Description
Does a shifting of the investigative burden render a fair trial impossible?
The Appellant sought to appeal against her conviction for an offence of assault by beating on the basis that the Magistrates' Court should have acceded to an application made on her behalf to stay the proceedings as an abuse of the process of the Court.
The cardinal submission on behalf of the Appellant was that the Police had failed to take witness statements from potential eye-witnesses. The Appellant had named the aforementioned potential eye-witnesses when she had been interviewed by the Police. During the Police interview a Solicitor had been present to represent the interests of the Appellant. On the day after the Police interview had taken place, the Appellant made a telephone call to the Police and provided the contact details for the potential eye-witnesses she had mentioned.
In dismissing the appeal by way of case stated the Queen's Bench Division held that, notwithstanding the fact that the Police had failed to take witness statements from the potential eye-witnesses, a fair trial had remained possible.
Wyn Williams J reaffirmed that that a criminal Court has power to stay proceedings where it will be impossible for the Defendant to have a fair trial and where a stay is necessary to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system. However, the power of Justices to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process is to be most sparingly exercised and should be strictly confined to matters directly affecting the fairness of the trial of the particular accused with whom they are dealing. At all material times the Appellant had been legally represented and the importance of obtaining witness statements from eye-witnesses while events were fresh in their mind would have been selfevident to any lawyer. Furthermore, there was evidence before the Magistrates' Court from a number of eye-witnesses, one of whom was independent.
0141 553 4890
