R v SDQ [2026] EWCA Crim 828

[2026] EWCA Crim 828Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Thursday 21 May 2026
Before
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)(LORD JUSTICE EDIS)LADY JUSTICE MAYRECORDER OF CARDIFF(HER HONOUR JUDGE TRACEY LLOYD-CLARKE)(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)PRONOUNCEMENT OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
Between
REXCrownV
Between
"SDQ"__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________ for The Applicant did not appear and was not represented. for The Crown did not appear and was not represented._________JUDGMENT

THE VICE-PRESIDENT:

[1]On 15 January 2026 the Court heard, and allowed, a prosecution appeal in a case where the judge in the Crown Court had stayed prosecution as an abuse of the process of the court because of unconscionable delay by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in charging the respondent. Reporting restrictions prevent the publication of that judgment by statute until the conclusion of the proceedings in the Crown Court.[2]We have since been asked to certify, under section 33(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, that our decision involved a point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court. The constitution of the Court has considered that application and decided to refuse to certify. The Court applied the binding decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 2001 [2004] 2 AC 72 to the particular facts of the case, and did not decide any issues of law.[3]The judgment that the Court gave on the substantive appeal concluded with this passage:
"We will also direct that the Registrar should write to the Director of Public Prosecutions drawing this judgment to his personal attention. It should also be sent to the relevant Chief Constable. The complainants, the defendant, the court and the public have been badly failed in this case in a way which is unacceptable. The jurisdiction to stay should not be used to discipline those responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases in this country, but that does not mean that they should be unaccountable. It appears to us that this case reveals an urgent need for improved administrative systems which prevent delays such as this from occurring, and for vigorous corrective action when they do occur. The Registrar should invite the Director and the Chief Constable to write to the court in 6 months’ time explaining what went wrong and what has been done about it."
[4]We wish to record, now, that we have received letters from both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the relevant Chief Constable. Each explains carefully and indeed in detail what went wrong in this case and sets out the steps which have been taken to prevent anything of this sort from happening again. The letters are, in our judgment, an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the Court, and we are grateful for them. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk