The standard of adequacy of reasons for interlocutory criminal decisions requires that the judge demonstrate consideration of the material presented, identification of the legal test, and recording of the determination — but does not require findings of fact that are properly matters for trial. A failure to give adequate reasons is not a freestanding ground of appeal but rather an evidential step toward establishing substantive error such as failure to address a mandatory consideration. The 'foredoomed to fail' ground of abuse of process cannot succeed on a stay application where the applicant bears the burden of proof and cannot assume his own evidence will be accepted at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.