Page 576 - Magistrates Conference 2019

a gradual acceptance that the magistrates’ court as well as the High Court, could protect
themselves from abuse of process.

Mills was then followed by R v Brentford JJ ex p Wong [1981] 1 QB 445, the Divisional

Court declined to make an order for prohibition as the magistrates’ court had ample power to
deal with a matter that went to their jurisdiction. Despite this, it was still uncertain how this

power should be used but in R v Canterbury and St Augustine JJ ex p Klisiak [1982] QB 398,
it was held that the power should be utilised very sparingly and only if otherwise it would be

a blatant injustice to do otherwise.

Eventually in Bennett v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex p Bennett [1993] 3 All ER
138, the House of lords confirmed that magistrates, in exercising their summary jurisdictions

and at committal proceedings, have power to exercise control over their proceedings through
an abuse of process jurisdiction. The power is however, only limited to matters relating to the

fairness of the trial, such as delay and unfair manipulation of the court’s process relating to a
particular defendant before them.

Circumstances where a Court may grant a stay on the grounds of an abuse of process.

The basis of an application lie in the common law: Boodram Anne Marie v The State (2001)

59 WIR 493; PC Jones v Whalley [2007] 1 AC 63; The State v. Davanan Latchman HCA No.
101 of 2006; Dularie Peters v. The State Cr. App. No. 34 of 2008; R v TBF [2011] EWCA

Crim 726; Spiers v Ruddy [2008] 2 WLR 608; The State v Forde.

There was unjustifiable delay in bringing charges or trying the case. Shaheed Mohammed v
AG of Trinidad and Tobago CV 2016-1052

The court may grant a stay of proceedings where the applicant successfully makes this
application on the grounds of delay.

The applicant must show he suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. A stay will be refused

if a fair trial is still possible. R v Latif and Shahzad [1996] 2 Cr App R 92 HL

A stay will be granted on the ground of delay in exceptional circumstances. AG’s Ref No 2 of

2001; Charles and Carter v The State (1999) 54 WIR 455; Flowers v R (multiple trials).

Even where there is a constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time a stay on the

grounds of delay will still be granted in exceptional circumstances.