By Alexandra-Maria Eugenicos, Criminal Defence Barrister, Libertas Chambers.   Abstract   A consideration of World Uyghur Congress v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715. The fact that there might not be sufficient evidence to justify use of powers under POCA at time of importation, should not preclude the launch of an investigation. This judgment has also changed the interpretation of money laundering offences under POCA with real impact across many professions, including the Bar. Introduction The appeal in the case of WORLD UYGHUR CONGRESS v NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY [2024] EWCA Civ 715 relates to whether the National Crime Agency (‘NCA’) had misdirected itself in law in one or more material respects when reaching the decision: Not to investigate alleged offences under Part 7 POCA 2002; Not to commence a civil recovery investigation under Part 5 POCA in respect of certain cotton products brought into the UK and monies derived from or connected to purchase. These issues were considered in the lower court where a claim for judicial review was brought by the World Uyghur Congress against three law enforcement agencies including the NCA. This was focused on challenging the decision not to carry out investigations into whether consignments of cotton goods originating from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China (‘XUAR’) was a product of forced labour. It was submitted that the authorities should have investigated whether these items imported into the UK were the product of forced labour or other human rights abuses perpetrated by the People’s Republic of China. The general approach was re-iterated that rarely will the courts involve themselves in decisions as to whether to prosecute; caselaw confirms that only in exceptional cases would the court interfere with a prosecutor’s decision-making. However, it is of note that the law does not render a decision-maker’s powers unfettered – and it was emphasised that those tasked with decisions must direct themselves correctly in law. Context It was not in dispute that there is a growing body of diverse and substantial evidence confirming serious human rights abuses occurring in the XUAR cotton industry on a large scale. There is clear and widespread exploitation including forced labour which accounts for a significant proportion of all cotton originating from China. It was undisputed that 85% of cotton grown in China comes from the XUAR. Parties agreed that products derived from forced labour anywhere in the world can amount to criminal property for the purposes of money-laundering offences under Part 7 or recoverable property for purposes of civil recovery under Part 5. As a result, funds from sale of such products – and any property into which those funds are put – could also be criminal or recoverable property. The appellant had gathered extensive evidence raising ongoing concerns in relation of importation of cotton products originating from XUAR where forced labour and human rights abuses are widespread within that industry. These were provided to the authorities with the aim of persuading them to act. Ground of Appeal The Appellant’s main complaint was that the NCA should have been actively investigating and thereby prohibiting importation of goods originating from the XUAR using powers under s. 1 Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 and s. 139 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Moreover, the NCA should also have started a POCA investigation on basis that cotton goods originating from XUAR (or proceeds) could be criminal property. Discussion The court concluded that the fact that there might not be sufficient evidence to justify use of powers under POCA at time of importation, should not preclude the launch of an investigation. The opposite notion would suggest that the NCA, police and other investigative bodies would not investigate overseas criminality being imported to the UK in absence of concrete evidence of specific crimes perpetrated by particular people. The Court of Appeal also held that it was wrong in law to suggest that criminal liability for money laundering or civil recovery is removed where the proceeds have passed through several hands in a business context where adequate consideration is paid. There should also be distinction between a bona fide purchaser and one who suspects that this is the product of servitude. Appeal allowed. Wider Application This judgment has already impacted the interpretation of money laundering offences under POCA. This is directly applicable to a barrister in practice who may receive payment for fees knowing or suspecting that those funds are derived from criminal property. This would mean that they are in possession of criminal property even if adequate consideration is given. To avoid any exposure to criminal liability, the Bar Council strongly recommends that those who find themselves in such a position carefully consider whether they should make a Defence Against Money Laundering disclosure to the National Crime Agency. They have provided further guidance on this issue in a practice note – Practice note on Rex (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v the National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715.

