AJ, R. v

AJ, R. v

The prosecution of the Applicant did not constitute an abuse of process as there was no categorical assurance of non-prosecution, no affront to the integrity of the criminal justice system, the law was sufficiently certain and accessible, and the judge's decision was a fact-specific application of established principles. No exceptional question of law arose to justify interlocutory appeal.

Parties
Respondent: R; Applicant: AJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Legitimate Expectation, Terrorism Offences, Mental Health and Criminal Liability, Discretion to Prosecute, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Public Law Abuse of Process Legitimate Expectation Terrorism Offences Mental Health and Criminal Liability Discretion to Prosecute +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

AJ

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution of Applicant constitutes an abuse of process due to breach of legitimate expectation
  2. 2 Whether prosecution is arbitrary, unpredictable, or violates Convention rights
  3. 3 Whether Applicant's mental health and vulnerability were adequately considered in charging decision

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution of the Applicant did not constitute an abuse of process as there was no categorical assurance of non-prosecution, no affront to the integrity of the criminal justice system, the law was sufficiently certain and accessible, and the judge's decision was a fact-specific application of established principles. No exceptional question of law arose to justify interlocutory appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • No stay of proceedings granted.