Study guide
4.2 Joinder, Severance, Amendment & Voluntary Bills
UK Bar — Criminal Litigation, Evidence and Sentencing Exam
Track your progress as you read
Finished sections get a check mark.
1 Chapter 1: Introduction & BSB Assessment Overview
1.1 BSB Centralised Assessment Structure & Regulations 1.2 Overriding Objective & Court Structure 1.3 Classification of Offences, Court Jurisdiction & Funding
2 Chapter 2: Commencing Proceedings, Charges & Allocation
2.1 Commencing Proceedings & Police Station Procedure 2.2 First Hearing & Classification of Offences 2.3 Allocation and Mode of Trial 2.4 Sending for Trial & Committal for Sentence 2.5 Youth Court & Special Allocation Rules 2.6 Sentencing Powers of the Youth Court
3 Chapter 3: Bail, Remand & Case Management
3.1 Right to Bail & Statutory Exceptions 3.2 Bail Conditions, Breach & Appeals 3.3 Remands, Adjournments & Custody Time Limits 3.4 Case Management & Pre-Trial Hearings 3.5 Prosecution & Defence Disclosure
4 Chapter 4: Indictments & Preparation for Trial in the Crown Court
4.1 The Indictment: Form, Content, Time Limits & Specimen Counts 4.2 Joinder, Severance, Amendment & Voluntary Bills 4.3 Arraignment, Pleas & Change of Plea 4.4 PTPH, Applications to Dismiss & Offering No Evidence
5 Chapter 5: Criminal Evidence — General Principles & PACE Exclusions
5.1 Preliminary Evidential Matters: Relevance, Admissibility & Tribunals 5.2 Burden and Standard of Proof & Presumptions 5.3 Confession Evidence & Mandatory Exclusion 5.4 Discretionary Exclusion of Unfair Evidence 5.5 Inferences from Silence
6 Chapter 6: Special Evidentiary Rules — Hearsay, Character & Identification
6.1 Hearsay Evidence & The Four Gateways 6.2 Hearsay Safeguards, Multiple Hearsay & Procedure 6.3 Defendant Bad Character Evidence 6.4 Non-Defendant Bad Character & Co-Defendant Character 6.5 Good Character, Proof of Convictions & Bad Character Procedure 6.6 Visual Identification & Turnbull Guidelines
7 Chapter 7: Witnesses, Privilege & Opinion Evidence
7.1 Witness Competence, Compellability & Special Measures 7.2 Oaths, Affirmations & Compelling Witness Attendance 7.3 Examination in Chief: Leading Questions, Memory Refreshing & Hostile Witnesses 7.4 Cross-Examination, Previous Inconsistent Statements & Re-Examination 7.5 Opinion Evidence & Expert Witnesses 7.6 Privilege, Public Interest Immunity & Immunity
8 Chapter 8: Trial Procedure in the Magistrates' Court & Crown Court
8.1 Magistrates' Court Trial Procedure 8.2 Summary Trial: Pre-Trial Rulings, Absence & Abuse of Process 8.3 Crown Court Trial Procedure 8.4 Jury Trial: Absence, Unrepresented Defendants & Abuse of Process 8.5 Speeches, Summing Up & Verdicts
9 Chapter 9: Sentencing Framework & Guidelines
9.1 Sentencing Framework, Principles & Procedure 9.2 Seriousness, Guilty Plea Reduction, Aggravation & Mitigation 9.3 Sentencing Procedure: Newton Hearings, Reports & Goodyear Indications 9.4 Custodial Sentences, Suspension & Release 9.5 Mandatory & Minimum Custodial Sentences 9.6 Community Orders, Fines & Discharges 9.7 Ancillary Orders, Costs & Dangerous Offenders
10 Chapter 10: Appeals & Post-Trial Remedies
10.1 Appeals from the Magistrates' Court (Crown Court & High Court Case Stated) 10.2 Rectifying Mistakes, Case Stated & Judicial Review 10.3 Crown Court Appeals (Court of Appeal Criminal Division & Supreme Court) 10.4 CACD Procedure: Rectification, Leave, Renewal, Loss of Time & Fresh Evidence 10.5 Prosecution Appeals, Attorney General's References & the CCRC
4.2 Joinder, Severance, Amendment & Voluntary Bills
Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI
Under CrimPR rule 3.29(4) the court may order separate trials of counts where the defendant may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence, for example where the offences are neither founded on the same facts nor part of a series of the same or a similar character.
Two or more defendants may be joined in one indictment on a joint count or on separate counts where the interests of justice favour a single trial, following the principles in Assim.
A joint trial of co-defendants is the strong norm, and a cut-throat defence or the admission of evidence inadmissible against one accused is rarely enough on its own to justify severance.
Section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915 allows an indictment to be amended at any stage of the trial, before verdict, unless the required amendment cannot be made without injustice.
A voluntary bill of indictment requires the permission of a High Court judge and is exceptional, used where there has been no sending or where a dismissal decision was plainly wrong.
