Case No. 2007-04219-A8

)[2008] EWCA Crim 216 (CA 2007/05564 and 05565/A7, 16.01.08) we made observations about the proper practice that should be followed in Attorney General's References where there were factual disputes. The court was faced with significant difficulties, as was counsel who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General, because those who acted for the offenders had not responded to the Reference. 12. In this case no particular problem has in the result emerged. But we think it right to observe that in future those representing the Attorney General might wish to argue that if no response is made to the Draft Reference, then the Attorney may wish to argue in a proper case that the court should proceed to consider the matter on the basis of the Reference and not allow fresh factual issues to be gone into in this court. The reason that such an argument may wish to be pursued is that it is extremely wasteful of time and limited resources if the document upon which the court is to proceed is not commented upon beforehand. Any difference there may be ought to be identified by the Attorney and dealt with in documents submitted a long time in advance to the court, together with any supporting material. Matters of dispute should not be raised at the last moment. 13. In the case of Rolls there was a response. It was asked on his behalf that it be made clear that the throughput of drugs was an estimate; that there was no evidence that the credit cards found in his possession had been used in criminal activity; and that it be clarified as to whether it was submitted by the Attorney that the judge erred in failing to pass a consecutive sentence for the firearms offences. The view was expressed that each of those matters had been addressed in the Final Consolidated Reference.