R v Ikram [2018] EWCA Crim 440 - Reversing a Terminating Ruling

R v Ikram [2018] EWCA Crim 440

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Treacy LJ on 14.03.18.

The Crown applied for permission to appeal against the trial judge’s ruling of no case to answer in a misconduct of public office case. The Court of Appeal held that under s. 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the court could not reverse a terminating ruling unless it was satisfied that it was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle or had not been reasonable for the judge to have made. It was observed that despite the fact the phrase ‘terminating ruling’ was not in the legislation, it was used to distinguish certain appeals from evidentiary rulings. A ruling upholding a submission of no case to answer was a terminating ruling, but a refusal to permit amendment of an indictment did not necessarily have that effect. Whether it did so would depend upon the facts of the case.

The defendant was a city councillor who was charged with misconduct in public office after failing to declare a financial interest in a company with whom the local authority intended to contract. During the trial, the Crown applied to amend the indictment to allege that the defendant had promoted the company while failing to be clear that she was associated with it. The judge rejected this amendment on the basis that ‘promoting’ and ‘ associated with’ were too vague to be put before the jury. At the close of the Crown’s case, the defence submitted that there was no case to answer because there was no evidence that the defendant had a financial interest in the company, or that she had sought contracts for it.

After the judge declined to permit the Crown to amend the indictment, they sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was a terminating ruling. The Court of Appeal observed that under s. 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the court could not reverse a terminating ruling on appeal unless satisfied that it was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle, or was not reasonable for the judge to make. It was held that a ruling upholding a submission of no case to answer was a terminating ruling, but that a refusal to amend an indictment did not necessarily have that effect.

By virtue of s. 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, if the Crown decided to nominate another ruling in addition to a no case ruling, it undertook that if it failed to obtain leave to appeal, or abandoned the appeal, an acquittal would follow. Even if a ruling did not bring proceedings to an end, it would therefore have that effect. In a case where an application was made relating to a ruling in addition to a no case ruling, the Court of Appeal would need to examine the relationship between the rulings in deciding how to proceed. If the other ruling related to the admissibility of evidence, it was held that it might be important to determine whether the ruling’s correctness had impacted on the no case to answer submission. If there was no significant impact, the court would probably first consider the no case ruling. If the evidentiary ruling dictated the result of a no case submission, the court would probably consider that ruling first.

(Source: 6KBW Blog - Weekly Digest 20th March 2018)