Director of Public Prosecutions v Ayres

In criminal proceedings, a party should ordinarily be given an opportunity to make oral submissions before the court decides whether proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process. A failure to file a skeleton argument, even against a background of serious procedural defaults, will rarely justify shutting out the party’s explanation and submissions. The court must hear both sides before deciding whether delay or non-compliance makes a trial unfair or otherwise amounts to an abuse of process.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated against the Ealing Magistrates’ Court’s decision to stay criminal proceedings against Michael John Ayres. The respondent faced charges of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, disorderly conduct, and being drunk and disorderly.

The magistrates had excluded the prosecution from making submissions because it had failed to file a skeleton argument, following repeated failures to comply with disclosure and other directions. They then stayed the proceedings for abuse of process. The central questions were whether the prosecution had been properly denied an oral hearing, whether the magistrates had been entitled to find that a trial would be unfair, and whether the proceedings had properly been stayed.

The appeal was allowed. The matter was not remitted to the magistrates’ court, and there was no order as to costs.

1. Right to be heard. Criminal proceedings are essentially conducted through oral submissions. A skeleton argument assists the court and the parties, but it does not ordinarily replace the opportunity to address the court orally. Even serious procedural default does not generally justify depriving a party of the opportunity to explain the default and make submissions on whether criminal proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process.
2. Application to this case. The magistrates had erred in excluding the prosecution’s representatives from the hearing. The prosecution should have been heard before the magistrates decided whether the procedural failures made a trial unfair or constituted an abuse of process. Accordingly, the answers to all three questions in the case stated were No, in the sense that the magistrates had proceeded to make their findings without hearing the prosecution.
3. Serious procedural defaults. The court expressed grave concern about the prosecution’s repeated and substantial failures to comply with directions concerning disclosure, CCTV material, disciplinary records and the forensic medical report. The defaults were individually serious and collectively represented, in ordinary parlance, a contempt for the magistrates’ directions. The court directed that its concerns be brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
4. Despite those concerns, the court did not remit the matter to the magistrates. The appeal was formally allowed.

1. Ealing Magistrates’ Court: stayed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process after excluding the prosecution from making submissions.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, allowed the appeal because the prosecution should have been heard. The case was not remitted.