R v Muse [2007] EWHC 2924 (QB)
On an application for a voluntary bill of indictment, the CPS decided not to rely on certain evidence. The judge found that there was insufficient to put the defendants on trial. The CPS subsequently reconsidered the matter and sought a voluntary bill of indictment in respect of the same incident on the basis of the evidence that it had chosen not to use at the previous hearing.
HELD It would be wrong in principle for the prosecution to be able to get round an adverse decision by inviting another judge to take a different view of the same material that had been before the judge who dismissed the charges. However, a voluntary bill may be granted to correct a mistaken decision by the CPS or to reflect a change of mind within the CPS. However, the power to do so should be used sparingly, in truly exceptional cases. Relevant factors include the public interest in putting defendants on trial where there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so and the offence is a serious one. However, given the desirability of finality in criminal matters, it would not usually be in the interests of justice that people should have to face a second prosecution in relation to the same offence, if the evidence relied on was available at the earlier hearing, particularly when a deliberate decision had been taken not to rely on that evidence. Each case has to be decided on its own facts.
R v Alan Ingleton [2007] EWCA Crim 2999
Before the trial began, a potential juror told the judge that he was a police officer and he knew all the officers who were to give evidence. The defence objected to him sitting on the jury. The judge ruled that he should remain, as there was no material challenge to the evidence of the police witnesses.
HELD Mr Justice Nelson ruled (at paras 35 and 36) that the police officer juror should have been asked to stand down at the outset, as should normally occur where any potential juror knows witnesses who are to be called to give oral evidence, unless it can be said with certainty that the evidence of the witnesses who are known will play no contested part in the determination of the matter.
Haw v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 2960 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 164 (Dec)
Appeal from a conviction and/or sentence for contempt of a magistrates’ court lies to the crown court under the Contempt of Court Act 1980, s 12(5). There is no right of appeal against a conviction or sentence to the High Court under of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 13. However, appeal to the High Court by way of case stated, or judicial review, is available where appropriate.
