1991-01-21 10:18 SECURITY BRANCH
852 868 5074 P.15
24
I might add the following observations,
are not in dispute:
which
(7)
(8)
(9)
In determining what amounts to a legitimate or reasonable expectation, the objective test is applied.
The burden of proof is upon the person
there asserts
an abuse who
is
of
process. Abuse of process is proved on a balance of probabilities.
It is within the Court's discretion to stay or not to stay a prosecution for reasons of abuse of process.
Counsel
for
the Crown
suggested
categories
of abuse
of
which process
have
five
been
considered by the Courts, namely, (i) unconscionable delay in prosecution, (ii) "double jeopardy", as in the case of Connelly v DPP (1964) AC 1254,
proceedings,
(iii) abuse of
(iv) improper
motives
for
committal prosecuting, (v) breach of bargain between the executive and the defendant, as in Re Bruneau and the Queen (1982)
69 CCC (2d) 200.
on A
In Scotland at least, a unilateral and public
the Lord Advocate to announcement by
relinquish his right of prosecution of a particular individual particular charge would render subsequent proceedings on see Thom v H.M. Advocate the same charge incompetent:
(1976) SLR 232. The High Court of Justiciary there left open the question as to whether the right to prosecute
}