Alex Henry (Alex) was born 3 December 1992. Alex has Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’). ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Alex has been imprisoned since 2014 as an alleged accessory to murder. ASD is frequently mis-diagnosed, under-diagnosed and stigmatised – often it is not picked up until a person is an adult. Alex was not diagnosed until after he was convicted and sentenced. The expert ASD diagnosis by Professor Simon Baron Cohen in 2016 was independently confirmed by two further experts.  It was accepted at sentence that the friend was the killer. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 22 years. Alex was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of 19 years. Alex will be 40 by the time he can apply for parole. Following which he will be on ‘life licence’ and subject to recall for the rest of his life. In 2014, a single judge at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales Criminal Division (‘COA’) refused Alex permission to appeal. Two years later Alex’s ASD was finally diagnosed. As is well known, in 2016, the UK Supreme Court held in R v Jogee that the law on JE had ‘taken a wrong turn’ for 30 years. The court held that the use of ‘realised’ (foreseeing the possibility of a crime) was an error of law. This means that the use of ‘realised’ in legal directions to the jury in Alex’s trial was an error of law. On 2 March 2016, following the R v Jogee decision, Alex sought leave to appeal out of time to the full court of the COA on the basis that the trial jury was wrongly directed in law, and relying on his ASD diagnosis. Professor Baron Cohen was subject to cross-examination, even though the Prosecution submitted no contrary expert opinion. In 2016, it was decided by the COA in R v Johnson [2016] EWCA Crim 1613 that the burden to prove a ‘substantial injustice’ is on the applicant, and that it is a ‘high threshold’. Alex’s appeal was rejected on the basis he had not suffered such an injustice despite his ASD not being known and him serving a life sentence for not killing anyone. The decision appears contrary to Jacobs [2023] EWCA Crim 1503, where the COA held that autism is not relevant to reasonable belief as a matter of principle, but it may be relevant on the facts of the case if the belief depends on an impaired ability to read social signals. The COA also assessed Alex’s behavioural ASD traits as bad character, stating: ‘[i]t was clear based on the materials before [them] that Henry has a significant history in relation to behavioral problems which originated from at least 2002; he was assessed on several occasions to ascertain whether he had any mental illness’[para 37 – of course ASD is not a mental illness but a neurodivergent condition] On 12 September 2017, an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) arguing that the control by the COA of UKSC appeals is contrary to the rights of a disabled person was rejected.  Applications to the ECHR and the CCRC have also been refused, as has a petition for mercy to the former Secretary of State for Justice. Unhelpfully, the CCRC gave its opinion on the proposed conditional pardon which would have allowed for Alex’s release. The CCRC acknowledged Alex’s ASD diagnosis but iterated Alex’s ‘bad character’ ignoring the link between ASD and his behaviour. Neither the Secretary nor the CCRC examined the practices in the criminal justice system (CJS) for people with ASD. On 12 September 2024 a report by the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies found that JE laws are vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalisation, over-punishment, discriminatory outcomes, and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and a defendant’s physical contribution is minimal’. The author, Nisha Waller states: ‘The current law encourages the overcharging of suspects and allows cases to be propelled forward based on poor-quality evidence.’ In 2022 the Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK Criminal Justice System. This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS. However, there is some recognition on sentencing: In 2020 the UK Sentencing Council published guidelines specifying that mental disorders, developmental disorders and neurological disorders should be considered in sentencing – noting specifically that no adverse inference should be drawn if an offender had not been formally diagnosed. ASD affects Alex’s ability to assess the conduct and intentions of others. Communication differences mean that Alex is also always at risk of being misunderstood. Alex’s ASD diagnosis is therefore directly relevant to his actions in relation to his conviction and whether he could know (or realise) what someone else would do. His ASD diagnosis gives rise to serious doubt on his alleged culpability The expressions of the impairments caused by ASD should also have been taken in account when weighing the person’s criminal responsibility and sentence. Alex’s latest move is an application to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: It is suggested that, as a person with a disability and the UK has violated Alex Henry’s rights under the Convention. His experience at all stages of the UK criminal justice system is argued to be discriminatory and inequitable. He has not been able to effectively participate in a criminal proceeding where his ASD is known and properly addressed. The UK is obligated to ensure Alex is both ‘equal before the law’ and ‘equal under the law’ (Article 5 CRPD); this means that Alex has the right to be protected by the law and has the right to use the law for personal benefit. This interpretation requires existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities to be modified or abolished. Additionally, the protection and promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities should be considered in all policies and programs. State parties must take positive actions to ensure that Alex can have full enjoyment – this includes accommodating his needs within legal processes. The application alleges that Alex’s rights were denied through failures at every stage of trial and appeal, including drawing adverse inferences from his silence in police interview. The consequence of Alex’s case is that any young person with ASD ‘involved’ in crowd violence is at risk of a life sentence, even if they are not able to assess what another person would do and even if they make no significant contribution to the crime. The result is the imposition of a harsh and grossly disproportionate sentence exacerbated by being labelled with ‘murder’ which is especially difficult for parole purposes. Thus, it is suggested that the UK has violated his CRPD rights and is perpetuating discriminatory customs and practices as opposed to supporting their modification or abolishment. It is not known whether his application will be accepted but Alex’s is a case that highlights some complex issues for Westminster. Felicity represents Alex pro bono and is instructed by Dean Kingham of Reece Thomas Watson Solicitors.

