The defendants appealed aginst their convictions for inflicting grievous bodily harm. When first arrested they had been issued with fixed penalty tickets for much lesser offences. The police officers did not anticipate the seriousness of the injuries inflicted on the victim. On the following day, a full investigation was ordered, and the prosecutions followed.
Held: The prosecution was not an abuse. There are clear principle against serial punishments for the same actions, and also against acting after a defendant had acted on re-assurances that he would not be prosecuted. Here payment of the fixed penalty would not count as an admission of an offence, and nor would it create a criminal record. No re-assurance had been given that the defendants might not be prosecuted for any other offence: ‘on the night in question the appellants must have been thanking their lucky stars that they had got away with the serious violence they had perpetrated. It was not an abuse of process for justice to catch up with them.’
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Blair
[2009] EWCA Crim 1424, Times 14-Jul-2009
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Jones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Alexander Admn 27-Jul-2010
The defendant had crashed his car after driving off with a girl, and while being chased by another car driven by her boyfriend. The police first cautioned him for false imprisonment, but then prosecuted him for careless driving. The prosecutor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.347708