[2004] EWHC 1922 (Admin)

A court had jurisdiction at the committal stage to stay proceedings on the basis that a trial would not be fair but such power should be exercised sparingly. A court had not erred in not allowing the prosecution to call evidence following an unsuccessful submission of no case to answer on an abuse application given that it had had the opportunity to call evidence prior to the application but had chosen not to. A decision to allow an abuse application on the basis of authority in circumstances where there was no improper conduct in relation to material in possession of the prosecution and subject to the defendant's legal professional privilege was Wednesbury unreasonable. Guidance given as to proper procedure on applications that proceedings were an abuse of process.

DC (Kennedy LJ, Treacy J)


0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar