R v NT, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr Christopher Stimpson for the Prosecution
Mr Richard Crabtree for the Respondent

Judges

LORD CHIEF
LORD JUSTICE MOSES
LORD JUSTICE

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

R v. NT

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant faced a 9-count indictment alleging historic indecent assaults occurring between 1976 and 1985 involving the complainant, who was the Defendant's step-daughter aged between 8 and 16 years at the time. The Defendant consistently denied the allegations. Before any evidence was presented, His Honour Judge Shorrock ruled that the indictment should be stayed as an abuse of process on grounds of delay, concluding that a fair trial was not possible. The prosecution immediately indicated an intention to appeal this ruling. Subsequently, it was revealed that the prosecution had failed to give the statutory undertaking required by section 58(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 at the prescribed time. This raised a jurisdictional issue, leading to the grant of leave to appeal and the case being listed before a five-judge constitution to resolve the question of jurisdiction under section 58(8). The sole question was whether the prosecution's failure to provide the acquittal agreement deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal or disentitled the prosecution from exercising its statutory right to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution's omission to provide the statutory acquittal agreement under section 58(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 deprived the Court of Appeal of jurisdiction to hear the prosecution's appeal against a terminating ruling.
Whether non-compliance with the timing requirements of section 58(8) precludes the prosecution from exercising the statutory power to appeal a terminating ruling.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The prosecution argued that despite the failure to comply with the timing requirement of section 58(8), the appeal should proceed because the intention to appeal was properly notified under section 58(4).
They contended that the omission did not prohibit the court from hearing the appeal against an unreasonable decision to stay proceedings.
The prosecution submitted that the defendant suffered no ambiguity or prejudice because the intention to appeal was declared immediately after the ruling and the acquittal agreement was communicated the following day.
It was suggested that if the prosecution had requested an adjournment and then provided the acquittal agreement, the appeal would have been valid.
The prosecution argued the statutory requirements in sections 58(4) and 58(8) were directory rather than mandatory, so delayed compliance should not bar the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v LSA [2008] EWCA Crim 1034	Statutory requirement of the acquittal agreement under section 58(8) as a pre-condition to prosecution appeals against terminating rulings.	Held that the statutory undertaking must be given in open court at or before the time of invoking the right of appeal; failure to comply deprives the court of jurisdiction.
CPS v C, M and H [2009] EWCA Crim 2614	Explanation of the significance of the acquittal agreement and conditions under section 58(8) and (9).	Endorsed the necessity of the prosecution's acquittal agreement as a safeguard for defendants and integral to the appeal process.
R v Clarke [2008] 1 Cr App R 33	General principles relating to appeals under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.	Referenced as consistent authority regarding prosecution appeals and statutory requirements.
R v R [2008] EWCA Crim 370	Principles applicable to prosecution appeals under the 2003 Act.	Affirmed as consistent with the statutory framework for appeals involving acquittal agreements.
R v H [2008] EWCA Crim 483	Interpretation of statutory provisions relating to prosecution appeals.	Supported the court's understanding of the appeal process under the 2003 Act.
R v MT and MT [2009] EWCA Crim 668	Application of appeal provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.	Referenced for consistency with statutory appeal principles.
R v T [2009] EWCA Crim 1947	Further clarification on prosecution appeal rights.	Used to confirm the statutory requirements and limitations on appeal jurisdiction.
R v Soneji [2006] 1 AC 340	General appellate principles relevant to the case.	Referred to for interpretive guidance on statutory appeal rights.
R v Clarke and McDaid [2008] 1 WLR 338	Interpretation of appeal provisions and statutory undertakings.	Confirmed the consistent approach to prosecution appeals under the 2003 Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework under Part 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which created a limited right for the prosecution to appeal terminating rulings. The court emphasised that it has no inherent jurisdiction to hear such appeals unless the prosecution complies with the statutory pre-conditions, notably the requirements in sections 58(4) and 58(8). Section 58(4) mandates that the prosecution must inform the court immediately after the ruling that it intends to appeal or request an adjournment to consider appealing. This condition was met in the present case.

However, section 58(8) further requires that the prosecution must inform the court at or before the time of giving notice of appeal that it agrees the defendant should be acquitted if leave to appeal is refused or the appeal is abandoned. The court found the prosecution failed to comply with this timing requirement, providing the acquittal agreement only the following day.

The court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the requirements were directory rather than mandatory, holding instead that the statutory language is clear and mandatory. The undertaking must be given in open court at the time of invoking the right of appeal. This ensures certainty and protects the defendant’s rights by preventing appeals being pursued without a clear commitment to acquittal if the appeal fails.

The court endorsed the reasoning in the Court Martial case R v LSA, which held that failure to give the statutory undertaking at the correct time deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court further noted that the prosecution cannot rely on the court’s power to extend or abridge time in this context because the statutory scheme limits the prosecution’s right to appeal to strict compliance with the pre-conditions.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the prosecution’s failure to comply with section 58(8) deprived it of the power to appeal the terminating ruling, and the appeal must be dismissed.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal on the basis that the statutory pre-condition requiring the acquittal agreement under section 58(8) was not complied with at the prescribed time, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The direct effect is that the Defendant’s acquittal pursuant to the terminating ruling stands, and the prosecution is barred from pursuing the appeal. The court did not address the merits of the original ruling to stay the indictment and set no new precedent beyond reaffirming the strict compliance required with statutory appeal procedures under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.