In this article, Alexandra-Maria Eugenicos discusses the appeal outlined above and the concept and mechanics of the ‘Slip Rule’. Introduction This appeal involves 6 unconnected cases concerned with administrative amendment of sentence. Correcting sentencing errors are commonplace and those in practice are familiar with the mechanics of the slip rule. However, the issue arises where the administrative alteration is significant, an example being where the sentence announced in court is wrong in law, which cannot so easily be remedied administratively. Amending a Sentence in Law At paragraph 6 of the judgment in Leicth, Lord Justice Davis states: ‘The fundamental principle is that the sentence imposed on a defendant in the Crown Court is the sentence pronounced in open court by the judge.’ The Court of Appeal further considered the history of the law enabling amendments to sentence being made. The following is set out by Lord Justice Davis at paragraph 8: ‘Before the advent of the Crown Court in 1972 there was no statutory power to amend or alter a sentence imposed in any higher criminal court. There was a common law power exercised either by the Judge of an Assize or by the Recorder of a Quarter Sessions. At the end of the Assize or the Quarter Session the relevant judge would sign the calendar authenticating the sentences which had been passed. On occasion the judge would decide to alter the sentence impose in court. The practice was that any alteration would not be one which operated to the disadvantage of the defendant.’ A new statutory power was introduced by s. 11(2) Courts Act 1971 allowing a sentence or other order made by the Crown Court to be varied or rescinded within 28 days of imposition. No stipulation was made as to how a sentence should be altered but the Court of Appeal made clear that any alteration must be announced in open court, and the defendant must be present unless there was a good reason for absence, or they were represented by counsel. Lord Justice Davis considers instances where this above guidance was ignored. The statutory power of amending sentence is now contained in s. 385 Sentencing Act 2020 which sets out the current time limit as 56 days. There are procedural guidelines contained in Part 28.4 CrimPR. It may be exercised by the Crown or defence in writing and by the court of its own motion. The hearing may be held in public, private or without a hearing. The judge may not exercise this power in the defendant’s absence unless it is a defence variation application, the defence have had opportunity to make representations at a hearing, or the variation will not mean a harsher sentence. However, Lord Justice Davis made clear that ‘whatever the decision is and however it is made, it must be announced at a hearing in public along with the reasons for the decision.’ (para 11). If variation is sought after 56 days, it can only be varied by the Court of Appeal under s. 385. Appellants’ Cases The details of the cases considered in the joined appeals are instructive and worthy of consideration. Daniel Leitch Mr Leitch was sentenced for offences on an indictment in which no evidence had been offered, was not sentenced for an offence to which he had pleaded guilty, or an offence committed for sentence. The court record did not reflect this because the court clerk had later been authorised to amend the court record. This was not announced in open court. Leave to appeal was granted in relation to offences he had been acquitted, with those sentences quashed. However, the other grounds failed. DS This defendant was sentenced to a total term of 14 years and 3 months for multiple counts of rape. A sentence for offenders of particular concern under s. 278 Sentencing Act 2020 was mandatory on all counts. It was mentioned during sentencing remarks but not pronounced. It was not sufficiently explained that he would be subject to extended licence of 1 year. Moreover, there was an intention to impose a Restraining Order, but no pronouncement was made at the hearing nor was there specification of duration. A day after the sentencing the judge was made aware following which the court clerk made entries on the DCS where the above was remedied and a restraining order made ‘until further order’. The sentencing judge had explained in an email to the Court of Appeal that he had intended to write to counsel and told the court clerk he would do so, but he did not. Leave was granted for DS to pursue all grounds of appeal in relation to amendment. The Court of Appeal did not find his sentence manifestly excessive and did not accept that the Restraining Order was correctly imposed. Paul Fleet Mr Fleet was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (‘SHPO’) for an indefinite period and the sentencing judge had imposed notification requirements for an indefinite period. The SHPO was later amended and