Gripton, R. v

Gripton, R. v

The prosecution was not an abuse of process because the appellant did not act to her detriment in reliance on the representation, was not aware of it until after her arrest, and the circumstances did not make the prosecution an affront to justice. The absence of detrimental reliance was significant, and the representation was not made in her presence or to her legal representatives.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Patricia Ann Gripton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Perjury, Legitimate Expectation, Prosecutorial Discretion
Criminal Law Procedure Abuse of Process Perjury Legitimate Expectation Prosecutorial 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Patricia Ann Gripton

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was an abuse of process to prosecute the appellant for perjury after an unequivocal representation in open court that she would not be prosecuted
  2. 2 Whether detrimental reliance is required for a stay of prosecution on grounds of abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in applying the test from R v Abu Hamza

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was not an abuse of process because the appellant did not act to her detriment in reliance on the representation, was not aware of it until after her arrest, and the circumstances did not make the prosecution an affront to justice. The absence of detrimental reliance was significant, and the representation was not made in her presence or to her legal representatives.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • No stay of prosecution granted