Seru, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1102 (28 July 2023)

Seru, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 1102 (28 July 2023)

The email from the SPA was an indication of intent, not a formal or binding discontinuance. No formal offering of no evidence was made before the court, and no not guilty verdicts were entered. The applicant suffered no prejudice or detriment. The reversal of the SPA's intention did not constitute an abuse of process. The Assistant Judge Advocate General was correct to refuse to stay the proceedings.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 1102
Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: Isimeli Gade Seru
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (interlocutory Application) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings as Abuse of Process
Outcome
applications for extension of time and leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Victim's Right to Review, Sexual Assault, Prosecutorial Discretion, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Military Law Abuse of Process Victim's Right to Review Sexual Assault Prosecutorial Discretion Reporting Restrictions

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Isimeli Gade Seru

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (interlocutory Application) / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay Proceedings as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continuation of prosecution after an erroneous indication of discontinuance constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the SPA's reversal of intention to offer no evidence is final and binding
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered prejudice or acted to his detriment based on the SPA's email

Ratio Decidendi

The email from the SPA was an indication of intent, not a formal or binding discontinuance. No formal offering of no evidence was made before the court, and no not guilty verdicts were entered. The applicant suffered no prejudice or detriment. The reversal of the SPA's intention did not constitute an abuse of process. The Assistant Judge Advocate General was correct to refuse to stay the proceedings.

Court Disposition

applications for extension of time and leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Reporting restriction on complainant's identity under Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 maintained
  • No additional reporting restrictions imposed