M, R. v

M, R. v

The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under section 58(4) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as neither the intention to appeal nor the acquittal agreement was notified to the court immediately after the terminating ruling and before significant steps were taken. This non-compliance deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, rendering it incompetent.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; respondent acquitted.
Legal Topics
Terminating Rulings, Right of Appeal by Prosecution, Procedural Compliance, Acquittal Agreement, Jurisdictional Prerequisites
Criminal Law Immigration Law Appellate Procedure Terminating Rulings Right of Appeal by Prosecution Procedural Compliance Acquittal Agreement Jurisdictional Prerequisites

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Terminating Ruling (no Case to Answer) Under Section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under section 58(4) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to validly appeal a terminating ruling
  2. 2 Whether the failure to immediately notify the court of intention to appeal and provide the acquittal agreement deprived the court of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under section 58(4) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as neither the intention to appeal nor the acquittal agreement was notified to the court immediately after the terminating ruling and before significant steps were taken. This non-compliance deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, rendering it incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction; respondent acquitted.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed as incompetent.
  • The respondent is to be acquitted pursuant to section 61(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.