The defendant appealed his conviction saying that the prosecution should have been stayed permanently because of the delay in bringing the case. He had been sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for sexual assaults committed in the 1970s.
Held: A permanent stay should be exceptional. It was an exercise of judicial assessment based upon experience rather than any conclusion as to the facts. Even where there had no fault on the part of the defendant a permanent stay should be exceptional. No stay should be granted in the absence of serious prejudice to the defendant so that no fair trial remained possible. In making that assessment, the court should allow for its own powers to limit the admission of evidence. If having considered those factors a fair trial remained impossible, a stay should be granted. The conviction was safe.
Judges:
Rose LJ, Stanley Burnton, Hedley J
Citations:
Times 29-Mar-2006
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 3-Jun-1992
The jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings on the ground of delay is exceptional, even where the delay was unjustifiable, and a stay should rarely be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant or prosecution, and should . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) CACD 12-Jul-2001
When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a . .
Cited – Regina v Smolinksi CACD 2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Hooper CACD 2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.240320