The defendant was first arrested in 1997, but only re-arrested in 2004. He complained that the delay affected his right to a fair trial within a proper time. The judge accepted this but the trial proceeded, the judge denying a claim of abuse of process.
Held: The appeals succeeded. The delay meant that documents which might have been available were so no longer. Among theme were a complaint to CICA thought to make false allegations against a defendant. What was missing was crucial to the assessment of the complainant’s credibility. The convictions were unsafe.
Judges:
Moses LJ, Teare J, Paget QC J
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Crim 691
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Smolinski CACD 2004
When a defendant argues for an abuse of process from delay, the court should make its ruling only after the close of the prosecution case, when the effect of the delay may be properly understood. A stay should be exceptional. . .
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 – Regina v Medway CACD 25-Mar-1999
The court considered a complaint as to the prosecution’s failure to preserve evidence: ‘We recognise that in cases where evidence has been tampered with, lost or destroyed it may well be that a defendant will be disadvantaged. It does not . .
Cited – Regina v Feltham Magistrate’s Court, ex Parte Ebrahim, Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 21-Feb-2001
The court considered how cases should be handled where video evidence of relevance to a defendant’s case had been destroyed, and the defendant asserted abuse of process.
Held: The discretion to stay proceedings should be employed only in . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Regina v Dobson CACD 10-Jul-2001
The loss of video evidence by the prosecutor was not a ground for a stay of the case. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250455
