Crown Prosecution Service v F [2011] EWCA Crim 1844.
1) at close of P’s case, the trial court may rule on whether there is “no case to answer” but not on whether a conviction would be “unsafe”; that was a matter for the Court of Appeal.
2) abuse of process application on grounds of delay to be dealt with on principles established in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1) of 1990.
3) unjustified delay is not by itself a sufficient reason for a stay.
4) application for a stay on the grounds of delay should normally be heard as a preliminary application made on notice.
5) summary of conclusions.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.
– how to deal with a submission of no case to answer. - Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1990) [1992] 1 QB 630 CA.
- abuse of process. - no stay on grounds of delay unless D shows serious prejudice and no fair trial possible.