R v BKJ
[2024] EWCA Crim 1354
R v Katie Ng & Anor
9 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 493
Court of Appeal
A judge stopped a trial because the prosecutor didn't show up, claiming it was unfair. A higher court disagreed, saying the judge made mistakes and that there are better ways to deal with prosecutors not being available. The trial will now go ahead.
Key Facts
- •Non-attendance of prosecuting trial counsel led to a judge staying the proceedings as an abuse of court process.
- •The Crown appealed the stay under s. 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The Respondents, Ms Ng and Mr O’Reilly, were charged with various offenses stemming from an incident on March 7, 2022, involving assaults and threats.
- •The case faced multiple adjournments due to the unavailability of prosecution counsel.
- •The judge stayed the indictment, citing the Crown's repeated failure to secure counsel as an abuse of process, potentially undermining public confidence in the justice system.
- •The prosecution counsel's unavailability was due to prioritizing another case involving a sentencing hearing with a factual dispute.
Legal Principles
The power to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse of process is an exceptional remedy, used as a last resort.
R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903; [2024] 1 WLR 1327
Two types of abuse justify a stay: (1) a fair trial is impossible; (2) it offends the court's sense of justice, propriety, or public confidence in the system.
R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903; [2024] 1 WLR 1327
For the second limb, prosecutorial misconduct (serious malpractice or unlawfulness) must be established and weighed against the public interest in trying the accused and maintaining confidence in the system.
R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903; [2024] 1 WLR 1327
A stay should not punish prosecutorial misconduct but safeguard the integrity of the justice system.
R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903; [2024] 1 WLR 1327
The court can terminate proceedings where the prosecution isn't represented at trial by using s.17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, leading to a not-guilty verdict if an adjournment is refused.
Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 17
Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) establish the overriding objective, the court's duty to manage cases, and the parties' duty to actively assist.
Criminal Procedure Rules
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal.
The judge's decision was based on factual inaccuracies and an error of law. There was no prosecutorial misconduct justifying a stay; the judge failed to properly balance the public interest in ensuring that those charged with crimes are tried and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. The judge's frustration with the under-resourcing of the criminal justice system was understandable but his method of addressing it was legally flawed.
The Terminating Ruling (stay of proceedings) was reversed.
The judge's decision was based on inaccurate procedural history, misapplication of the law, and a failure to conduct the necessary balancing exercise. The court highlighted alternative methods for dealing with the situation that wouldn't amount to abuse of process.
The court ordered a resumption of proceedings in the Crown Court.
The case is to be listed as a fixed trial on the first available date.