Page 572 - Magistrates Conference 2019

nature of the particular abuse of process, that it would not be an improper exercise of judicial
discretion to allow the prosecution to proceed.

On the facts of R v Latif and Shahzad (1996) 2 Cr App R 92, HL, the House of Lords came to

the conclusion that the public interest of ensuring that those who are charged with
committing serious crimes are tried took precedence in that case. However, unlike Bennett

the defendant was not forcefully abducted and brought to another jurisdiction, he willing
came to the jurisdiction to traffic heroine in accordance with a premeditated plan. The House

of Lords held that in absence of exceptional factors e.g. forcible abduction, then a stay of
prosecution for abuse of process will not be granted to a defendant.

In R v Looseley [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 29; Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2000) the

House of Lords stated the following:

▪ It is unacceptable for the state to lure its citizens in committing acts that are illegal

and then seek to prosecute them for committing the same;

▪ The courts have the right to use their inherent power to stay proceedings so as to

ensure that executive agents of the state are discouraged from misusing their

powers.

▪ As a guide to identifying the limits of acceptable police conduct is to take into

consideration whether, in the specific circumstances, the police did no more than
present the defendant with an unsatisfactory chance to commit a crime (each case

will determined on its facts); and

▪ Where the court has to deal with illegal conduct by the police or prosecutors,
which is so serious to the extent that it threatens to undermine the rule of law, the

court will more likely consider itself bound to stop the case.

i) Trying the defendant for the same offence more than one time.

The constitution of the various territories expressly state that a person should not be tried
9
twice for the same offence. In the Trinidadian case of Charles, Carter and Carter v The
State (1999) 54 WIR 455, PC, it was held by the Privy Council, in the particular

circumstances of that case, that it was a manipulation or misuse of the court’s process by the

9 Barbados: The Constitution of Barbados, section 18(5); Guyana: The Constitution of the Co-operative Republic
of Guyana Act, Cap 1:01 section 144(5); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Constitution 1979, section 8(5)