Hamberger, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- MR JUSTICE NICOL
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns a claimant's application for judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to prosecute him for conspiracy to supply cannabis and firearms offences, despite his health conditions alleging it violated Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. Procedural history saw initial rejection on papers and adjournment before a concluded denial for judicial review as arguments were found unsubstantiated. Case referred multiple statutes and precedents with key principles affirming higher court's reluctance to disrupt ongoing trials barring extraordinary circumstances.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE NICOL : This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to continue with the prosecution of the claimant in relation to two matters. The first is conspiracy to supply something over 200 kilos of cannabis resin. The second is four offences under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 in relation to the purchase of weapons for discharging of CS gas.
The application for permission was refused on the papers by Foskett J. The renewed application first came before Blake J, but he adjourned it for the Crown to be able to attend. I am grateful to the submissions that we have received, both from Mr Simon on behalf the claimant and Mr Heptonstall on behalf of the CPS.
The cannabis matter is currently before the Southwark Crown Court. HHJ Robbins is the trial judge. He has severed the indictment, so that the conspiracy charge relating to the co-defendants can continue separate from the trial of the claimant. The firearms charges are presently in the Westminster Magistrates' Court and stand adjourned.
The offences under the provision of the Firearms Act are triable either way but the Magistrates' Court has not yet taken a decision. Any further decision in whether they would be suitable to be tried in the Magistrates' Court ought to be sent for trial to the Crown Court.
The claimant has submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service that both sets of charges should be dropped because of his state of health. A number of medical reports have been prepared on the claimant. Two cardiologists, Professor Coates and Dr Byrne, have provided reports. Both refer to the fact that the claimant unfortunately suffers from angina.
Professor Coates, in a report dated 13 December 2012, said that he would predict that the claimant was highly likely to have further episodes of severe angina which could be life threatening, and that the chances of further episodes would be increased by attendance at court because of the physical and emotional stress that such attendance would place on him. He placed the risk as medium to high that a court appearance would trigger an angina attack that may require him to be admitted as an emergency to hospital and that a further low (but not insignificant) risk that such attendance at court could increase the risk of precipitating a heart attack or death.
Dr Byrne was instructed by the CPS, and reported on 15 February 2013. He agreed that there was a re