Hayter v L and Another: QBD 3 Feb 1998

A private prosecution of a youth for an offence after he had accepted a caution was not an abuse of process, since the cautioner had warned him of the possibility. Poole J said: ‘The right of private prosecutions is subject to a number of procedural limitations, eg justices’ refusal to enter a summons, the Attorney- General’s termination of proceedings by entering a nolle prosequi, the Attorney-General’s power in relation to vexatious litigants, the Director of Public Prosecutor’s power to take over private prosecutions and terminate them, whether by discontinuance, withdrawal or offering no evidence, and refusal of consent where consent is a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings.
Nothing that I have heard in the course of argument here has persuaded me that we should in effect add what would amount to a further category of constraint to this list fitted to cases in which a caution has been issued. Nor, speaking for myself, am I persuaded that there is likely to be a flood of private prosecutions in cases where cautions have been administered should this appeal be allowed. The defendants argue that the offender’s admission, explicit in every caution case, could be used against him in a subsequent prosecution, but that is surely a matter for consideration under the court’s discretion both at common law and under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.’

Judges:

Schiemann LJ and Poole J

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 854

Cited by:

CitedJones v Whalley Admn 10-May-2005
The defendant had been cautioned by the police for an assault on the claimant. The claimant then began a private prosecution which the magistrates stayed as an abuse of process.
Held: The caution administered was not simply a conviction so as . .
CitedJones v Whalley HL 26-Jul-2006
The appellant had assaulted the respondent. He had accepted a caution for the offence, but the claimant had then pursued a private prosecution. He now appealed refusal of a stay, saying it was an abuse of process.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81288