Key Facts
- •Corporal Seru, a member of the British Army, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a fellow soldier (the complainant).
- •The SPA initially indicated it would offer no evidence, then reversed its decision after the complainant invoked her right to review.
- •Seru applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process, arguing the initial decision not to prosecute was final and irrevocable.
- •The Assistant Judge Advocate General (AJAG) dismissed the application, finding the initial email was only an indication of intent, not a final decision.
- •Seru appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC), arguing the AJAG erred in his judgment and that the SPA's communication should be treated differently than a civilian CPS communication.
Legal Principles
An unequivocal representation by those conducting a prosecution that a defendant will not be prosecuted, acted upon to the defendant's detriment, may constitute an abuse of process. However, newly discovered facts may justify proceeding despite the representation.
R v Killick [2012] 1 Cr.App.R 10; R v Abu Hamza [2007] QB 659
A statement by the prosecution that no evidence will be offered, made coram judice (in open court), cannot be easily reversed; doing so may bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
R v Bloomfield [1997] 1 Cr.App.R 135
The SPA's Victim's Right to Review Policy allows victims to seek review of a decision to offer no evidence; this decision can be reversed.
SPA Victim's Right to Review Policy, paragraph 17
Outcomes
The CMAC dismissed the appeal.
The initial email was merely an indication of intent, not a final decision. Seru suffered no prejudice, and the public interest in prosecuting the case outweighed his disappointment. The proceedings had not reached the stage of a formal offering of no evidence.