AWY, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the prosecution for leave to appeal against an evidential ruling made in the Crown Court under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appeal relates to a ruling that refused the prosecution's application to admit hearsay evidence due to doubts about the complainant's fear and whether it was caused by the defendant. The respondent, anonymised as Defendant, faced an indictment with 12 counts, including serious sexual offences and false imprisonment alleged by the complainant. After initial not guilty pleas, the Defendant pleaded guilty to some counts but denied others. A trial commenced but was disrupted when the complainant withdrew her evidence citing fear. The prosecution sought to admit prior recorded evidence as hearsay, which the Crown Court judge refused. The prosecution then sought to appeal that ruling. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, focusing on whether the prosecution had complied with procedural requirements, including giving an acquittal undertaking as mandated by section 58 of the 2003 Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear the prosecution's appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Whether the prosecution complied with the procedural requirement to provide an acquittal undertaking at or before the time of giving notice of intention to appeal.
3. The consequences of any failure to comply with the procedural requirements on the prosecution's ability to advance the appeal.
4. The applicability of section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerning reporting restrictions in these proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution sought leave to appeal the Crown Court judge’s refusal to admit hearsay evidence based on the complainant’s alleged fear.
• They contended that it was in the interests of justice for the hearsay evidence to be admitted due to the complainant’s withdrawal from giving live evidence.
• Regarding procedural compliance, prosecuting counsel indicated an intention to appeal in court but did not provide the acquittal undertaking at that time.
• Later communications attempted to regularise the procedural position, including providing the acquittal undertaking after the initial notice.
• Regarding section 71, the prosecution submitted that reporting restrictions either do not apply or could be lifted for an anonymised judgment, as in a comparable case.

Defendant's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v PY [2019] EWCA Crim 17	Clarification of the strict procedural requirements under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for prosecution appeals, including the necessity of the acquittal undertaking for the Court of Appeal to have jurisdiction.	Used to establish that without compliance with section 58, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear the prosecution's appeal.
R v BJF [2024] EWCA Crim 1670	Emphasised the importance of timely and clear provision of the acquittal undertaking alongside notice of intention to appeal under section 58; failure to comply results in no jurisdiction for the appeal.	Applied by analogy to the present case where the prosecution failed to provide the acquittal undertaking at the time notice was given, resulting in lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analysed the procedural events surrounding the prosecution's notice of intention to appeal. It noted that although notice was given orally in court, the required acquittal undertaking was not provided at or before that time, as mandated by section 58(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The court referenced binding authority, including R v PY and R v BJF, confirming that failure to comply with these procedural requirements deprives the Court of Appeal of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court found that the prosecution’s subsequent provision of the acquittal undertaking was too late to confer jurisdiction. The court thus declined to consider the merits of the appeal ruling itself, as it lacked jurisdiction. The court also considered the procedural fairness of allowing time for the prosecution to consider its position post-ruling and found no fault with the judge’s granting of time, but emphasised that the acquittal undertaking must be given contemporaneously with notice. Finally, the court addressed the applicability of section 71 reporting restrictions, concluding that the anonymised judgment could be reported and that the restriction would be lifted to that extent.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the prosecution's appeal due to the prosecution's failure to comply with the procedural requirement to provide an acquittal undertaking at or before the time of giving notice of intention to appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

As a result, the appeal is not advanced and the ruling of the Crown Court judge refusing the admission of hearsay evidence stands. The case returns to the Crown Court for further proceedings. The prosecution must consider how to proceed with the counts affected by the appeal, including whether to continue trial or proceed to sentencing on the counts to which the Defendant has pleaded guilty. The Court suggested that the next hearing be conducted by a judge who has no prior involvement in the factual findings to ensure impartiality going forward. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming the strict procedural requirements of section 58 and the consequences of non-compliance. Reporting restrictions under section 71 are lifted to the extent of allowing publication of this anonymised judgment, as it does not prejudice ongoing proceedings.