specified for 5 years with notification requirements imposed for the same period. This order was amended under the slip rule with the duration and notification requirements set at 10 years. There was no hearing where this was announced by the judge. Appeal in relation to sentence was dismissed; however, the Court of Appeal recognised the deficiency of the 10-year amendment not being pronounced in court, determining that the SHPO was as pronounced in as initially amended (5 years duration). PB This defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The judge did not impose mandatory sentences on multiple counts as required by s. 278 Sentencing Act 2020 (Offenders of particular concern). The prosecution alerted the judge 5 days later, the judge amended sentence with an extended licence of 2 years ‘administratively and under the slip rule.’ The prosecution said that a more severe sentence should not have been imposed which led to a slip rule hearing where the sentence was amended to 19 years custodial with extended licence of 1 year. A ground of appeal that sentence was manifestly excessive was rejected, but the appeal allowed in relation to the 20 year determinate sentence being quashed and substituted for a special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern as 19 years with extended licence of 1 year. Andrew Adams Mr Adams pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods and driving offences (no insurance and no licence). He was sentenced to 2 years for handling stolen goods. The offences took place within the operation period of a SSO which was activated. Mr Adams was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months (previous offence of bladed article) to run consecutively, and further fined separately for each driving offence with a default sentence of 7 days to run concurrently, disqualification for 3 years and ordered to sit an extended re-test – in relation to the offence of driving with no licence. There followed discussions between counsel and the Court Clerk, the substance of which was not caught on the recording.  The Court Clerk went to see the judge, on return they say that disqualification is attached to the no insurance and is 21 months with 15 months uplift to account for the custodial sentence, taking it to 3 years. Counsel then raised concerns about whether an extended retest can be ordered on an offence of no insurance. The Court Clerk went to see judge again and when she returned said that the judge approved the amendment – no extended retest. Counsel told clerk it was not necessary for judge to return to court. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive in relation to the Handling Stolen Goods. However, the Court of Appeal did not find it appropriate to impose significant fines with default sentences with no means for this defendant to pay – no separate penalty should have been imposed on those counts. In relation to disqualification, the Court of Appeal agreed that this was manifestly excessive. Importantly, the out of court discussions are invalid. The sentence was substituted to 6 months disqualification with no extended retest. Fines and periods of custody in default quashed with no separate penalty substituted on driving offences. Renny Fletcher There was an error in the judge’s arithmetic when calculating sentence. There was no further hearing where this was announced, and the parties were not given notice when this was changed by way of a note on the DCS. However, to correct the error would be to impose a penalty more onerous and so the appeal was dismissed. Discussion The Court of Appeal considered relevant case law before arriving at their decision. In R v Kent [1983] 77 Cr App R 120, Lord Lane CJ said as follows: ‘There have been further difficulties arising in the following way. There have, on occasions, been, understandably, efforts made by court staff to prevent mistakes arising. This has resulted in discrepancies being observed between the sentence pronounced by the Judge and that appearing on the record sheet. We wish to make […] clear: first of all, the order of the court is that pronounced by the judge in open court. Secondly, the responsibility of the court staff is to make a record which accurately reflects that pronouncement.’ Lord Justice Davis gave examples where there may be discussions surrounding sentence in the days that follow by email, etc. If the alteration is limited/non-controversial or technical in some way, the hearing will not require attendance but any party. However, when the varied sentence is announced at court in public it ensures the ‘lawfulness of the sentence’ (paragraph 12). As such advocates should be vigilant to any communications of errors and how they are dealt with bearing this guidance in mind – most crucially the need for public pronouncement. Full Judgement The full judgment can be viewed here.

