City Research Online

Abstract

In two recent cases (R. v Stockli and others [2017] EWCA Crim 1410; [2018] 1 W.L.R. 5609 and R. v Brown (James Hugh) [2022] EWCA Crim 6; [2022] 1 Cr. App. R. 18) the Court of Appeal rejected arguments by the defendant that his prosecution for the common law crime of public nuisance was unlawful because he should have been charged with a statutory offence which penalised his behaviour. The Court of Appeal addressed this argument as an abuse of process issue and asserted that it was applying the reasoning of the House of Lords in R. v Rimmington and Goldstein ([2005] UKHL 63; [2006] 1 A.C. 459). This paper suggests that the judgments in Stockli and Brown are misconceived, in broad terms by failing to recognise that the question raised by Rimmington is one predominantly of constitutional law rather than criminal procedure, and more narrowly by misrepresenting Rimmington as an abuse of process authority.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Public Law following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK.
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General) K Law > KD England and Wales
Departments:	The City Law School The City Law School > Academic Programmes
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads