CPS (Sussex) v Mattu, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Mr M Khamisa QC and Miss F Davy (instructed by ABV Solicitors) for the Appellant
Mr D Groome and Mr A Alibhai (instructed by Brighton Trials Unit CPS ) for the Respondent

Judges

MR JUSTICE BURNETT
LORD JUSTICE PILL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HALL

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

CPS (Sussex) v. Mattu

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision by Her Honour Judge Waddicor at Lewes Crown Court on 3 November 2008 to stay counts 1 and 2 of an indictment against the Respondent as an abuse of process. The Respondent faced charges of money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and obtaining money transfers by deception under the Theft Act 1968. The money laundering charges were linked to alleged drug trafficking proceeds.

The Respondent had previously been tried and acquitted in a trial at Lewes Crown Court ("Lewes 1") relating to conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Subsequently, he was arrested and charged with money laundering and conspiracy to supply class A drugs at Wolverhampton Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, a sentence still being served at the time of this appeal.

Attempts to consolidate all charges were unsuccessful, and the prosecution elected to proceed with the money laundering charges at Lewes despite the plea agreement at Wolverhampton. This led to the Respondent's application to quash counts 1 and 2 as an abuse of process, which was granted by the trial judge, prompting the prosecution's appeal under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial judge erred in law or principle in staying counts 1 and 2 of the indictment as an abuse of process.
Whether it was reasonable for the judge to make the ruling to stay the charges given the circumstances of the prior plea and prosecution conduct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The prosecution contended that the basis of plea reached at Wolverhampton was confined to those proceedings and did not bind the prosecution in other cases.
Money laundering is a separate offence which can be charged independently of the conspiracy charges.
The prosecution argued that justice requires the Respondent to be tried for substantial alleged gains from drug trafficking, notwithstanding the plea agreement.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent argued that the prosecution’s decision to proceed with the Lewes charges was an abuse of process, effectively attempting to re-prosecute him on the same facts after acquittal and plea agreement.
It was submitted that the prosecution was attempting to use evidence available at the time of the first trial to have another attempt at prosecution, contrary to principles of finality.
The Respondent relied on the basis of plea at Wolverhampton, which was inconsistent with the case the prosecution sought to put at Lewes.
The Respondent also pointed to procedural irregularities and shifting prosecutorial approaches that would cause unfairness and inconsistency.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, Ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42	The inherent power of the court to prevent abuse of its process and to protect the rule of law by not endorsing unworthy conduct by the executive.	The judge cited this case to affirm the court’s power to stay proceedings to prevent abuse of process, emphasizing the need to uphold the rule of law.
Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254	Prohibition against multiple prosecutions on the same facts under different offences to prevent abuse and injustice.	The court relied on Lord Devlin’s statements to highlight the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the risk of injustice if the Crown could repeatedly prosecute on the same facts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the prosecution’s conduct in the context of the prior plea agreement and the facts available at the time of the earlier trials. It found that the money laundering charges at Lewes were based on the same facts as the conspiracy to supply drugs charged at Wolverhampton, where the Respondent had pleaded guilty on a carefully negotiated basis of plea.

The court emphasized that the prosecution could have included the money laundering charges in the Wolverhampton indictment but chose not to. The attempt to prosecute these charges separately at Lewes, particularly on a case summary inconsistent with the basis of plea, was held to be an abuse of process.

The court also referenced the principle that the prosecution cannot repeatedly re-open the same matter under different charges, as this undermines the finality and fairness of criminal proceedings. The prosecution’s shifting approach and failure to transfer the Lewes indictment to Wolverhampton further supported the finding of abuse.

The court concluded that permitting the prosecution to proceed would be fundamentally unfair to the Respondent and that the trial judge’s decision to stay counts 1 and 2 was correct in law and principle.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED with costs, affirming the trial judge’s decision to stay counts 1 and 2 of the indictment as an abuse of process.

The direct effect is that the Respondent will not face trial on those money laundering charges at Lewes Crown Court. The decision reinforces the principle that prosecution must respect the finality of plea agreements and cannot circumvent them by bringing inconsistent charges in separate proceedings. No new precedent was established beyond the application of established abuse of process principles to the facts of this case.