AXR v Rex [2025] EWCA Crim 454 (11 April 2025)

AXR v Rex [2025] EWCA Crim 454 (11 April 2025)

The court held that the current system for handling CHIS status and disclosure is compliant with Article 2 and Article 6 ECHR, that disclosure of informer status to prosecutors is only necessary when it becomes relevant to the proceedings (typically when the accused chooses to rely on it in his defence), and that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 454
Parties
Applicant: AXR; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Covert Human Intelligence Sources (chis), Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Disclosure Obligations, Anonymity Orders
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Abuse of Process Covert Human Intelligence Sources (chis) Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Disclosure Obligations Anonymity Orders

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AXR

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of a former CHIS should be stayed as an abuse of process due to risks to life and fair trial rights
  2. 2 Whether the system for handling CHIS status and disclosure is compliant with Article 2 and Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the absence of automatic disclosure of CHIS status to prosecutors at charge breaches legal obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the current system for handling CHIS status and disclosure is compliant with Article 2 and Article 6 ECHR, that disclosure of informer status to prosecutors is only necessary when it becomes relevant to the proceedings (typically when the accused chooses to rely on it in his defence), and that the applicant was not compelled to self-disclose. The judge's refusal to stay the proceedings was correct as a fair trial is possible and the public interest in prosecution outweighs the applicant's arguments. No abuse of process was established under either limb.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Anonymity order for the applicant (AXR)
  • No publication of applicant's true name or identifying details under s11 Contempt of Court Act 1981