Page 574 - Magistrates Conference 2019

that prosecution of a person who was given a representation that they would not be
prosecuted amounts to an abuse of process. In addition, having regard to the facts of the case,

14
the court paid particular attention to the age of the applicant.

iii) Repeated committal proceedings

Where an accused is discharged in a committal proceeding/preliminary enquiry, this is not
synonymous with an acquittal since there was no final adjudication in the matter. A

preliminary enquiry is not a trial and does not determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.
Therefore, the prosecution or the Director of Public Prosecutions may be able to lay fresh

information regarding the same incident as was held in R v Manchester City Stipendiary

15
Magistrate ex p Snelson (1978) 2 All ER 62.
It must also be noted that in respect of committal proceedings, the Director of Public

Prosecutions has the power to remit a case to be re-opened for inquiry although it has already
16
been committed for sentence. Nonetheless, this provision seems to provide a legal excuse
for an accused to be subjected to repeated committal proceedings at the discretion of the

prosecution.

In R v Horsham JJ ex p Reeves, after a successful no-case submission was upheld at trial in

which the defendant was successfully discharged, the court held that the laying of fresh
information, thereby leading to a committal hearing, in those circumstances would be

considered vexatious and oppressive. This was considered the same because the court was

already considered fully by a court of competent jurisdiction.

What amounts to an abuse of process?

14 In this case the court held that it was irrelevant that the police did not have the required power to make the
promise, this still amounted to an abuse of process.
15 In this case the matter was initially at trial in which the prosecution did not offer any evidence and the
matter was discharged. The prosecution subsequently commenced fresh committal proceedings shortly after
on the same facts in respect of the said offence. It was held that the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear fresh
committal proceedings provided that the prosecution does not abuse this by bringing repeated committal
proceedings which, may be vexatious and this amounts to an abuse of process. This Court of Appeal in the
Trinidadian case of Cadogan v R (1963) 6 WIR 292 took a similar view.
16 Barbados: Magistrate’s Court Act, CAP 116A, section 27; Guyana: Criminal Law Procedure Act, Cap 10:01,
section 77; St. Vincent and the Grenadines: Criminal Procedure Code Act, CAP 172, section 160.