Regina v Mullen (Nicholas Robert Neil)

By 20 March 2019MULLEN

Regina v Mullen (Nicholas Robert Neil)

Published on 20th March 2019

Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM

Joseph S R de Saram provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with . Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE

Regina v Mullen (Nicholas Robert Neil)

References: Times 15-Feb-1999, [2000] QB 520, [1999] EWCA Crim 278, [1999] 2 CAR 143

References: Times 15-Feb-1999, [2000] QB 520, [1999] EWCA Crim 278, [1999] 2 CAR 143

Links: Bailii
Coram: Rose LJ

Ratio: British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property. It was alleged that he was a member of the IRA. In 1990, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Some years later the circumstances in which he was be deported to England came to light.
Held: The conviction was quashed: ‘Furthermore, although abuse of process, unlike jurisdiction, is a matter calling for the exercise of discretion, it seems to us that Bennett-type abuse, where it would be offensive to justice and propriety to try the defendant at all, is different both from the type of abuse which renders a fair trial impossible and from all other cases where an exercise of judicial discretion is called for. It arises not from the relationship between the prosecution and the defendant, but from the relationship between the prosecution and the Court. It arises from the Court’s need to exercise control over executive involvement in the whole prosecution process, not limited to the trial itself.’

Rose LJ: ‘This court recognises the immense degree of public revulsion which has, quite properly, attached to the activities of those who have assisted and furthered the violent operations of the I.R.A. and other terrorist organisations. In the discretionary exercise, great weight must therefore be attached to the nature of the offence involved in this case. Against that, however, the conduct of the security services and police in procuring the unlawful deportation of the defendant in the manner which has been described represents, in the view of this court, a blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law with regard to the production of a defendant for prosecution in the English courts. The need to discourage such conduct on the part of those who are responsible for criminal prosecutions is a matter of public policy to which, as appears from R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 and R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104, very considerable weight must be attached.’

Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Mills v Cooper QBD ([1967] 2 QB 459)
    Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the defendant for offences under section 127 of the Highways Act 1959 namely that of being a gypsy and, without lawful excuse, camping on a highway. The first proceedings were brought in respect . .
  • Cited – Regina v Brentford Justices Ex parte Wong QBD ([1981] 1 All ER 884, [1981] 2 WLR 203, (1981) 73 Cr App R 67, [1981] QB 445)
    The defendant had been involved in a traffic accident. Very shortly before the expiry of the six month time limit, the prosecutor issued a careless driving summons apparently in order to preserve the possibility of a prosecution without yet having . .
  • Cited – Regina v Watford Justices, Ex parte Outrim (1982) ([1983] RTR 26)
    Magistrates have a jurisdiction to hear abuse of process arguments. . .

Statutes: Criminal Appeal Act 1995 2
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL (Independent 01-Jul-93, Times 25-Jun-93, [1993] 3 WLR 90, [1994] 1 AC 42, Bailii, [1993] UKHL 10, (1993) 3 All ER 138, (1994) 98 Cr App R 114)
    The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
    Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
  • Cited – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL (Times 30-Jul-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 35, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 43, [1998] AC 382, [1997] 3 All ER 780, [1997] 3 WLR 458)
    The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Followed – Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc CACD (Times 02-Aug-02, Bailii, Gazette 10-Oct-02, [2002] EWCA Crim 1904, [2003] 1 Crim App Rep 288)
    The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon . .
  • Cited – Hounsham and Others, Regina v CACD (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Crim 1366, Times 16-Jun-05)
    The defendants appealed convictions for having staged motor accidents to support false insurance claims. They said that the insurance companies had contributed to the costs of the investigation by the police.
    Held: It might have been most . .
  • Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 71, House of Lords, Times 09-Dec-05, [2005] 3 WLR 1249, [2006] 2 AC 221, [2006] 1 All ER 575, 19 BHRC 441, [2006] UKHRR 225, [2006] HRLR)
    The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 32 (Admin), Times 08-Feb-06)
    Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
  • Cited – Mote v Regina CACD (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Crim 3131)
    The defendant appealed his convictions for offences relating to the claiming of benefits, saying that he was immune from prosecution as a member of the European Parliament, and that the verdicts were inconsistent with acquittals on other charges. . .
  • Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2579)
    The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
  • Cited – Maxwell, Regina v SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 48, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 31, [2011] 1 WLR 1837, SC Summary, UKSC 2010/0003, SC)
    The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 19 March 2019
Ref: 88562


Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)

Information Security Architect / Intelligence Analyst / Computer Scientist / Human Rights Activist / COMSEC / SIGINT / TSCM