Barker & Ors, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 437 (06 April 2017)

Barker & Ors, R v [2017] EWCA Crim 437 (06 April 2017)

The late amendment to the indictment was not of substance and was not made with the intent to defeat a no case to answer submission. The deficiencies in investigation and disclosure did not render a fair trial impossible. The judge's refusal to stay proceedings or sever the indictment was within the reasonable scope of judicial discretion and not outside the bounds of reasonableness.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 437
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Barker; Appellant: Chudasama; Appellant: Chauhan; Appellant: Ahmed; Appellant: Croft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings and Refusal to Sever Indictment Prior to Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Amendment of Indictment, Severance of Counts, Fair Trial, Judicial Discretion
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Abuse of Process Amendment of Indictment Severance of Counts Fair Trial Judicial Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Barker

Appellant

Chudasama

Appellant

Chauhan

Appellant

Ahmed

Appellant

Croft

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings and Refusal to Sever Indictment Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process due to late amendment of indictment, disclosure failures, and tainted evidence
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to sever counts on the indictment was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The late amendment to the indictment was not of substance and was not made with the intent to defeat a no case to answer submission. The deficiencies in investigation and disclosure did not render a fair trial impossible. The judge's refusal to stay proceedings or sever the indictment was within the reasonable scope of judicial discretion and not outside the bounds of reasonableness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Refusal to stay proceedings as abuse of process upheld
  • Refusal to sever indictment upheld