No abstract

1999 (YJCEA), ss 33A. 5 Research indicates that between 20% and 30% of offenders have learning difficulties or learning disabilities that interfere with their ability to cope within the criminal justice system. See Loucks (2007: 1). Communication difficulties are most prevalent amongst children, with over 60% of children who offend having communication difficulties. See Talbot (2012: 1). In respect of mental health, a recent report by JUSTICE, citing the available research, notes that 'an estimated 39% of people detained in police custody and an estimated 29% of those serving community sentences, have a mental health issue. … around 60% of prisoners have personality disorders, compared to 5% of the general population; 11% of those serving community sentences have psychotic disorders compared to 1% of the general population; and 76% of female and 40% of male remand prisoners have a common mental health disorder.' See Justice (2017: 11-12).

Citation: Owusu-Bempah, A. (2013). Defence participation through pre-trial disclosure:issues and implications. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 17(2), pp. 183-201. doi: 10.1350/ijep.2013 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Procedure Rules and judicial responses to the perceived need to tackle ambush defences. The defence disclosure regime has changed the role of the defence as a participant in the criminal process. It raises issues of principle in terms of its effect on fair trial rights and has implications for the nature of English criminal procedure. This article examines these issues and implications; it reveals that the defence disclosure regime has caused a shift in the English criminal process further away from an adversarial style contest towards a participatory model of procedure. Permanent

Over the past two decades, there have been significant legal developments aimed at securing and enhancing the participation of vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials. Yet, there remains relatively little regard for the fact that many defendants, including those who are not deemed to be vulnerable, are unable to participate in criminal proceedings in a meaningful sense. This paper aims to address two questions. First, why should defendants have participatory rights and be capable of meaningful participation in criminal proceedings? Second, why has it proven so difficult to attain meaningful participation of defendants? It is contended that barriers to meaningful communication between the defendant and the court could be dismantled without great difficulty, but continue to exist because due regard is not given to the normative rationales for participatory rights and defendant participation.