Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 15 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 the proceedings would be ‘so unfairly and unjustifiably oppressive’ as to constitute an abuse of process”. [42] The power to stay proceedings permanently may be exercised: “where either the foundation of the prosecution or the bringing of the accused to justice is tainted with illegal action or gross violation of the rights of the individual making it unacceptable for justice to embark on its course” ICC 01/04-01/06-772, (Appeals Decision) para 30-31, The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (International Criminal Court), 14 December 2006. [43] In Attorney General’s Reference (No.2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, Lord Woolf stated: “... if there has been prejudice caused to a defendant which interferes with his right to a fair trial in a way which cannot otherwise be remedied, then of course a stay is an appropriate remedy. But in the absence of prejudice of that sort, there is normally no justification for granting a stay.” [44] In Police v Sherlock 2009 SASC 64, a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia, the court cited with approval remarks that: “The justification for staying a prosecution is that the Court is obliged to take that extreme step in order to protect its own processes from being used for purposes alien to the administration of criminal justice under law. It may intervene in this way if it concludes from the conduct of the prosecutor … that the Court processes are being employed for ulterior purposes or in such a way … as to cause improper vexation and oppression. The yardstick is not simply fairness to the particular accused. It is not whether the initiation and continuation of the particular process seems in the circumstances to be unfair to him. That may be an important consideration. But the focus is on the misuse of the Court process by those responsible for law enforcement. It is whether the continuation of the prosecution is inconsistent with the recognised purposes of the administration of criminal justice and so constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.” The Court further added that: “the power will be used only in most exceptional circumstances to order that a criminal prosecution be stayed”.