Marie Spenwyn contributed an article to the August edition of Counsel magazine, co-written with Lynda Gibbs KC (Hon). In the article, they explain the process to, and significance of, a course developed for the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) for those representing children in the criminal justice system. The ICCA working group set out to draw together myriad resources to better equip practitioners to fulfil their regulatory duties and to continue its push for advocacy for children to be a specialist area of practice. Marie has been a member of the working party for a number of years working on the development of, and now delivery of the training course. Read the article through the link to the edition below – you can find the article on pages 20 and 21 of the publication. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/advocacy-for-children-in-conflict-with-the-law In other news, Marie Spenwyn is one of the newly elected Masters of the Bench of Gray’s Inn. More information can be found at the Gray’s Inn website: https://www.graysinn.org.uk/news/new-masters-of-the-bench-trinity-election-2024/

By Dr Felicity Gerry KC I am delighted to see our campaign for the posthumous exoneration of Christine Keeler being covered for 4 days in The Mirror. The campaign is being brought by her son Seymour Platt who was left the task of telling her real story in her will. At the height of the “Profumo Scandal” Christine was the victim of a violent assault by a man called Lucky Gordon. He was prosecuted but sacked his lawyers and represented himself. In cross examination of her, he admitted assaulting her. She told the police she had not mentioned two other witnesses because they asked her not to. On the suggestion that she had lied about about who was present, Gordon’s conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal (the court unusually expressing their belief that Christine was telling the truth). Nonetheless she was prosecuted for perjury and PCJ. She pleaded guilty and was sent to prison. She was under terrible pressure. For example, news reports account members of the public throwing eggs at her outside the Old Bailey in Stephen Ward’s trial where she was also wrongly accused of being a sex worker. Ward took his life before verdicts on whether it could be shown he was not living on her “immoral” earnings. These events framed Christine Keeler appallingly for the rest of her life, as Seymour Platt has explained in the Mirror. The law on the charges Christine faced (despite being a victim) only applies if there is a “material lie”. That Christine did not state that two other men were present when she was violently assaulted was totally irrelevant, especially as a proper investigation would have revealed they saw the attack and because her attacker admitted in court he assaulted her The Criminal Cases Review Commission is now quite properly investigating the case. The implications of the comments her silk Jeremy Hutchinson QC made at the time made it obvious she pleaded guilty when she was not, and she was shamed, unlike others whose reputation has been restored. There is a real risk that she was wrongly convicted. Sending her to prison was dreadful and she rightly deserves a posthumous exoneration. It would also go a long way to reframing a case that is the epitome of slut shaming, fitting with modern CPS guidance on violence against women and girls

Traditionally in England and Wales the defence may give an opening address at the start of the defence case, but only where evidence is to be called other than from the accused person. In many cases this means that the issues are not identified clearly until a late stage and in long cases there can be an advantage to the prosecution to dominate the trial issues. In a recent webinar we discussed this topic of delivery of defence openings / summary of issues and how defence statements can be framed to support a defence opening. This article is a summary of the key provisions discussed. Click below to read in full. Download Article now To stay up to date with insight articles, webinars and chamber news why not subscribe to Libertas Lens (our periodic newsletter) – Click here to register

The courts of England and Wales may still be dealing with the many EncroChat-related prosecutions, but technology has already moved on. While many are focused on AI and its potential for misuse, what some overlook are the networks on which these platforms operate. You may never have heard of the ‘fediverse’ but, if you practise criminal law, you should understand the basics, says Benjamin Knight. Click below to read in full. Download Article now To stay up to date with insight articles, webinars and chamber news why not subscribe to Libertas Lens (our periodic newsletter) – Click here to register

Article originally posted 9th June 2023. Updated: 18th August 2023 In England and Wales, the answer to this question is no. However, in Canada, a more robust approach is taken to procedural delay in certain circumstances. This article discusses delay to the criminal trial process, once it has begun. This is to be distinguished from the timely prosecution of certain categories of offence which come to light or are reported many years after they were committed, as occurred e.g., in Sawoniuk who was tried and convicted some 50 odd years after his war crimes. England and Wales Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time. The reasonable time right is not unqualified, but it has been held to be both independent of and separate to the co-existing rights in article 6 to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. It has been given effect in the domestic laws of England and Wales by the Human Rights Act 1998 which requires public authorities to act in a convention compliant manner. Therefore, as far as an individual charged with a criminal offence is concerned, and in very broad terms, this means that their convention rights not only trump the common law where there may be conflict between the two, but that prosecuting authorities