THIS is a fast-moving area of the law. Unfortunately, the important decisions of the House of Lords in R. v. Manchester Crown Court, ex p. DPP (In re Ashton) [ 1993] 2 WLR 846 ( May 1993) and R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p. Bennett [ 1993] 3 WLR 90 ( June 1993) have arrived too late for me to take account of them. This book, and in particular Chapters 4 and 5, should be read in the light of these decisions.
In In re Ashton, the House of Lords held that the decision of a Crown Court judge on whether a prosecution should be stayed is not amenable to judicial review by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. Thus the cases of R. v. Central Criminal Court, ex p. Randle and Pottle ( 1990) 92 Cr. App. R. 323 and R. v. Norwich Crown Court, ex p. Belsham [ 1992] 1 WLR 54, mentioned in Chapter 5, have been overruled. I criticize the decision of the House of Lords in In re Ashton in a forthcoming note in the Law Quarterly Review.
In Bennett, the House of Lords has held definitively that proceedings made possible by an illegal extradition can be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court. It will be obvious from my discussions in Chapter 4 that I regard this development as a very welcome one.
A. L.-T. Choo