A decision of the Court of Appeal in R v SA and others throws light on a judge’s power to adjourn under section 59 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) and on the tests relating to circumstantial evidence and conspiracy to defraud. Christopher Burt, senior associate solicitor at Moon Beever, reports on the case and its implications.

What are the practical implications of this case? The decision of the Court of Appeal (criminal division) in R v SA and others clarifies that while ‘there is a plain and undiminished need for urgency in and concerning the launching of a prosecution appeal under CJA 2003, Part 9’, it is nonetheless permissible for a judge to grant an adjournment, beyond the ‘next business day’. To that extent, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2019 at D16.77 was ‘erroneous’. The decision also contains a useful review of CJA 2003, s 67 and the tests relating to circumstantial evidence and conspiracy to defraud. Finally, it is worth noting the Court of Appeal’s expression of ‘regret’ as to the manner in which the case had originally been pleaded, there being no allegation of ‘fraudulent misrepresentation or non-disclosure’...

The full article appeared in Lexis Nexis. To download a PDF version, please click here.