The defendant applied to stay the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.
Held: The application for leave to appeal was rejected. The application to stay was not within the ambit of the preparatory hearing and therefore was not within section 7(1), which was a necessary precondition to this Court having jurisdiction under section 9.
Watkins LJ said: ‘In our judgment the words of section 7, 8 and 9 themselves plainly demonstrate the object of Parliament in creating the preparatory hearing. It must have been, according to the language used, we think, the intention of Parliament, in introducing this novel procedure — novel in that it has not been introduced in respect of any other kind of criminal trial — to ensure that it be used for a specific purpose or purposes. It deliberately so enacted, in our view, the provisions of subsection (1) of section 7 in order to make it clear that it was creating this new and very valuable procedure for the specified purposes and no other.
We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Parliament can possibly, by using the clear words which it has used in sections 7 and 9, have intended to allow a preparatory hearing to commence for a certain specified purpose and then permit, once a preparatory hearing for that purpose is in being, argument to range around all manner of issues which cannot be said to relate to any of the specified purposes.’ and ‘Care must be taken to avoid confusion between a preparatory hearing under the Act and the informal pre-trial review.’
References: [1990] 1 WLR 703
Judges: Watkins LJ
Statutes: Criminal Justice Act 1987 7 8 9
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Moore CACD 5-Feb-1991
The court considered whether to quash a count of theft: ‘The fact that a possible incidental effect of the purposes of the application does find itself within those sub-provisions (a) to (d) is not one of the purposes of those provisions. It is the . .
(Unreported, 5 February 1991) - Cited – Regina v Jennings, Regina v Johnson, Regina v Mullins CACD 6-Sep-1993
No appeal lies against a Crown Court decision not to sever an indictment at a preparatory hearing. As an interlocutory order no appeal lay. . .
(Ind Summary 18-Oct-93, Ind Summary 06-Sep-93, Times 29-Oct-93, (1993) 98 Cr App R 308) - Not followed – Regina v Claydon; Regina v Regina v Hall; Regina v Costall; Regina v French CACD 13-Jun-2001
The defendants faced substantial trials involving drugs offences. At a preparatory hearing the court made decisions about abuse of process and as to what evidence might be admitted. The prosecutor said there was no right of appeal.
Held: . .
(Times 13-Feb-04, , [2001] EWCA Crim 1359, [2004] 1 WLR 1575) - Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
(, [2004] UKHL 3, Times 06-Feb-04, , Gazette 26-Feb-04, [2004] 2 AC 134, [2004] 2 WLR 335, [2004] HRLR 20, [2004] 2 Cr App R 10, [2004] 1 All ER 1269, [2004] 16 BHRC 332) - Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
(Times 02-Mar-07, , [2007] UKHL 7, [2007] 3 All ER 269, [2007] Crim LR 731, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 6, [2007] 2 AC 270)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193471