Appeal From R. Prosecution Service Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sub Nom R v I.K.,a.B., and K.A.

Appeal From R. Prosecution Service Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sub Nom R v I.K.,a.B., and K.A.

Double jeopardy does not apply unless both sets of proceedings are criminal; SIAC proceedings are not criminal and do not bar subsequent prosecution. For AB and KA, the evidence for terrorism charges was not available at the time of the forgery convictions, and the facts are not substantially the same; thus, there is no bar to prosecution. Abuse of process was not established.

Parties
Appellant: Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent/defendant: I. K.; Respondent/defendant: A. B.; Respondent/defendant: K. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Stay of Proceedings (abuse of Process/double Jeopardy)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings set aside.
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Abuse of Process, Terrorism Offences, Stay of Proceedings, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Double Jeopardy Abuse of Process Terrorism Offences Stay of Proceedings Criminal Procedure

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Appellant

I. K.

Respondent/defendant

A. B.

Respondent/defendant

K. A.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Stay of Proceedings (abuse of Process/double Jeopardy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principle of double jeopardy applies to non-criminal proceedings (SIAC) and subsequent criminal prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution of AB and KA for terrorism offences after forgery convictions constitutes double jeopardy or abuse of process.
  3. 3 What material is to be considered in deciding whether criminal charges are founded on the same or substantially the same facts.

Ratio Decidendi

Double jeopardy does not apply unless both sets of proceedings are criminal; SIAC proceedings are not criminal and do not bar subsequent prosecution. For AB and KA, the evidence for terrorism charges was not available at the time of the forgery convictions, and the facts are not substantially the same; thus, there is no bar to prosecution. Abuse of process was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; stay of proceedings set aside.

Orders

  • Mackay J’s rulings staying proceedings against IK, AB, and KA are reversed.
  • Proceedings against each defendant to be resumed in the Crown Court.