Crown Prosecution Service v P [2007] EWHC 946 (Admin) (27 April 2007)

Crown Prosecution Service v P [2007] EWHC 946 (Admin) (27 April 2007)

The district judge erred in law by staying the proceedings at the outset without considering whether to allow the trial to proceed while keeping the defendant's capacity under review and without considering the statutory alternatives. Stays on capacity grounds should be exceptional and only exercised before evidence is heard if no useful purpose would be served by proceeding. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances no order is made other than to allow the appeal and the stay remains in place.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 946 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Appeal From Youth Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fitness to Plead, Abuse of Process, Doli Incapax, Effective Participation in Trial, Article 6 ECHR Rights, Youth Court Procedure
Criminal Law Youth Justice Mental Health Law Fitness to Plead Abuse of Process Doli Incapax Effective Participation in Trial Article 6 ECHR Rights +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

P

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (administrative Court) Appeal From Youth Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Youth Court erred in staying criminal proceedings against a child defendant on grounds of inability to participate effectively in the trial
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of doli incapax survives the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.34
  3. 3 What procedure youth courts should follow when capacity issues are raised

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge erred in law by staying the proceedings at the outset without considering whether to allow the trial to proceed while keeping the defendant's capacity under review and without considering the statutory alternatives. Stays on capacity grounds should be exceptional and only exercised before evidence is heard if no useful purpose would be served by proceeding. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances no order is made other than to allow the appeal and the stay remains in place.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • No order other than to allow the appeal; the stay remains in place.