Crown Prosecution Service v Boyle

A stay for abuse of process is an exceptional remedy. It is justified only where continuing the proceedings would cause injustice, or where the circumstances of their institution offend the overall sense of justice. A prosecution may reconsider an original charge and bring additional charges, including after a judge has indicated that the original charge does not reflect the criminality disclosed or permit an appropriate sentence. The fact that the defendant faces a substantially greater sentence does not itself make the proceedings unjust, provided the sentence relates only to offences properly established. The court may properly indicate that the charges should be reconsidered so that the criminality can be dealt with appropriately.

The Crown Prosecution Service appealed by way of case stated from the decision of the South Southeast Northumberland Magistrates' Court, which had stayed 17 informations against the defendant as an abuse of process.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to one indecent assault charge covering a lengthy period. On committal for sentence, Openshaw J considered that the charge failed to reflect the alleged criminality and created difficulties concerning sentencing powers. The prosecution then sought to lay 17 charges based on the same underlying evidence. The central issue was whether the prosecution's reconsideration of the charges, without any change in circumstances, made the new proceedings unjust and oppressive.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates' decision to stay the 17 informations was set aside. The informations were permitted to be laid, and the magistrates were required to proceed with them.
2. Proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process only in very exceptional circumstances. The relevant question is whether continuation would cause injustice, or whether the circumstances giving rise to the proceedings offend the overall sense of justice.
3. The prosecution's decision to bring additional charges was intended to give effect to the sentencing judge's proper concern that the original single charge did not enable the court to deal adequately with the criminality disclosed. A judge may properly invite the prosecution to reconsider the charge in such circumstances.
4. The prosecution retains the prerogative to decline such an indication, but accepting it does not constitute an abuse of process merely because the additional charges expose the defendant to a greater potential sentence. The relevant sentence remains the proper sentence for offences established by admission or at trial.
5. The magistrates had therefore fallen into error and had failed to give proper regard to the interests of justice. Mr Justice Cooke agreed with Lord Justice Latham.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Crown Prosecution Service's appeal by way of case stated from the magistrates' decision and ordered the magistrates to proceed with the 17 informations.