Craik, Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, R (on the application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Magistrates' Court

Mr John McGuinness QC (instructed by the Director of Legal Services, Northumbria Police) for the Claimant The Defendant and the Interested Parties were neither present nor represented Hearing date: 26 April 2010 ____________________

i) The decision of a magistrate to issue a summons involves the exercise of a judicial function, from which it follows that a magistrates' court has a discretion to refuse to issue a summons where the proceedings would be vexatious, improper or for some other reason an abuse of the process of the court: see for recent statements of the principles R v Belmarsh Magistrates' Court ex p Watts [1999] 2 Cr App R 188 at page 195 and R (Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of Newham) v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2004] EWHC 2506 (Admin) at paras [3], [15]-[16].

ii) It is an abuse of the process to issue proceedings with an ulterior motive, for example with a view to the prosecutor clearing his name rather than bringing alleged criminals to justice: ex p Watts at page 199.

iii) If the magistrates' court would have had power to refuse to issue a summons on the ground that the proceedings were vexatious or an abuse of the process, then the court equally has jurisdiction to stay the proceedings at a later stage: ex p Watts at page 196.

iv) The duty of the court under section 51 of the 1998 Act to send a case to the Crown Court does not preclude it from exercising its jurisdiction to stay proceedings as an abuse of the process, though it will very rarely be appropriate to do so: R (Salubi and another) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court etc [2002] EWHC 919 (Admin) , [2002] 2 Cr App R 40 at para [20].