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 word ‘purpose’ by which the situation is governed. In our judgment it is improper and misconstruction to redraft the wording so as to substitute some such word as ‘consequences’ for the word ‘purpose’. So far as the motion to quash is concerned, it does not, in our judgment, come within those four sub-provisions. Basing ourselves on Gunawardena by which we are bound, and with which we respectively agree, in our judgment the prosecution’s argument succeeds. There is no jurisdictional basis upon which this Court can entertain the appeal.’
Judges:
Lane CJ
Citations:
Unreported, 5 February 1991
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Followed – Regina v Gunawardena CACD 1990
At the preparatory hearing the defendants sought an order that the trial be stayed as an abuse of process on the grounds of unjustifiable delay. Held : It was refused. ‘In our judgment the words of sections 7, 8 and 9 themselves plainly demonstrate . .
Cited – In re Gunawardena, Harbutt and Banks CACD 1990
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Van Hoogstraten CACD 12-Dec-2003
The prosecution appealed against the refusal of the crown court to remit the case for retrial.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against this ruling because it was not within the ambit of section 29(2) of the 1996 Act. . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.188775