Richards & Ors, R. v

Richards & Ors, R. v

The prosecution had sufficiently discharged its primary disclosure obligations by September 2011 through proportionate sampling and search terms. The judge's requirement for a global, fully searchable dataset exceeded statutory requirements. Delay and defects in electronic disclosure did not render a fair trial impossible. The stay of proceedings was not reasonable and must be lifted.

Parties
Appellant: The Crown; Respondent: Michael Richards; Respondent: Robert Gold; Respondent: Rodney Whiston-Dew; Respondent: Jonathan Anwyl; Respondent: Evdoros Demetriou; Respondent: Malcolm Gold; Respondent: Adam Page; Respondent: Peter Franklin; Intervener: Attorney General; Intervener: Legal Aid Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (abuse of Process)
Outcome
appeal allowed; stay lifted
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Unused Material, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Fraud, Delay in Prosecution
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Disclosure of Unused Material Abuse of Process Case Management Fraud Delay in Prosecution

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Appellant

Michael Richards

Respondent

Robert Gold

Respondent

Rodney Whiston-Dew

Respondent

Jonathan Anwyl

Respondent

Evdoros Demetriou

Respondent

Malcolm Gold

Respondent

Adam Page

Respondent

Peter Franklin

Respondent

Attorney General

Intervener

Legal Aid Agency

Intervener

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution complied with its duty of initial disclosure under CPIA 1996
  2. 2 Whether the stay of proceedings for abuse of process was justified due to delay and alleged prosecutorial failings
  3. 3 Whether defects in electronic disclosure rendered a fair trial impossible

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution had sufficiently discharged its primary disclosure obligations by September 2011 through proportionate sampling and search terms. The judge's requirement for a global, fully searchable dataset exceeded statutory requirements. Delay and defects in electronic disclosure did not render a fair trial impossible. The stay of proceedings was not reasonable and must be lifted.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; stay lifted

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted under s.57(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003
  • Stay of prosecution lifted