Both of the great procedural codes of England and Wales — the Civil Procedure Rules and the Criminal Procedure Rules — open with the same instruction. The court must deal with cases justly. Everything else in the hundreds of rules that follow is machinery in service of that single sentence.
What dealing with a case justly involves
In the civil sphere, dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as practicable: ensuring the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully; saving expense; dealing with the case in ways proportionate to the amount involved, the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the parties’ financial positions; ensuring it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources; and enforcing compliance with rules and orders.
In the criminal sphere, the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly includes acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty; dealing fairly with both prosecution and defence; recognising the rights of the defendant; respecting the interests of witnesses, victims and jurors and keeping them informed of the progress of the case; and dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously.
No tactical ambushes
The overriding objective acknowledges that the presumption of innocence and a robust adversarial process are essential features of our legal system, guaranteed by the Human Rights Act. But it is no part of a fair trial that questions of guilt or innocence should be determined by procedural manoeuvres, or by taking unfair advantage of a mistake by someone else — see R (DPP) v Chorley Justices [2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin). The days of trial by ambush are over, and they are not mourned.
Crucially, the objective binds the parties as well as the court. The parties are under an express duty to help the court further the overriding objective. A litigant who hoards their real case until the last moment, or who treats the rules as a trap for the unwary opponent, is not merely being difficult — they are in breach of a duty, and modern courts say so in their costs orders.
Early identification of the issues
Fairness is best served when the issues between the parties are identified as early as possible, and the overriding objective promotes this. Early identification is not an administrative nicety. It determines what disclosure is proportionate, which witnesses are truly needed, what expert evidence is justified, and — not least — whether the matter should be resolved by some means short of trial. A case whose issues are defined in the first weeks costs a fraction of one whose issues emerge at the door of the court.
Counsel for the client
For the client, the overriding objective translates into homely advice: put your cards on the table early, comply with directions punctually, and measure every procedural step against proportionality. The party who conducts the case as the rules intend is not surrendering an advantage. In the modern procedural climate, they are acquiring one.
