BKR, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 903 (28 July 2023)

BKR, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 903 (28 July 2023)

The judge erred in staying the prosecution as an abuse of process because there was no executive misconduct or irrationality in the CPS's decision to proceed. The decision to prosecute was made after proper consideration of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for a stay under the second limb of Ex p. Bennett. The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to review prosecutorial decisions on general public law grounds absent misconduct or breach of international obligations.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 903
Parties
Appellant: The Crown; Respondent: BKR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed; stay set aside
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Prosecutorial Discretion, Public Interest Test, Stay of Proceedings, Judicial Review of Prosecution Decisions
Criminal Law Judicial Review Abuse of Process Prosecutorial Discretion Public Interest Test Stay of Proceedings Judicial Review of Prosecution Decisions

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Appellant

BKR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in staying the prosecution as an abuse of process under the second limb of R v Horseferry Road Magistrates ex parte Bennett
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's decision to proceed was oppressive, vexatious, or amounted to misconduct justifying a stay
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review prosecutorial decisions on public law grounds in the absence of executive misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in staying the prosecution as an abuse of process because there was no executive misconduct or irrationality in the CPS's decision to proceed. The decision to prosecute was made after proper consideration of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for a stay under the second limb of Ex p. Bennett. The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to review prosecutorial decisions on general public law grounds absent misconduct or breach of international obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; stay set aside

Orders

  • The stay of prosecution is quashed.
  • The trial is to proceed.