Last updated: August 2026
4.2 Joinder, Severance, Amendment & Voluntary Bills
The indictment fixes the shape of the trial. Joinder decides what the jury hears together; severance decides what it hears apart; amendment decides how far the document can be repaired once the trial has begun.
1. Joinder of counts
The old free-standing rule of joinder in the Indictment Rules has gone. The modern architecture is two-part:
What may go in. Rule 10.2(4) permits counts substantially the same as those sent, counts served with a High Court judge's permission or at the direction of the Court of Appeal, and any other count the Crown Court can try which is based on the served evidence.
What must be tried together. CrimPR r.3.29 governs applications for joint or separate trials. Under r.3.29(4) the court may order separate trials of counts where the defendant " may be prejudiced or embarrassed in his or her defence " — the rule gives as its example the case where " the offences to be tried together are neither founded on the same facts nor form or are part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character " — or where for any other reason it is desirable to do so.
The familiar test therefore survives, but as the measure of prejudice rather than as a rule of validity. Counts are properly tried together where they are:
Founded on the same facts — arising out of the same incident or so closely connected that the evidence of one is substantially the evidence of the other (a robbery and the possession of the weapon used in it); or
Part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character — requiring a nexus between them, in law and in fact, not merely a shared offence label ( Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ). Two burglaries of neighbouring houses on the same night form a series; two burglaries five years apart in different counties may not.
Misjoinder. Where counts are joined that should not have been, the modern consequence is not automatic nullity but an application under r.3.29 for separate trials, and on appeal the question is the safety of the conviction.
Applications under rule 3.29
An application must be in writing, made as soon as practicable and in any event before the trial begins, served on the court officer and every other party, and must specify the order sought and why it should be made. A party who wants to oppose has 10 business days to serve representations.
Severance of sexual counts. Where several complainants allege sexual offences, the defence frequently seeks severance. The court asks whether the evidence on each count would be cross-admissible on the others (usually through the bad character gateways in s.101(1)(d) CJA 2003). If it would, a single trial is generally right; if it would not, the risk of prejudice may require severance — but even then a clear direction to consider each count separately will often suffice.
2. Joinder of accused
There is no rule limiting an indictment to one defendant. Two or more accused may be charged:
In a single count as parties to the same offence — principals and secondary parties need not be distinguished on the face of the indictment; or
In separate counts for the same or different offences, where the interests of justice favour a single trial ( Assim ).
The strong presumption is a joint trial where the allegations arise from the same events. It saves witnesses from testifying twice, avoids inconsistent verdicts, and lets the jury see the whole picture. Severance of defendants is exceptional. Neither of the two most commonly advanced grounds is usually enough on its own:
A "cut-throat" defence , where each accused blames the other, is a reason for a joint trial, not against it — the jury needs to hear both accounts;
Evidence admissible against one accused only (a confession, or bad character) is normally managed by a direction to the jury that it is evidence against that defendant alone.
Severance is more likely where the disparity in the strength of the evidence is extreme, where a defendant would otherwise be unable to adduce evidence essential to their defence, or where one defendant's ill health would cause serious delay to another.
3. Amendment
Section 5(1) of the Indictments Act 1915 : where the indictment is defective, the court shall make such order for the amendment of the indictment as the court thinks necessary to meet the circumstances of the case, unless the required amendment cannot be made without injustice .
The power is wide:
It may be exercised at any stage of the trial before verdict , though the later the application the more likely injustice becomes;
It extends to correcting particulars , substituting a different offence, and even adding a new count , provided the new count is supported by evidence that was before the examining court or has been served;
The touchstone is always injustice to the defendant , which is assessed by asking whether the defence would have been conducted differently. An adjournment, or the recall of a witness, will often cure prejudice.
Where a count is added by amendment, the defendant must be arraigned on it.
4. Voluntary bills of indictment
A voluntary bill allows the Crown to place a defendant on trial without a sending. It requires the permission of a High Court judge , given on written application supported by the evidence and a statement of why the ordinary procedure is inappropriate; the defendant is normally given notice and an opportunity to make written representations. It is an exceptional procedure. Its recognised uses are:
- Where a judge has wrongly dismissed charges after sending, and the Crown wishes to proceed;
- Where the sending was defective or the case was not sent at all; and
Where a new defendant needs to be added to an existing indictment shortly before trial.
The syllabus limits the requirement to knowing that the procedure exists and the circumstances in which it is appropriate — so do not spend revision time on the detail of the application.
Exam traps in this section
Joinder is now tested through r.3.29(4) prejudice , not through a rule of validity; misjoinder is not automatic nullity.
A "series" needs a nexus in law and fact, not merely the same offence label ( Ludlow ).
A cut-throat defence favours a joint trial.
Amendment is available at any stage before verdict ; the only bar is injustice .
A voluntary bill needs a High Court judge , not a Crown Court judge.