Bahbahani, R v

Bahbahani, R v

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to order a venire de novo for summary trials in Magistrates’ Court; the Crown Court was correct to proceed as the committal was valid on its face; the applicant was the cause of his own difficulties and there was no abuse of process; the confiscation order was properly made and not disproportionate.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Ali Bahbahani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save for technical correction to default sentence.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Confiscation Order, Venire De Novo, Nullity of Proceedings, Criminal Lifestyle Assumptions

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Ali Bahbahani

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrates’ Court proceedings were a nullity due to impersonation
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to order a venire de novo for summary trial
  3. 3 Whether the Crown Court proceedings were an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to order a venire de novo for summary trials in Magistrates’ Court; the Crown Court was correct to proceed as the committal was valid on its face; the applicant was the cause of his own difficulties and there was no abuse of process; the confiscation order was properly made and not disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save for technical correction to default sentence.

Orders

  • Leave granted to correct default sentence: eight years’ imprisonment in default applies only to confiscation sum; default sentence for fines quashed and replaced with 40 days’ imprisonment.
  • All other grounds of appeal dismissed.