The prosecutor had charged the defendant first with drink driving so as to take advantage of the provision placing upon the defendant the burden of proving that he had taken drink after the traffic accident and before testing. It iintended then to present a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in the Crown Court using that admission.
Held: This was an abuse. The almost invariable rule is that where a person is tried on a lesser offence he is not to be tried again on the same facts for a more serious offence. A contrary course of action would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Neill LJ referred to the ‘almost invariable rule that where a person is tried on a lesser offence he is not to be tried again on the same facts for a more serious offence’.
Garland J said that the case of Connelly is authority for the following: ‘(1) Pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict must relate to a crime which is the same, or in the effect the same, as that originally charged. (2) There is a wider principle that a second trial involving the same or similar facts may in the discretion of the court be stayed if to proceed would be oppressive or prejudicial and therefore an abuse of the process of the court.’
Judges:
Neil LJ, Garland J
Citations:
[1990] RTR 228
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Beedie CACD 11-Mar-1997
Stay for Extended Autrefois Convict
The plea of autrefois convict applies only if the legal substance of the charges is same but the judge has a discretion. The plea is not limited to Connelly v DPP definitions, but is still narrow.
A 19-year-old girl died of carbon monoxide . .
Approved – Phipps, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The appellant had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol. After complaints by the injured victim’s family he was further prosecuted for dangerous driving. He now appealed his conviction, having pleaded guilty when the judge failed to find an . .
Distinguished – Regina v Hartnett CACD 2003
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to an excess alcohol offence. He was then committed to the Crown Court for trial on an associated charge of dangerous driving on the same occasion. He pleaded guilty to that also. He . .
Explained – LSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic, Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.180641
