The court restated the principles applying a stay for abuse of process occasioned by delay. Rose VP LJ said: , the correct approach for a judge to whom an application for a stay for abuse of process on the ground of delay is made, is to bear in mind the following principles:
(i) Even where delay is unjustifiable, a permanent stay should be the exception rather than the rule;
(ii) Where there is no fault on the part of the complainant or the prosecution, it will be very rare for a stay to be granted;
(iii) No stay should be granted in the absence of serious prejudice to the defence so that no fair trial can be held;
(iv) When assessing possible serious prejudice, the judge should bear in mind his or her power to regulate the admissibility of evidence and that the trial process itself should ensure that all relevant factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury for their consideration in accordance with appropriate direction from the judge;
(v) If, having considered all these factors, a judge’s assessment is that a fair trial will be possible, a stay should not be granted.’
Rose VP LJ, Stanley Burnton, Hedley JJ
 2 Cr App R 23, 170 JP 434,  Crim LR 296, (2006) 170 JP 434,  EWCA Crim 756
England and Wales
re-stated. – Attorney General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) CACD 1990
A police officer attended an incident where two people were arrested. Complaints about his conduct were made of which he was given notice. A formal investigation was instituted and adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against those . .
Cited – Gadd, Regina v QBD 10-Oct-2014
The prosecutor sought leave to bring a voluntary bill of indictment, to pursue historic sex abuse allegations against the defendant. The defendant objected to counts founded on facts which were the substance of a charge of indecent assault . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.428552