R. v FB (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Crim 1857 (27 July 2010)

R. v FB (Rev 1) [2010] EWCA Crim 1857 (27 July 2010)

A Crown Court judge has no power to quash an indictment or terminate a prosecution on the grounds of perceived triviality, lack of public interest, or resource allocation, unless the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process or the indictment is legally defective. The Criminal Procedure Rules do not confer such a power; they regulate procedure and case management, not the substantive right to prosecute.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 1857
Parties
Appellant: Queen; Respondent: FB; Respondent: AB; Respondent: JC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (quashing of Indictments)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judge's orders quashing indictments reversed; cases remitted for retrial before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Powers, Case Management, Quashing of Indictments, Criminal Procedure Rules, Crown Court Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Procedure Abuse of Process Judicial Powers Case Management Quashing of Indictments Criminal Procedure Rules Crown Court Jurisdiction

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Queen

Appellant

FB

Respondent

AB

Respondent

JC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (quashing of Indictments)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Crown Court judge has the power to quash an indictment on grounds of perceived lack of public interest, triviality, or resource allocation, absent abuse of process or legal defect.

Ratio Decidendi

A Crown Court judge has no power to quash an indictment or terminate a prosecution on the grounds of perceived triviality, lack of public interest, or resource allocation, unless the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process or the indictment is legally defective. The Criminal Procedure Rules do not confer such a power; they regulate procedure and case management, not the substantive right to prosecute.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judge's orders quashing indictments reversed; cases remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Orders

  • Decisions of Judge Shorrock quashing the indictments are quashed.
  • Cases remitted to the Crown Court at Woolwich for fresh trial before a different judge.