Central Criminal Court
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839105500201 |
| Date | 01 May 1991 |
| Published date | 01 May 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Central Criminal Court |
CENTRAL
CRIMINAL
COURT
DELAY
AND ABUSE OF PROCESS
LPB
In this case, reported in (1990) 91 Cr App R 359 as L P
Band
indexed as B L P, a man was charged in the Central Criminal Court
with indecent assault, rape and assault occasioning actual bodily
harm of his step-daughter, the offences being alleged to have been
committed respectively 'between 1972and 1989', 'between 1980 and
1984' and 'between 1983 and 1984', at a time at which the step-
daughter was a child. The first report she made of the offences was
when she was 23 years old and had been living away from home for
seven years. The defendant applied that the prosecution should be
stayed, on the ground that it amounted to an abuse of the process
of the court. This claim was not based on the ground that the police
or the prosecuting authorities were guilty of misconduct, inefficiency
or delay; indeed, the judge expressed the opinion that 'the police
investigation was rapid and efficient'. The application proceeded on
the basis that the delay which occurred before the offences were
reported to the police by the victim resulted, 'at lowest', in the risk
that any trial would be unfair to the defendant.
Prima facie, it is the duty of the prosecuting authority to determine
whether to prosecute and the duty of the committing magistrates to
determine whether to commit for trial. The prospective trial court
has, however, an undoubted inherent jurisdiction to stay the proceed-
ings, if it is of opinion that they would amount to an abuse of process;
and, in the determination of that question, the strength (or weakness)
of the Crown's case, as it appears when the application for a stay is
made, is prima facie irrelevant. In Hunter v West Midlands Chief
Constable
[1982]
AC 529, Lord Diplock stated that it is not the
court's discretion, but its duty, to act to prevent any abuse of its
procedure. In the present case, Judge J, remarked that, although
'until recently' it was clearly understood that proceedings on indict-
ment would be stayed only in exceptional circumstances (see
DPP
v
Humphreys
[1977]
AC 1), applications to stay such proceedings have
121
To continue reading
Request your trial