F, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1639 (29 July 2009)

F, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1639 (29 July 2009)

The judge's ruling to stay proceedings on counts 1 to 8 was based on a flawed analysis of the evidence and an incorrect application of the law regarding abuse of process. The conduct of the FSA, individually or cumulatively, did not amount to an abuse of process or render the trial unfair. The judge's approach...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 1639
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: F
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Proceedings (abuse of Process)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Prosecutorial Conduct, Collective Investment Schemes, Criminal Procedure, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Abuse of Process Prosecutorial Conduct Collective Investment Schemes Criminal Procedure Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

F

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Proceedings (abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) amounted to an abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings on counts 1 to 8 of the indictment.
  2. 2 Whether the judge's ruling to stay proceedings was wrong in law or unreasonable under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution was required to seek leave to appeal from the trial judge before applying to the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's ruling to stay proceedings on counts 1 to 8 was based on a flawed analysis of the evidence and an incorrect application of the law regarding abuse of process. The conduct of the FSA, individually or cumulatively, did not amount to an abuse of process or render the trial unfair. The judge's approach amounted to an error of law and was not reasonable. The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the prosecution's appeal, set aside the stay, and referred the counts back to the Crown Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Prosecution granted leave to appeal.
  • Stay on counts 1 to 8 set aside.