IPE Marble Arch Ltd v Moran [2024] EWHC 1375 (KB) (07 June 2024)

IPE Marble Arch Ltd v Moran [2024] EWHC 1375 (KB) (07 June 2024)

There was no basic or substantive error of law in the Crown Court judge's dismissal of the indictment. The evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary intent for forgery or fraud by false representation, and the indictment lacked sufficient particularisation of the acts or omissions intended to be induced. The prosecution's reliance on overarching intent to stop the development was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements. Accordingly, leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment was refused.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1375 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/prosecution: IPE Marble Arch Limited; Respondent/defendant: Anthony Moran
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Prefer a Voluntary Bill of Indictment (criminal) / High Court Review Following Crown Court Dismissal of Indictment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Forgery, Fraud by False Representation, Private Prosecution, Voluntary Bill of Indictment, Abuse of Process, Particularisation of Indictment, Sufficiency of Evidence
Criminal Law Forgery Fraud by False Representation Private Prosecution Voluntary Bill of Indictment Abuse of Process Particularisation of Indictment Sufficiency of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IPE Marble Arch Limited

Applicant/prosecution

Anthony Moran

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Prefer a Voluntary Bill of Indictment (criminal) / High Court Review Following Crown Court Dismissal of Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court judge made a basic and substantive error of law in dismissing charges of forgery and fraud by false representation
  2. 2 Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the charges as framed
  3. 3 Whether the indictment was sufficiently particularised to comply with procedural rules

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basic or substantive error of law in the Crown Court judge's dismissal of the indictment. The evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary intent for forgery or fraud by false representation, and the indictment lacked sufficient particularisation of the acts or omissions intended to be induced. The prosecution's reliance on overarching intent to stop the development was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements. Accordingly, leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment is refused.
  • Parties invited to agree consequential matters, including costs, or file written submissions within 14 days.