CPS v F (Rev 2) [2011] EWCA Crim 1844 (21 July 2011)

CPS v F (Rev 2) [2011] EWCA Crim 1844 (21 July 2011)

The judge applied the wrong test by treating the absence of justification for the complainant's delay as determinative for a stay, rather than focusing on whether the delay caused serious prejudice making a fair trial impossible. The correct approach is that a stay for abuse of process on grounds of delay is only justified if a fair trial is not possible due to prejudice that cannot be remedied by the trial process. Issues of credibility and delay are for the jury unless they render a fair trial impossible.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Crim 1844
Parties
Applicant: CPS; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (stay for Abuse of Process)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Historic Sexual Offences, No Case to Answer, Jury Function, Delay in Prosecution
Criminal Law Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Historic Sexual Offences No Case to Answer Jury Function Delay in Prosecution

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 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPS

Applicant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (stay for Abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted for abuse of process due to delayed complaint in historic sexual offences
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred by conflating the test for abuse of process with the test for no case to answer under R v Galbraith

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the wrong test by treating the absence of justification for the complainant's delay as determinative for a stay, rather than focusing on whether the delay caused serious prejudice making a fair trial impossible. The correct approach is that a stay for abuse of process on grounds of delay is only justified if a fair trial is not possible due to prejudice that cannot be remedied by the trial process. Issues of credibility and delay are for the jury unless they render a fair trial impossible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Terminating ruling (stay) set aside; trial to proceed