In my experience, the CPS work very closely with the police and they do in fact have a lot of control over which judge presided over a case. You lot can talk about how they’re not meant to and that the UK is not like the US and blah blah blah, but in MY EXPERIENCE they were able to delay a case being brought to court because they were waiting for a particular judge that they had chosen to sit over it.
Ok. Was it for something "low level" or was it something that would require specific sentencing powers; so something that would be a potential life sentence? Complex fraud/sexual offence where the judge has insight from their time as a barrister?
The CPS work with the Police because they are the prosecuting authority. Police gather evidence. CPS Direct (normally over the phone) or in more complex cases an actual Crown Prosecutor authorises the charge based on the evidence presented by the police. At the point of charging the Custody Sgt will either bail to court (from the computer in front of him) or remand to the next duty court in magistrates.
In the UK most offences are dealt with by magistrates. 3 normal people who freely give of their free time to sit in court. There are classes of offences which have to be kicked up to Crown Court, but the majority (even what are called "either way") can be dealt with in the magistrates court within their sentencing powers.
Only serious stuff, or where the magistrates think the potential custodial sentence is outside their powers, will it be sent to the crown court. At THAT point (i.e where the Chair of the Bench) says that between the 3 of them they think it need to be committed to the Crown Court, the Clerk of the Court will find the first available date in the system for whats called a PTPH Hearing. That will be before whichever judge has space in the diary. The defendant is then bailed to appear on that date/remanded to prison until that date.
On appearance in the Crown Court the indictment will be read and a plea will be entered. NG? A trial date will be set, again by the clerk of the court. Not the judge. G? Sentencing hearing will be set, again by the clerk. Not the police (who are only R's witnesses at this point) or the CPS Barrister. It might be reserved to that specific judge or it might just go into the "when someone has space".
I would be very interested to know how in your experience the Police managed to delay a hearing for a specific judge. Judges get wrapped up in trials. Judges go on holiday. Judges in some cases, die. Because unless that judge was needed for specific knowledge or sentencing powers it would be a fairly futile exercise to pick one. The sentencing guidelines the judges use are the same. They don't pluck stuff out of the air. And anyone that goes over and above end up with it being appealed and if there is a fault in the judges decision making, the sentence is reduced.
Without
![Watermelon :watermelon: 🍉](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/joypixels/emoji-assets@5.0/png/64/1f349.png)
I would be genuinely interested to know how in your experience the Police managed to influence the court to provide a specific judge and what benefit that would bring them based on the jury trial system and the well established sentencing framework they have to work within.
Edit: Before anyone demands im burned at the stake again, im genuinely interested. As this isn't my experience of the system as a professional adjacent