Crawley & Ors, R. v

Crawley & Ors, R. v

The stay of prosecution was not justified because there was a realistic prospect of competent advocates being available for a trial in January 2015, and the judge's reasoning attributing fault to the state and allowing delay in instructing counsel was flawed. Remedies short of a stay were available, and the integrity of the criminal justice system was not compromised.

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
Outcome
ruling reversed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Fair Trial, Legal Representation, Adjournment, Remuneration of Counsel
Criminal Law Legal Aid Abuse of Process Fair Trial Legal Representation Adjournment Remuneration of Counsel

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the stay of prosecution was justified due to lack of legal representation caused by legal aid funding dispute
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment should have been granted instead of a stay
  3. 3 Whether the integrity of the criminal justice system was compromised

Ratio Decidendi

The stay of prosecution was not justified because there was a realistic prospect of competent advocates being available for a trial in January 2015, and the judge's reasoning attributing fault to the state and allowing delay in instructing counsel was flawed. Remedies short of a stay were available, and the integrity of the criminal justice system was not compromised.

Court Disposition

ruling reversed

Orders

  • The stay of prosecution is lifted.
  • Proceedings on the indictment are to be resumed in the Crown Court at Southwark.