James v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 13 Nov 2015

The appellant challenged her conviction for failing to comply with conditions imposed on a public demonstration. Her demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice had brought traffic to a standstill. At trial she had been refused permission to raise a fresh issue at trial, namely the proportionality of the condition.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It would be improper for defendants, under the guise of an abuse of process application made to the Magistrates’ Court, to advance arguments which are in truth simply directed at considerations of the proportionality of the decision to prosecute. Applications for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process are to be circumscribed and orders of stay are, when made, granted only exceptionally.

David LJ, Ouseley J
[2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin)
Public Order Act 1986 14
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedDehal v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Sep-2005
The appellant had been convicted under section 4 of the 1986 Act. He had been accused of attending at Luton Guruwarda and intending to cause distress. He said that he had gone only peacefully to express his true religious beliefs. He had left a . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions, Regina (on the Application of) v Chorley Justices and Forrest Admn 8-Jun-2006
The prosecutor applied for an order to require the magistrates to state a case. He faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol. He pleaded not guilty. There were several adjournments, and a considerable delay. At the trial, and with no . .
CitedMalcolm v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 27-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed against her conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The justices had retired and began to announce their decision on one point of law. Defence counsel then raised another matter in closing, and the magistrates allowed the . .
CitedBauer and Others v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 22-Mar-2013
The appellants had entered Fortnum and Masons to demonstrate against tax avoidance. They appealed against convitions for aggravated trespass.
Held: The statutory question posed by s.68 is whether the prosecution can prove that the trespasser . .
CitedAbdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Feb-2011
The defendants appealed against convictions for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. He had attended a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554641