E, R. v

E, R. v

The trial judge's decision to stay the prosecution was not reasonably open to him. The failure to seize the complainant's phone after learning of the relevant text message did not, in the circumstances, render a fair trial impossible. The trial process and available evidence were sufficient to address any potential unfairness, and the judge gave undue weight to the possible relevance of the missing material. The stay was therefore wrong in principle and not a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: E
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (terminating Ruling)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; stay reversed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Police Investigations
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Abuse of Process Disclosure Fair Trial Sexual Offences Police Investigations

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (terminating Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to seize and examine the complainant's mobile phone constituted a breach of duty by the police
  2. 2 Whether the loss of potential evidence from the phone rendered a fair trial impossible
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's decision to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's decision to stay the prosecution was not reasonably open to him. The failure to seize the complainant's phone after learning of the relevant text message did not, in the circumstances, render a fair trial impossible. The trial process and available evidence were sufficient to address any potential unfairness, and the judge gave undue weight to the possible relevance of the missing material. The stay was therefore wrong in principle and not a reasonable exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; stay reversed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Ruling to stay prosecution reversed