• Application 11165-2013
  • Hearings 3-7, 11-12 November 2014, 23 June 2015
  • Reasons 11 August 2015

The SRA had successfully appealed against the dismissal by the SDT as an abuse of process allegations brought by the SRA against the second and sixth respondents. The judge ordered that the decision of the SDT in respect of the second and sixth respondents be quashed save in respect of certain allegations of failure to supervise the fifth respondent. The remaining allegations against the second and sixth respondents were remitted to a differently constituted division of the SDT for determination (see 11165A-2013). The SRA did not pursue its appeal in respect of the third, fourth and fifth respondents; the SDT’s decision outlined below in respect of those respondents therefore stands.]

Proceedings against the first respondent had been withdrawn. The SDT ordered that the case against the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents should be struck out.

Decisions by the SDT had to be properly arrived at on the basis of a properly pleaded case supported by adequate and coherent evidence.

The SDT had decided that the allegations before it against the second to sixth respondents should be struck out for abuse of process based upon the impossibility of holding a fair trial. A point had been reached based on the pleadings as they stood where to proceed was unfair because the respondents could not determine with any certainty the case against each of them. There was no coherent or manageable case to answer.

The SDT also wished to emphasise that the abuse issues in the present case went beyond the pleadings and the presentation of the case and extended back into the approach to collecting evidence and apparently missing crucial evidence which was in the hands of the CPS and which cast doubt upon the safety of relying on evidence in the case generally.

The applicant was ordered to pay 40% of the costs of the first to fourth respondents on the standard basis, and 80% of the costs of the fifth respondent, to be assessed in respect of such time as he was acting in-person on the litigant-in-person basis and in respect of such time as he was represented by counsel on the standard basis, all such costs to be assessed if not agreed.