LSA, R. v

LSA, R. v

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the prosecution failed to give the required acquittal agreement in open court at the time of announcing the intention to appeal, as mandated by Article 4(8) of the 2006 Order and section 58(8) of the 2003 Act. Additionally, there was no right of appeal after the directed acquittal on the first charge, and the procedural requirements for an oral application for leave to appeal were not met.

Parties
Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: LSA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (from Court Martial) / Interlocutory Appeal on Legal Rulings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Double Jeopardy, Prosecution Appeals, Court Martial Procedure, Directed Acquittal
Criminal Law Military Law Procedural Law Abuse of Process Double Jeopardy Prosecution Appeals Court Martial Procedure Directed Acquittal

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Appellant

LSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (from Court Martial) / Interlocutory Appeal on Legal Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution had a valid right of interlocutory appeal under Article 4 of the Courts-Martial (Prosecution Appeals) Order 2006 and its civilian equivalent, section 58 Criminal Justice Act 2003, in the absence of the required acquittal agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the Judge Advocate's rulings to direct acquittal on the unfitness to drive charge and to stay the dangerous driving charge as an abuse of process were correct in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the prosecution failed to give the required acquittal agreement in open court at the time of announcing the intention to appeal, as mandated by Article 4(8) of the 2006 Order and section 58(8) of the 2003 Act. Additionally, there was no right of appeal after the directed acquittal on the first charge, and the procedural requirements for an oral application for leave to appeal were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The rulings of the Court-Martial stand: acquittal on the unfitness to drive charge and stay of the dangerous driving charge.