Aine Davis v R

Aine Davis v R

The Court held that the prosecution in England and Wales is not founded on the same or substantially the same facts or incident as the Turkish conviction, and thus does not offend the double jeopardy principle or amount to an abuse of process. There was no evidence of misconduct or collusion by UK authorities in the applicant's deportation. The challenge to Count 3 failed as the arrangement involved multiple parties and the statutory requirement was met. All grounds of appeal were unarguable and leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Aine Davis; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Pre Trial Preparatory Hearing Rulings
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Double Jeopardy, Jurisdiction, Prosecutorial Discretion, Interpretation of Terrorism Act 2000, Extradition and Deportation Procedures
Criminal Law Terrorism Law Extradition Law Abuse of Process Double Jeopardy Jurisdiction Prosecutorial Discretion Interpretation of Terrorism Act 2000 +1 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aine Davis

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Pre Trial Preparatory Hearing Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution in England and Wales constitutes an abuse of process due to double jeopardy following conviction in Turkey
  2. 2 Whether there are special circumstances justifying prosecution in England and Wales after Turkish conviction
  3. 3 Whether UK authorities procured or colluded in unlawful deportation to facilitate prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the prosecution in England and Wales is not founded on the same or substantially the same facts or incident as the Turkish conviction, and thus does not offend the double jeopardy principle or amount to an abuse of process. There was no evidence of misconduct or collusion by UK authorities in the applicant's deportation. The challenge to Count 3 failed as the arrangement involved multiple parties and the statutory requirement was met. All grounds of appeal were unarguable and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed