Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 24 Nov 2010

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to discontinue the prosecution of the claimant. The judge had suggested that the defendant could submit to a restraining order without a finding of guilt. The CPS had concluded that no such agreement could be reached after an acquittal on the offer of no evidence, but rather required an acquittal after a trial.
Held: Review was granted. Though there might be circumstances weere it would be proper to allow the prosecutor to withdraw from such an offer, it was clear that in this case there had been an agreement reached. Each such situation must be assessed on its own facts.
References: [2010] EWHC 3593 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Ouseley J
Statutes: Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Mahdi CACD ([1993] Crim LR 793)
    There had been delay in the prosecution. Eventually, the prosecutor sought another adjournment before Judge Clarkson, who said ‘it is to be recorded that this is the last time that there will be an adjournment for the benefit of the prosecution.’ He . .
  • Cited – Regina v Bloomfield CACD ([1997] 1 Cr App R 135, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Crim 1801)
    It was an abuse of process to proceed with a prosecution in the face of an unequivocal statement by counsel for the Crown to the Court that the prosecution would tender no evidence. There was no change of circumstances which might have justified . .
  • Cited – Nembhard v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 194 (Admin))
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for failing to produce his driving documents, saying that the local police had stopped some 55 times in the previous 12 months, and that the request was improper and an abuse.
    Held: ‘An officer can . .
  • Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, Times 30-Nov-06, [2007] 2 WLR 226, [2007] 3 All ER 451, [2007] 1 Cr App R 27)
    The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.431940