R v Martyn Horne

A prosecution may amount to an abuse of process where those conducting it give an unequivocal assurance that no prosecution will be brought or continued, and the defendant acts on that assurance to his or her detriment. The inquiry is fact-sensitive; those considerations are not an exhaustive formula for every case. Where reliance is said to arise from a guilty plea, the alleged expectation must predate the plea. Contemporaneous documents and the hearing record are especially important. Later assertions cannot overcome clear records showing that the charge remained live and that no conditional plea was made. Disclosure should be refused where the material sought could not advance the proposed ground. An extension of time to seek leave should be refused where the proposed appeal is unarguable.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Reading of five offences against his former partner, including, after retrial, burglary with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to other counts, including intentional suffocation, and received an overall sentence of six years.

He renewed an application, refused by a single judge, for a 302-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against the burglary conviction. He argued that discussions before his guilty pleas created a legitimate expectation that count 5 would not be prosecuted. He also sought third-party disclosure from the Bar Standards Board concerning the condition of prosecuting counsel during those discussions. The central issues were whether the proposed ground was arguable and whether the requested material could advance it.

Disposition. The court refused the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction on count 5 and refused the application for third-party disclosure. The proposed appeal was unarguable.

1. Abuse of process. A prosecution may be an abuse of process where it follows an assurance that prosecution will not be brought or continued. The court referred to R v Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918 at [54]. An unequivocal representation by those conducting the prosecution and detrimental reliance are relevant requirements, but the inquiry is fact-sensitive and the guidance is not an exhaustive formula for every case. Any alleged expectation relied upon for a guilty plea had to exist before the plea was entered.
2. Contemporaneous evidence. The attendance note, signed endorsement, basis of plea and hearing transcript contained no promise that count 5 would be dropped. They showed that count 5 remained live when the applicant pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 3. The later August 2024 assertions, and the second basis of plea, did not overcome that evidence. No abuse-of-process application was made during the later trials. The claimed reliance was therefore inconsistent with the contemporaneous record.
3. Disclosure. The requested material concerning prosecuting counsel's condition could not advance the proposed ground. Even assuming that counsel had been intoxicated, that could not overcome the evidence inconsistent with any legitimate expectation. The allegation was also unsupported by the contemporaneous account and transcript.
4. Extension of time. Since the proposed ground was unarguable, there was no purpose in granting the extension required to seek leave. The extension and disclosure applications were accordingly refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 1226 , refused the extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction on count 5 and refused third-party disclosure.
2. Single judge — Refused the applicant's earlier application, which was renewed before the full court.
3. Crown Court at Reading — Following a retrial, the applicant was convicted on count 5 and was sentenced on 22 April 2025 to an overall term of six years.