Stopping a criminal prosecution because of abuse of process

[2018] EWHC 795 (Admin)
[2018] EWHC 795 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Judge Gosnell)
30 April 2018

A prosecutor’s decision not to charge a man with the rape of a woman with learning difficulties was not irrational. The circumstances of the man’s acquittal some years earlier on charges of sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice were such that the prosecutor had been right to conclude that the man would be able to establish that a second prosecution was an abuse of process.

[2018] EWCA Crim 95
[2018] EWCA Crim 95
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, William Davis J, Goose J)
5 February 2018

The power of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to order a venire de novo did not include a power to declare a summary trial a nullity, or quash a conviction recorded in such proceedings and remit the matter for retrial. Venire de novo was concerned only with trial on indictment, and with fundamental irregularities rendering such a trial a nullity.

[2018] EWCA Civ 34
[2018] EWCA Civ 34
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Underhill LJ, Holroyde LJ)
22 January 2018

A judge had erred in holding that disciplinary proceedings brought against a police officer were barred on the basis of res judicata. A decision by the Police Appeals Tribunal, allowing the officer’s appeal against his dismissal for gross misconduct without remitting the matter, had not been a final decision on the merits for the purposes of cause of action estoppel.

[2017] EWCA Civ 1665
[2017] EWCA Civ 1665
CA (Civ Div) (Flaux LJ, Moylan LJ, Sir Stephen Richards)
25 October 2017

New proceedings based on fresh evidence, which fundamentally changed the nature of the case, were not an abuse of process because they were not a collateral attack on the earlier proceedings. Accordingly, there had not been an opportunity, let alone a full opportunity, for the claimants to run their case.

QBD (Admin) (Holroyde LJ, Dingemans J)
18 October 2017

Although an English translation of a European arrest warrant lacked the list of specific offences for which the appellant had been convicted, there had been no abuse of process in ordering his extradition as the summary of his offending behaviour had been sufficient. The fact that both warrants wrongly stated that the appellant had been convicted and sentenced in relation to nine, rather than eight offences, did not render the warrant invalid, where the French judicial authority had provided information that stated the correct position.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1172
[2017] EWCA Crim 1172
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Phillips J, Judge Dickinson QC)
28 July 2017

A judge’s decision to stay private criminal proceedings as an abuse of process could not stand where there was an error of law and principle in her approach in reaching the decision she reached, and in consequence her ruling was one which it was not reasonable for her to have made.

QBD (Admin) (Sir Alan Wilkie)
14 June 2017

In considering whether an offence on a European arrest warrant seeking the return of a requested person to Austria met the requirements of dual criminality the court had to look at the alleged conduct rather than at the term used to name the offence. In the instant case the offence of slander equated to the UK offence of perverting the course of public justice.

[2017] EWHC 229 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 229 (Admin)
DC (Gross LJ, Nicol J)
15 February 2017

A district judge’s decision to order an alleged offender’s extradition to Hungary was upheld. The European arrest warrant complied with the Extradition Act 2003 s.2; the appellant had suffered no unfair prejudice in consequence of the extradition proceedings and, as a consequence of the judge’s finding that the appellant was a fugitive, her extradition was proportionate.

QBD (Admin) (Dingemans J)
24 January 2017

An appeal against an extradition order was allowed where the court could not be satisfied that the prosecution of the appellant in Latvia was not an abuse of process.

[2017] EWHC 47 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 47 (Admin)
DC (Burnett LJ, Thirlwall J)
19 January 2017

Where a European arrest warrant clearly stated that the requested person was to be surrendered in order to face criminal prosecution, and the particulars supported that assertion, there was no need for a judge, when asked to make an extradition order, to seek further information on the issue of whether there had been a decision to charge or try within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003 s.12A.

Scroll to top