The State of Trinidad and Tobago v Nawaz Ali (Trinidad and Tobago)

A stay of criminal proceedings for abuse of process is an exceptional remedy. It may be justified because a fair trial is no longer possible, or because it would be unfair to try the defendant at all. The latter basis can apply despite the continuing availability of a fair trial where delay is extraordinary and oppressive. Delay need not be attributable to the prosecution, although its cause remains relevant. The assessment is fact-specific and includes the seriousness of the offence, the nature and preservation of the evidence, and whether the case is a retrial. Closely connected criminal acts may be charged in separate counts; that drafting does not itself make a retrial unfair.

The respondent, a police officer, was charged with three corruption counts arising from alleged solicitation and receipt of bribes. At the first trial he was acquitted on counts 1 and 2 but convicted on count 3. The Court of Appeal quashed that conviction in 2010 and ordered a retrial.

At the retrial, the judge excluded evidence relating to the acquitted counts and stayed the indictment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted that the evidence was admissible but upheld the stay, holding that the indictment and the passage of time made a trial oppressive and abusive. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Privy Council, challenging the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction and the conclusion that the proceedings should remain stayed.

The Board dismissed the appeal. The stay was within jurisdiction and was justified by the extraordinary delay, although the Board rejected much of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.

1. Jurisdiction. The second Court of Appeal had not reopened or set aside the earlier order for a retrial. The requirements governing any reopening of an earlier decision, identified in Taylor v Lawrence ([2002] EWCA Civ 90) and R v Yasain ([2015] EWCA Crim 1277), were therefore not met. A trial court nevertheless has power to stay proceedings for abuse of process at a retrial ordered after a conviction has been quashed.
2. Indictment. It was juridically permissible to charge closely connected criminal acts in separate counts where they formed part of one scheme. The indictment created no formal obstacle to a fair trial. The Court of Appeal’s criticisms of the separate counts were without substance.
3. Inconsistent verdicts. Under section 37(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1962, the pre-1962 English test applied where no special local provision governed. Following R v Stone ([1955] Crim LR 120 CCA), R v Durante ([1972] 1 WLR 1612) and R v Fanning and other cases ([2016] EWCA Crim 550), interference required verdicts which no reasonable jury could have reached and which demanded appellate intervention. That test was not satisfied. The first Court of Appeal wrongly quashed a safe conviction.
4. Delay and abuse. The principles in R v LG ([2018] EWCA Crim 736) applied. Although a fair trial remained possible and the evidence was substantially preserved, the nearly 20-year delay, the retrial context, the absence of fault by the respondent, and successive judicial and listing failures made a further trial unconscionable. The seriousness of police corruption did not outweigh that delay. Expedition is particularly important in retrials, as recognised in R v Layden ([2025] UKSC 12).
5. A stay is not an acquittal, although it determines the criminal proceedings in practical terms. It does not prevent disciplinary or civil proceedings concerning the same conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Privy Council: On 31 July 2025, the Board dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and upheld the stay.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: On 21 October 2021, the court accepted that the disputed evidence was admissible but dismissed the appeal and upheld the stay on the basis of alleged unfairness, abuse of process and delay.
3. High Court of Trinidad and Tobago: On 31 July 2018, Mrs Justice Lucky excluded evidence concerning the acquitted counts and stayed the indictment.
4. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: On 29 July 2010, the court quashed the conviction on count 3 and ordered a retrial.
5. Trial court: In January 2010, the respondent was acquitted on counts 1 and 2 and convicted on count 3.