CPS (Sussex) v Mattu

Where a prosecutor has accepted a detailed basis of plea and the sentencing court has acted upon it, the prosecutor may not later bring a related prosecution on a case that is strikingly inconsistent with that basis. Doing so is an abuse of process because it undermines the approved basis on which sentence was indicated and imposed, and causes fundamental unfairness. The result may differ if fresh evidence or changed circumstances justify a different course. A change of counsel or venue does not itself remove the unfairness.

The respondent faced money-laundering counts at Lewes Crown Court, alleged to concern proceeds of drug trafficking. He had previously been acquitted of drug-conspiracy charges at Lewes. He later pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to conspiracy to supply cocaine on an agreed and detailed basis of plea, and received a seven-year sentence.

The prosecution then sought to proceed at Lewes on money-laundering counts using evidence available before the Wolverhampton proceedings. Its proposed case alleged a substantially greater role in cocaine importation and financing than the role accepted in the basis of plea. On 3 November 2008, the judge stayed the two counts as an abuse of process. The prosecution appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the trial judge was right to stay the two money-laundering counts as an abuse of process. There was therefore no basis under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to reverse her ruling.
2. The proposed Lewes prosecution was closely connected with the drug offending prosecuted at Wolverhampton. The money-laundering allegation arose from that drug dealing, the relevant evidence was available for the Wolverhampton trial, and the prosecution in Sussex was fully aware of those proceedings. The first money-laundering count could have been included on the Wolverhampton indictment.
3. The decisive consideration was the agreed basis of plea. It had been carefully prepared by prosecution and defence, approved by the court when indicating sentence, and then used when imposing sentence. The prosecution's intended Lewes case was strikingly inconsistent with it: it would allege a leading and financing role in substantial importations, rather than the limited role accepted for sentence.
4. It would be fundamentally unfair to permit the prosecution to go behind that approved basis in this way. The court accepted that fresh evidence or changed circumstances might in another case permit a prosecution to proceed despite an earlier basis of plea. Neither a change of counsel nor a change of venue cured the inconsistency here.
5. The appeal was dismissed with costs. By consent, the reporting restrictions were lifted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The prosecution's appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was dismissed with costs.
• Lewes Crown Court: On 3 November 2008, Her Honour Judge Waddicor stayed counts 1 and 2 of the indictment as an abuse of process.