work in our country? The earliest recorded use of the jury trial in England can be traced as far back as 1220. Even so, for most people across society, jury trial did not become commonplace until the 18th century. Being judged by a jury of one’s peers for serious offences is widely regarded as a fundamental and enduring element and safeguard of the adversarial system in England and Wales today. Juries sit on the gravest crimes that are triable only on indictment (e.g. murder, rape, terrorism, etc.), and they are also available for ‘either way’ offences where a defendant may choose a jury trial instead (e.g. possession of a bladed article, theft, possession of drugs). In England and Wales, anyone on the electoral roll who is ordinarily resident in the UK and aged over 18 but under 76 can be summoned for jury service, as set out expressly in section 1 of the Juries Act 1974 (JA 1974)...

in judicial proceedings Perjury is an indictable-only offence, attracting a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. The constituent parts of this offence are set out as follows: being a witness or an interpreter who has been duly sworn in judicial proceedings wilfully making a material statement that is false, and knowing it is untrue or not believing it to be true Assisting, encouraging or procuring perjury contrary to section 1 of the Act 1911 (PeA 1911) is likewise an indictable offence and also carries the same ceiling penalty. Where the principal wrongdoing amounts to a lesser offence triable either way, the maximum sentence available on indictment is two years’ custody and/or a fine; if dealt with summarily, the court may impose an unlimited fine and/or a custodial term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court (or both). See Practice Note: Sentences imposed following conviction—General limits on magistrates’ courts powers to impose custodial sentences following...

Elements of the offence of possession of controlled drugs Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971) creates the offence where a person has a controlled drug in their possession. The prosecution must demonstrate, to the criminal standard (see Practice Note: Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings), that: the material concerned is a controlled drug it was within the defendant’s custody or control, and the defendant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the drug’s existence. See R v Lewis (1988) 87 Cr App Rep 270 (not reported by LexisNexis®). Possession of a controlled drug is an offence triable either way, before the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. Under MDA 1971, s 37(3), the concept of possession extends to items held by another person but remaining under the defendant’s control. Consequently, to establish possession, the prosecution must prove that the drug was either in the defendant’s custody or under their control...

The offence of theft and mode of trial Theft is an either-way offence, capable of being heard in the magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court. By contrast, minor shoplifting as defined by section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980)—where the goods taken are worth no more than £200—is prosecuted only summarily. If several such shop theft counts are laid together and, when combined, the value exceeds £200, the conduct no longer falls within ‘low-level’ for MCA 1980, s 22A, and becomes triable either way. In Candlish, the Administrative Court ruled that allegations of ‘low value’ shop theft should not be treated as self-contained summary matters, regardless of their cumulative value, until the plea and allocation stage. Relying on Harvey, the court in Candlish further held that the expression ‘charged on the same occasion’ in MCA 1980, s 22A(4)(b), concerns the defendant’s first appearance before the justices to answer the charges, and not any earlier procedural step. This position was reaffirmed in Jobson v DPP, where...