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.

“You do not have to say anything…” – the familiar police caution opens this episode, but Colin Beaumont and Clive Smith unpack what those words really mean in practice, and how adverse inferences can transform the course of a trial.

From the erosion of the absolute right to silence since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, through to pre-prepared statements, special warnings, and defence statements, this episode traces the piecemeal development of the erosion of the absolute right to silence and its impact on everyday practice.

The discussion covers the police station interview, where decisions about silence, admissions, or prepared statements can later affect jury perceptions. It moves through the special warning provisions of sections 36 and 37 (objects, substances, marks and presence at the scene), and examines the strategic dilemmas around intimate samples, non-intimate samples, x-rays, and ultrasounds. Colin and Clive highlight key authorities including Knight, Harewood & Raymond, Green, and Hackett, showing how context and judicial discretion shape the drawing of inferences.

They also explore the Crown Court stage under section 35: when a defendant chooses not to testify, how endorsements and practice directions safeguard fairness, and whether “double inferences” are permissible (Chenier). The conversation rounds off with analysis of adverse inferences from failure to serve defence statements and failure to notify witnesses under CPIA provisions, with practical insights for defence practitioners operating at the coalface.

In short, this episode considers the balance between a suspect’s right to silence and the court’s ability to draw adverse inferences, illustrating how both statutory framework and case law have reshaped trial advocacy.

For more information or to book a place on a forthcoming course, please visit:

legal-eagle-training.com.

Referenced Information:

1. Samples at the Police Station

Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without reasonable cause, to provide intimate samples – see Section 62 (10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Adverse inferences may be drawn at trial against a defendant who fails, without reasonable cause, to undergo an x-ray or ultrasound scan – see Section 55A (9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

2. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Section 34 – Failure to mention when questioned

R v Harewood & Rehman [2021] EWCA Crim 1936

Section 35 – Failure to give evidence

Physical or mental condition makes it undesirable…

Double inferences? R v Chenia [2002] EWCA Crim 2345

Adverse inference or lies direction – R v Hackett [2011] EWCA Crim 380

Section 36 – Failure to account for objects, substances or...