SA & Ors, R.

SA & Ors, R.

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution appeal despite the adjournment beyond the next business day, as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure Rules do not impose a rigid time limit. On the merits, the judge's rulings allowing submissions of no case to answer on counts 1, 3, and 4 were correct, as the evidence was insufficient and speculative, and the prosecution failed to satisfy the requirements of s.67 CJA 2003. The refusal to amend the indictment was binding and limited the prosecution case. Leave to appeal is refused and acquittals ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: SA; Respondent: ME; Respondent: LJ; Respondent: MR; Respondent: TL; Respondent: DM; Respondent: DP; Respondent: IO; Respondent: JR; Respondent: NB; Respondent: AM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Rulings
Outcome
leave to appeal refused; acquittals ordered
Legal Topics
Prosecution Appeals, No Case to Answer, Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Jurisdiction, Amendment of Indictment
Criminal Law Prosecution Appeals No Case to Answer Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Jurisdiction Amendment of Indictment

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

Parties

Regina

Appellant

SA

Respondent

ME

Respondent

LJ

Respondent

MR

Respondent

TL

Respondent

DM

Respondent

DP

Respondent

IO

Respondent

JR

Respondent

NB

Respondent

AM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Terminating Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution appeal given the adjournment beyond the next business day
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in allowing submissions of no case to answer on counts 1, 3, and 4
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to amend the indictment was correct and binding

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution appeal despite the adjournment beyond the next business day, as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure Rules do not impose a rigid time limit. On the merits, the judge's rulings allowing submissions of no case to answer on counts 1, 3, and 4 were correct, as the evidence was insufficient and speculative, and the prosecution failed to satisfy the requirements of s.67 CJA 2003. The refusal to amend the indictment was binding and limited the prosecution case. Leave to appeal is refused and acquittals ordered.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused; acquittals ordered

Orders

  • Respondents in relation to counts 1, 3 and 4 are acquitted of the offences in question pursuant to s.61(3) CJA 2003