R v AFY and others (Appellants)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0165

Parties

Appellant(s)

AFY, BQF, BRS, AKK, AIK, AKR

Respondent(s)

Crown Prosecution Service

Issue

Did individuals charged with an offence contrary to section 78(1) and (4) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”) of the 2022 Act have “no case to answer”, on the basis that there was no evidence before the jury of an essential element of the offence?

Facts

The appellants were participants in a direct-action protest at the entrance to private premises. The appellants were arrested and charged with an offence of intentionally/recklessly causing public nuisance contrary to sections 78(1) and (4) of the 2022 Act. The appellants entered not guilty pleas before a Magistrates’ Court and again when the cases were sent to the Crown Court for trial. At trial, the appellants made a submission of “no case to answer”. A submission of “no case to answer” is when the defence submits that the case against the defendant(s), or at least one count/charge, should be stopped at that stage as there is insufficient evidence on which the court, properly directed, could convict. The appellants argued that there was no evidence of an essential element or ingredient of the offence charged. The trial judge ruled that there was no case to answer. The Crown sought permission to appeal that ruling under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The trial judge granted permission to appeal and ordered that the appeal be expedited. An order prohibiting any reporting of the case was made under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) held that the ruling of the trial judge was wrong in law and/or involved an error of law or principle under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal ordered that proceedings be resumed in the Crown Court. Because of these reporting restrictions, the court permitted publication only of part of its judgment, in anonymised form, limited to the court’s consideration of points of principle. A further order was made prohibiting any reporting of the case under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The trial resumed. The appellants applied to discharge the jury on the basis that they intended to apply for certification and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. In criminal matters, appeals to the Supreme Court are subject to two conditions: (1) the court below must certify that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision of that court; and (2) permission must be granted either by the court below or by the Supreme Court. The trial judge granted this application. The Court of Appeal ordered that it had certified a point of law, although in different terms from those drafted by the appellants. It refused permission to appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 September 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top