CW and MM, Regina v: CACD 22 May 2015

Proceedings had commenced for conspiracy to supply class A Drugs to a person abroad. Prior consent was required of the Attorney-General, but was only obtained after the event. The prosecutor now appealed against a ruling that the proceedings were null and void.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ The Judge was astute to the problems the Crown had created for itself and unmoved by a last-ditch attempt to bend the language of S25 to accommodate that failure.’ and
‘We do not see any inconsistency between section 4 of the 1977 Act and section 25 of the 1985 Act. Section 4 is the primary provision. As Lambert makes clear, consent must be obtained before proceedings are instituted and, if it is not, the proceedings are null and void. Section 25 cannot override section 4, and ‘save’ proceedings. It simply enables the lawful arrest, charging and remand in custody or on bail of a person in circumstances in which the relevant consent has not been obtained.
The question for this court is thus extremely simply expressed. Are the steps taken at the hearings before consent is given protected by S25?’

Rafferty LJ, Sweeney, Hickibottom JJ
[2015] EWCA Crim 906
Bailii
Criminal Law Act 1977 4, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 25
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLambert, Regina v CACD 3-Apr-2009
The court considered the test for whether the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent to a prosecution had been obtained, and said: ‘The analysis of the statutory language: . .
there are two questions.
i) When were the proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547075