and criminal courts must act in a manner which is compatible with their convention rights. In most cases, time starts to run from the moment a person is charged or summonsed and it continues until the conclusion of any appeals, including appeals against confiscation orders. In order to establish a breach of the reasonable time requirement, an accused is not required to demonstrate prejudice; once a breach has been established, however, the concept of prejudice looms large when the criminal court comes to consider the appropriate remedy for the breach. Typically, this is because an accused whose reasonable time right has been breached, will apply for a stay of the proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court, thereby bringing into play ordinary and well-settled abuse of process principles. The established cases in England and Wales which deal with the appropriate remedy for a breach of the reasonable time requirement are: Attorney General’s Reference (No.1 of 1990) [1992] 95 Cr. App. R. 296, Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 of 2001) [2004] 2 A.C. 72, R v S. (S.P.) [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. 23 and R v F. (S.) [2011] 2 Cr. App. R. 28. Taken together, the following principles emerge: (i) a permanent stay is the exception rather than the rule; (ii) there should be no stay in the absence of serious prejudice to the defendant being tried; (iii) the court is under a duty to regulate and control its proceedings to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial, notwithstanding the delay. (iv) a permanent stay of proceedings should only ever be ordered in circumstances where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial or where, for a compelling reason, it is no longer fair for the defendant to be tried; (v) in the latter case, a permanent stay will never be warranted in circumstances where a lesser remedy to mark the breach will suffice. Canada Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, contained in Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982, provides that, “any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.” Section 11(d) provides for the co-existing rights to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. Prior to 2016 and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Jordan, [2016] SCC 27 (CanLii), violations of the section 11(b) charter right were determined according to the “the Morin framework”, following the Court’s earlier decision in R v Morin, [1992] CanLii 89 (SCC). The Morin Framework Morin was a straightforward drink-driving case from the state of Ontario which enjoyed a delay of 14.5 months between the defendant being charged and her trial taking place. Her counsel had requested the earliest possible trial date. On the day of trial, counsel applied to stay the proceedings alleging a violation of the defendant’s section 11(b) constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time. This application was dismissed and the defendant was convicted. Her case progressed all the way up the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”). The Court held that in determining an alleged section 11(b) violation, it was not apposite to apply a mechanistic or mathematical formula. Instead, a judge was required to balance the protection afforded to the individual by section 11(b) against other factors which inevitably lead to delay. These other factors were: the length of the delay; any waiver of time periods by the defence; the reasons for the delay, including (a) the inherent time requirements of the case, (b) the actions of the accused, (c) the actions of the Crown, (d) limitations on institutional resources, and (e) other reasons for delay; and prejudice to the accused. The majority stated that unreasonable delay should only be investigated if the period was long enough to raise an issue as to its reasonableness. Short periods of delay would only be capable of raising an issue if a defendant could demonstrate prejudice. With respect to limitations on institutional resources in particular, the Court suggested guidelines of 8 to 10 months for provincial courts to determine matters and 6 to 8 months, post-committal, for trial in the higher courts. It made clear, however, that these were guidelines only, not intended to operate as a limitation period and that they were to be weighed in the scales with the other factors which they had identified. The Court recognised that the practical application of these guidelines would be influenced by the extent to which an accused might suffer prejudice. The Court noted that the guidelines would require adjustment by regional courts to reflect local conditions and that they would also need to be adjusted from time to time to reflect changing circumstances. The Court observed that prejudice might be inferred from the length of the delay: the longer the delay, the more likely an inference of prejudice. However, if prejudice could not be inferred by the court or proved by an accused, any suggestion of an alleged violation would be seriously undermined. The protection afforded by section 11(b) was to ensure that trials were brought on swiftly and to minimise prejudice, not to avoid trials on their merits from ever taking place. A defendant’s attitude to securing a timely trial was an important consideration to be weighed in the scales. A balance had to be struck between the public interest, which demands that persons charged with offences should be brought to trial, and the accused’s interest in the prompt and efficient determination of criminal proceedings. Prior to the SCC’s decision in Morin, an extreme example of a section 11(b) violation which resulted in a stay is to be found in R v Rahey [1987] CanLii 52 (SCC). The provincial court judge presiding over the matter caused an 11-month delay after the prosecution had closed its case and the defendant had asked for a directed verdict of acquittal. Initially, the accused did not object to the delay. After 9 months, he wrote to the Crown requesting that it should press