SA and Others [2019] EWCA Crim 144

An appeal concerning both jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a judge’s ruling of no case to answer, and the prosecution challenge to that and other various terminating rulings.

The jurisdiction issue was whether the prosecution had complied with the requirements of s58(4)(a)(ii) of the CJA 2003 and r38.2 of the Crim PR. It was argued the extension of time given to the prosecution to decide whether to appeal the terminating ruling fell outside the timetable allowed in the CJA 2003 and the CPR. Although the jurisdictional challenge was not pursued, following discussions and a reference to H [2008] EWCA Crim 483, the Court till considered the issue. The narrow issue was whether there was a jurisdictional requirement that the judge was precluded from grating an adjournment beyond the next business day. CJA 2003 says nothing about the length of adjournment, r38.2(2)(b) speaks of the “general rule” being an adjournment “until the next business day” but “general rule” does not mean an invariable rule. There can be no doubting the wisdom of permitting a judge to grant an adjournment extending beyond the “next business day” when the interests of justice so require.

The Court therefore had jurisdiction and turned to the prosecution challenge which is to be considered under s67 of the CJA 2003. Merely because the Court might have formed a different view from that taken by the judge would not suffice for such an appeal to be allowed. The prosecution was refused leave to appeal on terminating rulings that there was no case to answer and also a refusal by the judge to allow an amendment to the indictment.