Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, proceedings must begin within six months and only with prior authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney General. Westminster Magistrates’ Court found the charge a nullity: no consent, no jurisdiction.
Grewal calls this no technical quibble, but a constitutional necessity ensuring accountability and proportionality. Defence lawyers, she argues, should treat such procedural analysis as central, not peripheral, to the rule of law.
Procedure, she concludes, is the Constitution.
Issue:
8141
/
Categories:
Legal News
,
Constitutional law
,
Criminal
,
Procedure & practice
,
Rule of law
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=28793f10_1)