the judge for a decision. He then alleged that his constitutional rights were being violated and requested a withdrawal of the charges. These requests were refused. Instead, the Crown made an application to the superior court for mandamus to compel the provincial judge to deliver a ruling. The day before the provincial judge was due to give the ruling, the defendant made an application to the superior court for an order dismissing the charges on the basis that his section 11(b) constitutional right had been violated by the provincial court. The superior court judge granted the defendant’s application and held that the trial judge’s delay had caused him serious prejudice by frustrating his ability to (i) conduct his defence, and (ii) carry on business while under a financial restraint order. The superior court judge concluded that the only appropriate remedy for the breach was a dismissal of the charges. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision and directed that the trial in the provincial court should continue. It found that the evidence of prejudice was “insubstantial and entirely speculative.” The SCC allowed the accused’s appeal and ordered a stay of the provincial court proceedings. It is of some note that 6 of the 9 SCC Justices empaneled to hear this appeal were of the view that a stay of proceedings was the minimum remedy because the provincial court had lost its jurisdiction to continue trying the accused when it became the author of the section 11(b) violation. R v Jordan [2016] SCC 27 – The New Framework Jordan was charged in December 2008 with offences relating to the supply of controlled drugs. His trial ended in February 2013. He made an application under section 11(b) for a stay of the proceedings on account of the delay. The trial judge applied the Morin framework, dismissed the application and the defendant was convicted. He appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal. The SCC allowed his appeal, set aside his conviction, and ordered a permanent stay of proceedings. The SCC introduced a new concept of presumptive ceilings beyond which any delay is presumed to be unreasonable unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying it. Once a presumptive ceiling has been exceeded, a permanent stay will follow unless the crown can justify the delay. There is no longer a need for an accused to demonstrate prejudice. Unlike the position in England and Wales, accused persons do not have to invoke abuse of process principles and prove on balance of probabilities that they cannot have a fair trial or that it is no longer fair for them to tried. Unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it, exceeding the presumptive ceiling, in and of itself, leads to a permanent stay and the burden is on the Crown to justify any delay under the exceptional circumstances exception. The majority of the SCC opted for a new framework stating that the Morin framework, “…had given rise to both doctrinal and practical problems, contributing to a culture of delay and complacency towards it. Doctrinally, the Morin framework is too unpredictable, too confusing, and too complex. It has itself become a burden on already over‑burdened trial courts. From a practical perspective, the Morin framework’s after‑the‑fact rationalization of delay does not encourage participants in the justice system to take preventative measures to address inefficient practices and resourcing problems.” “A new framework is therefore required for applying s. 11(b)… At the heart of this new framework is a presumptive ceiling beyond which delay — from the charge to the actual or anticipated end of trial — is presumed to be unreasonable unless exceptional circumstances justify it. The presumptive ceiling is 18 months for cases tried in the provincial court, and 30 months for cases in the superior court (or cases tried in the provincial court after a preliminary inquiry).” The new framework is applied as follows: Defence delay (caused or waived) does not count towards the presumptive ceiling. Once the applicable presumptive ceiling has been exceeded, the Crown bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances. If the Crown cannot do this, a stay will follow. “Exceptional circumstances” are circumstances which lie outside the Crown’s control. They must be reasonably unforeseen or reasonably unavoidable, and not reasonably capable of remedy. Whether circumstances are exceptional will depend on the trial judge’s good sense and experience. In general, exceptional circumstances will fall under two categories: discrete events and particularly complex cases. If the exceptional circumstance relates to a discrete event (such as an illness or unexpected event at trial), the delay reasonably attributable to that event is subtracted from the total delay. If the exceptional circumstance arises from case complexity, the delay is reasonable and no further analysis is required. An exceptional circumstance is the only basis upon which the Crown can justify a delay that exceeds the presumptive ceiling. The seriousness or gravity of the offence cannot be relied on, nor can chronic institutional delay. The absence of prejudice to an accused person cannot be used to justify delays after the presumptive ceiling has been breached. Only circumstances that are genuinely outside the Crown’s control and ability to remedy may excuse prolonged delay. Below the presumptive ceiling, the burden is on the defence to show that the delay is unreasonable. To do so, the defence must establish that: (1) it took meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, and (2) the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have. Absent these two factors, the s. 11(b) application must fail. Stays beneath the presumptive ceiling should only be granted in clear cases. Turning to Jordan’s appeal, the total delay from the date on which he was charged to the end of his trial was 49.5 months. From this, the Court deducted a 4-month adjournment period for a delay which had been caused by the defendant changing his