R v AMF & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 899
R v Kuran Gill
20 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 976
Court of Appeal
The police messed up by filing papers in the wrong place, delaying the retrial of a case. The judge said it wasn't entirely the police's fault because the court also made mistakes, and allowed the retrial to go ahead.
Key Facts
- •The prosecution applied for leave to arraign the defendant out of time after the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against conviction and ordered a retrial.
- •The retrial was initially listed for July 3, 2023.
- •The defendant counter-applied to set aside the retrial order and enter a verdict of acquittal.
- •The sole issue was whether the prosecution acted with all due expedition.
- •The original conviction was for wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- •The Court of Appeal ordered a fresh indictment within 28 days and arraignment within two months.
- •The prosecution uploaded a draft indictment onto the old DCS file instead of the new one, leading to delays.
- •A plea and trial preparation hearing (PTPH) on March 31, 2023, failed to arraign the defendant due to the indictment being on the wrong file and other procedural issues.
- •The prosecution made several attempts to rectify the situation through letters and emails.
- •The application for leave to arraign was made on May 23, 2023.
- •The defendant was acquitted on Count 1 and convicted on Count 2 at the retrial.
Legal Principles
A person ordered to be retried cannot be arraigned after two months unless the Court of Appeal grants leave.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 8(1)
Leave to arraign will only be granted if the prosecution acted with all due expedition and there is good and sufficient cause for a retrial despite the time lapse.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 8(1B)
'Expedition' means promptness or speed; 'due' means reasonable or proper. The court considers a broad 'post mortem' of events, not a minute examination of systems.
R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285
The primary duty to ensure timely arraignment lies with the Crown Court, but all parties must cooperate.
R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285
The prosecution's duty to act with 'all due expedition' is less exacting than the 'all due diligence and expedition' required for custody time limit extensions.
R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285
The overriding objective in criminal proceedings is that cases be dealt with justly, efficiently, and expeditiously.
Criminal Procedure Rules, Part 1, rule 1.1
Outcomes
The prosecution's application for leave to arraign was granted.
The prosecution acted with all due expedition in the context of their limited obligations regarding arraignment. While procedural errors occurred, the primary responsibility for the delays lay with the Crown Court's handling of the case, not the prosecution's actions after April 6th. The prosecution's efforts to rectify the situation after March 31 were deemed sufficient.