Crawley & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 1028 (21 May 2014)

Crawley & Ors, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 1028 (21 May 2014)

The judge's decision to stay the prosecution was wrong in law and principle, as there was a realistic prospect of competent advocates being available for a future trial date through the PDS. The absence of representation was not attributable to the prosecution or a failure of the state justifying a stay. An adjournment, not a stay, was the appropriate remedy. The threshold for a stay was not met, and the judge's findings were not reasonably open to him on the evidence.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Crim 1028
Parties
Applicant: The Queen; Respondent: Scott Crawley; Respondent: Dale Walker; Respondent: Daniel Forsyth; Respondent: Aaron Petrou; Respondent: Brendan Daley; Intervener: Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Stay of Prosecution (abuse of Process)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; stay reversed; prosecution to proceed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Right to Fair Trial, Legal Representation, Adjournment, Very High Cost Cases (vhcc), Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Legal Aid Human Rights Abuse of Process Right to Fair Trial Legal Representation Adjournment Very High Cost Cases (vhcc) +1 more

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

Parties

The Queen

Applicant

Scott Crawley

Respondent

Dale Walker

Respondent

Daniel Forsyth

Respondent

Aaron Petrou

Respondent

Brendan Daley

Respondent

Lord Chancellor

Intervener

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of prosecution due to lack of available defence advocates was justified as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment should have been granted instead of a stay
  3. 3 Whether the absence of representation was attributable to state failure justifying a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to stay the prosecution was wrong in law and principle, as there was a realistic prospect of competent advocates being available for a future trial date through the PDS. The absence of representation was not attributable to the prosecution or a failure of the state justifying a stay. An adjournment, not a stay, was the appropriate remedy. The threshold for a stay was not met, and the judge's findings were not reasonably open to him on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; stay reversed; prosecution to proceed

Orders

  • The ruling staying the prosecution is reversed.
  • The proceedings on the indictment are to be resumed in the Crown Court at Southwark.