counsel shortly before his trial was due to begin. A further 6 weeks was deducted on account of a further delay occasioned when the defendant’s counsel was unavailable. This left a delay of 44 months which the Court found “vastly exceeded” the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior court cases under its new framework. While there were some complexities to the defendant’s case, they were not of a kind that could reasonably justify this level of delay. Accordingly, as the Crown was unable to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable, the only remedy for the breach was a stay of the proceedings. Discussion On any view, the Canadian presumptive ceilings are very generous for most criminal cases being tried in the higher and lower courts. They amount to this: superior court cases must conclude within 2.5 years from the date on which a suspect is charged and provincial court cases must finish within 18 months. These are significant time periods for the vast majority of criminal cases. They were set with a view to tackling chronic delays and a culture of complacency to delay which had become embedded in some parts of the Canadian system. The SCC spoke of the need for everyone involved in the Canadian criminal justice system to address inefficient working practices and adequacy of resource problems. In considering the potential utility, therefore, of the Canadian model to practice in England and Wales, one probably needs to consider, first, whether there are, in fact, any Crown Court cases presently taking longer than 2.5 years from charge to conclusion? And in Magistrates and Youth Courts, whether there are any cases that are not being disposed of within 18 months? There may not be that many. Judges and list officers in England and Wales have consistently shown a determination to have trials warned or fixed in the court calendar as soon as possible. Most trials, including those requiring High Court or specialist ticketed judges, used to be warned or fixed for trial within no more than 6 to 9 months of the PCMH; many within less time than this depending on the court centre. Cases were not infrequently moved between different court centres, both on and off circuit, to ensure that they could be tried as quickly as possible, regardless of counsel’s convenience and often to the chagrin of busy counsel. So, in a sense, the Canadian model may not be a good fit to the system in England and Wales. However, should the criminal justice system in England and Wales ever find itself overwhelmed or close to breaking point, to the extent that criminal cases are no longer capable of being listed and disposed of within the reasonable time frames that judges and list officers applied historically and did their best to adhere to, a brave counsel somewhere might wish to take a stab at presenting the Canadian model, with the ceilings suitably adjusted to reflect our own historic standards of efficiency and expedition. Who knows, it might just find favour with some Judges in some cases without the need to demonstrate prejudice and unfairness. In relation to substantial complex fraud cases which in some instances can conceivably take longer than 2.5 years to reach a conclusion, under the Canadian model the complexity of these cases is deemed capable of amounting to an exceptional circumstance justifying the reasonableness of the delay such that no further inquiry is required. Having said this, it is probably fair to observe that there must come a point at which even complex cases should not be allowed to drift on if they cannot be made ready for trial and accommodated by a crown court centre within a reasonable time. Rahey and Morin were considered by the House of Lords in Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 of 2001) [2004] 2 A.C. 72, as indeed was the New Zealand Court of Appeal case, Martin v Tauranga District Court [1995] 2 NZLR 419, in which an approach similar to that in Canada was taken. Lord Bingham described the argument in favour of a permanent stay as a powerful one and opined that it was not at all surprising that such a powerful argument had been accepted by highly respected Courts around the world. However, in addition to the compelling public interest in the determination of criminal charges, he provided four reasons why it should not be accepted in England and Wales: the right which a defendant has is to a hearing which should have certain characteristics; he said it would be anomalous if a breach of the reasonable time requirement had more far-reaching consequences than a breach of a defendant’s other section 6(1) rights e.g., the right to a fair trial. Lord Bingham cited the example of a defendant being convicted after an unfair trial, the Court of Appeal quashing the conviction because of the unfairness but nevertheless ordering a re-trial if a fair trial is still possible. automatic termination of proceedings cannot sensibly be applied in civil proceedings; in practice, automatic termination of proceedings has been shown to weaken the requirement. Citing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Scottish case of Dyer v Watson [2004] 1 A.C. 379, Lord Bingham pointed out that the convention is directed to breaches of basic human rights, not to departures from an ideal, and that the threshold of proving a breach of the reasonable time requirement is a high one, not easily crossed. Lord Bingham expressed a concern that should a breach result in an automatic stay, judges might set the threshold at an unacceptably high level because the idea of setting free dangerous criminals or those who are guilty of serious crime on account of delay has always been repugnant; finally, a close analysis of the ECHR jurisprudence did not support the contention that a breach of the reasonable time requirement should lead to an automatic stay of the proceedings. Adrian Kayne 18th August 2023 Download Article now To stay up to date with insight articles, webinars and chamber news why not subscribe to Libertas Lens (our periodic newsletter) – Click here to register