The court considered whether the District Judge had been correct to refuse to issue summonses for private prosecutions where there was a suggestion that only a private dispute at stake.
Held: It ‘never was any requirement that a private prosecutor had to demonstrate that it was in the public interest that he should bring a prosecution for an offence against the provision of a public general act.’ and ‘The public interest is established by the nature of the offence created by the statute not by the circumstances alleged or by the relation of the prosecutor to them. ‘ It was not for the justices to examine the purpose of the prosecution. Mitting J said: ‘if the right of private prosecution is to be taken away or subjected to limitation, it is for Parliament to enact and not for the courts by decision to achieve.’
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1730 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 7.1, Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 6(1)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hicks 1855
The defendant appealed against his conviction in a private prosecution under the 1852 Act which controlled the right to set up and operate market stalls. The Act was a local Act. The court considered when magistrates should allow a private . .
Cited – Regina (Gladstone plc) v Manchester City Magistrates Court QBD 18-Nov-2004
It was alleged that at the company’s annual genneral meeting the proposed defendant had assaulted the company’s chairman. The company prosecuted him. The magistrate dismissed the charge saying that the company had no standing to conduct such a . .
Cited – Coles v Coulton 1860
The defendant appealed his conviction under the Act, a private one. It was said that as an innkeeper, he had knowingly suffered four common prostitutes to assemble at and continue in his house and premises contrary to that Act. The Clerk of the . .
Cited – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers HL 26-Jul-1977
The claimant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent Trades Union calling on its members to boycott mail to South Africa. The respondents challenged the ability of the court to make such an order.
Held: The wide wording of the statute . .
Cited – Back v Homes 1887
The court was asked whether a Highway Act applied to London.
Held: It did. Mr A L Smith asked: ‘the second question is whether the initiative can be taken by the police in the prosecution under section 72 of the act. Why not? Anybody may . .
Cited – Rubin v Director of Public Prosecutions 1989
The court considered the standing of a private prosecutor. Watkins LJ said: ‘It is, I also believe, equally well established that, generally speaking, any member of the public may lay an information. There are statutory exceptions to that right and . .
Cited – Lake v Smith 1911
The defendant was prosecuted under the 1814 Act for offences of remong shingle from the beach at Sidmouth. He questioned the authority of the prosecutor who was not specificlly authorised under regulations to lay the complaint.
Held: The . .
Cited – Giebler v Manning 1906
The court was asked whether a private person could prosecute a butcher for exposing rotten meat for sale.
Held: Provided the purpose of the offence was to protect the public, any person could bring a prosecution. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Can . .
Cited by:
Cited – Rollins, Regina v CACD 9-Oct-2009
The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had itself the power to prosecute offences under the 2002 Act. The defence said that the FSA’s powers were limited to offences under the 2000 Act. The FSA relied on its common law power to . .
Cited – Virgin Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Zinga CACD 24-Jan-2014
Zinga had been convicted of conspiracy to defraud in a private prosecution brought by Virgin Media. After dismissal of the appeal against conviction, Virgin pursued confiscation proceedings. Zinga appealed against refusal of its argument that it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258157
