Mansfield v DPP [2021] EWHC 2938 (Admin) – s 139 CJA 1988.
– double jeopardy – promise not to prosecute.
1) magistrates’ court has jurisdiction to consider stay of prosecution for abuse of process when P has withdrawn assurance not to prosecute.
2) public interest in holding P to its promise not to prosecute may outweigh public interest in seeing that serious offence is prosecuted.
- “detriment” to D is wider than that which can be cured by achieving fairness at trial.
- whereas ability of D to have fair trial is focus of category 1 abuse of process, category 2 abuse looks broadly at whether court’s sense of fairness and propriety offended.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Hamza (Abu) [2006] EWCA Crim 2918 – S 4 OAPA.
- delay – abuse of process – assurance of no prosecution - adverse publicity - fair trial - double jeopardy. 1) prosecuting D, contrary to assurance he would not be prosecuted, unlikely to be abuse of process unless (i) the assurance was unequivocal and (ii) D acted upon it to his detriment. 2) effect of adverse publicity before trial may be neutralised by appropriate directions to jury and does not make fair trial impossible. - R v Walters [2020] EWCA Crim 894 – S 1 FA.
- prosecuting D, contrary to assurance she would not be prosecuted, unlikely to be abuse of process unless (i) the assurance was unequivocal and (ii) D acted upon it to her detriment. - P not bound by letter telling D she would not be prosecuted when letter sent without P’s knowledge or authority.