Marks & Ors, R v [2011] NICC 2 (14 January 2011)

Marks & Ors, R v [2011] NICC 2 (14 January 2011)

The statutory scheme permits the use of the direct transfer procedure for defendants before the Magistrates' Court on summons, not just those on bail or in custody. The SFO's conduct in effecting the transfer did not amount to an abuse of process, as there was no real prejudice to the defendants and the procedure was lawfully and properly invoked.

Citation
[2011] NICC 2
Parties
Defendant: William Ronald Marks; Defendant: James Daniel McGeown; Defendant: John Simington; Defendant: Carol Kealey; Prosecutor: Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Stay Proceedings And/or Declare Transfer a Nullity
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Corruption, Money Laundering, Direct Transfer Procedure, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Procedure Corruption Money Laundering Direct Transfer Procedure Abuse of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ronald Marks

Defendant

James Daniel McGeown

Defendant

John Simington

Defendant

Carol Kealey

Defendant

Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Stay Proceedings And/or Declare Transfer a Nullity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the direct transfer procedure under the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (NI) Order 1988 can be used when defendants are before the Magistrates' Court on summons rather than on bail or in custody
  2. 2 Whether the Serious Fraud Office's conduct in effecting the transfer constituted an abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme permits the use of the direct transfer procedure for defendants before the Magistrates' Court on summons, not just those on bail or in custody. The SFO's conduct in effecting the transfer did not amount to an abuse of process, as there was no real prejudice to the defendants and the procedure was lawfully and properly invoked.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Application to declare transfer a nullity refused
  • Application for stay on grounds of abuse of process refused