Page 577 - Magistrates Conference 2019

The prosecution has manipulated/misused the court’s process, or otherwise acted unfairly
thus depriving the defendant of the protection of the law or;

Trying an accused person on multiple occasions may also constitute an abuse of process

where the accused can show he suffered prejudice and where he can provide evidence that
there was a manipulation of the court’s process. Charles and Carter and Bowe v R (2001) 58

WIR 1 PC

Laying of charges shortly before the expiration of the limitation period may be an abuse of

process. It has been held to be an abuse of process where further charges were laid for

different offences on the same facts. Nandlal v The State (1995) 49 WIR 412

The court may grant a stay where the prosecution goes back on a decision not to prosecute. A

stay may be granted when the prosecution tries to go back on a previous offer of amnesty. AG
v Phillip (1994) 45 WIR 456)

Repeated committal proceedings after a successful no-case submission were held to be an
abuse of process. R v Horsham JJ ex p Reeves; Cadogan

Where the applicant can show that the conduct of the police is so improper so as to bring the

administration of justice into disrepute, a stay may be granted. R v Loosely [2001] 4 All ER
897 HL (a case which deals with entrapment). Abdul Kadir, Kareem Ibrahim v The

Commissioner of Prisons CV 3062 & 2063 of 2007 T&T; Barry Barrington v AG of Trinidad
and Tobago CV 2015-03519

Can a magistrate proceed to dismiss a matter on grounds of abuse where he has already
stated a case for the supreme court and awaits an answer?

In the Queen v Calman Hall et al, Court concluded that at that time (the time of the Chief
Magistrate’s dismissal of the charge), as the decision on the question referred to the Supreme

Court remained outstanding, the Chief Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dispose of the

proceedings, as she was constrained to dispose of the matter only in furtherance of section
20(5) of the Constitution. The only option available to the Chief Magistrate at the time was to

temporarily stay the proceedings, pending the completion of the question which she had
referred to the Supreme Court under section 20(3) of the Constitution.