R v Saaqib Chawdhury

Strict compliance with the statutory conditions for a prosecution appeal is required. A communication stating that the prosecution intends to appeal at a future hearing is not the statutory notification of intention to appeal. The acquittal undertaking must be given at or before the relevant notification. An acquittal on one count may also prevent a retrial on another, even where the offences and their elements differ, if the prosecution’s case made the first count the factual foundation for the second. In that situation, a retrial may be an abuse of process under principles analogous to autrefois acquit.

Leave was granted, but the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was acquitted.

The respondent was tried with two others on three counts. Count 1 alleged conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm; count 2 alleged possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; and count 3 alleged possession of a prohibited firearm. The jury acquitted the respondent on count 2, convicted him on count 3, and could not agree on count 1.

The prosecution sought a retrial on count 1. On 13 June 2025, HHJ David Richards stayed the proposed retrial as an abuse of process, holding that the acquittal on count 2 removed the factual basis for count 1. The prosecution applied for leave to appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The central issues were whether the Court had jurisdiction and whether the proposed retrial was abusive.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The stay therefore remained effective and, pursuant to the acquittal undertaking, the respondent was acquitted.

1. Jurisdiction and timing. Strict compliance with section 58(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is required. The prosecution’s email said that it was minded to seek leave at the following hearing and would give the acquittal undertaking then. It was a courtesy notification of a proposed future act, not the statutory notification under section 58(4). The relevant notification occurred at the hearing on 2 July 2025, when the undertaking was given. The appeal notice served on 9 July was therefore in time under Criminal Procedure Rule 38.3(2). The Court accordingly had jurisdiction.
2. Relationship between the counts. Counts 1 and 2 charged different offences with different elements, so the case was not one of strict autrefois acquit. However, the principles identified in Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254 and R v Beedie [1998] QB 356 applied where the proposed retrial would offend the underlying protection against re-litigation.
3. Application to the facts. Count 2 had been put on the basis that the respondent encouraged Walker-Scarlett to bring a loaded firearm to the scene and intended that he should endanger life. On the prosecution’s formulation, those matters supplied the only factual foundation for the alleged conspiracy in count 1. Once the jury acquitted the respondent on count 2, there was no basis on which it could properly convict him on count 1. A retrial would therefore re-litigate issues already lost by the prosecution and was an abuse of process. R v BJF [2024] EWCA Crim 1670 correctly stated the strict approach to the acquittal undertaking.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Granted the prosecution leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal against the stay. The respondent was acquitted pursuant to the acquittal undertaking.
• Inner London Crown Court — Following the acquittal on count 2 and the jury’s failure to agree on count 1, HHJ David Richards stayed the proposed retrial on count 1 as an abuse of process.