Private prosecutions had been brought against two retired police officers, D and M, in relation to the Hillsborough disaster; and the Director had refused a request by the officers to take over and discontinue those prosecutions, stating that his policy was to take over a prosecution to discontinue it only where there was clearly no case to answer, or the public interest factors tending against the prosecution clearly outweighed those factors tending in favour, or the prosecution was likely to damage the interests of justice. The police officers sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: The court rejected a challenge by both officers to the lawfulness of the Director’s policy; he had full power to refuse to take over a private prosecution and to discontinue it. The criteria are not the same as for the Code for Crown Prosecutors. It was not wrong for a Police authority to carry out the acts it saw as necessary to maintain and efficient force.
Laws LJ said:’The argument here, at least as originally put forward in M.’s skeleton argument, was that because of his view (referred to in the reasons letter) that private prosecutors are not bound to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors (Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report, 1993-94) when deciding whether to institute proceedings, the D.P.P. has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the principles in the Code are irrelevant to his discretion under sections 6(2) and 23(3). But the DPP has nowhere stated that he regards the Code as systematically or generally irrelevant to his power to discontinue. Indeed, as I shall show, there are some aspects of the Code which are reflected in his approach to the question, how his policy should be applied in this case. In truth, however, it could not be right for the DPP to apply across the board the same tests, in particular the ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’ test referred to in the correspondence, in considering whether to take over and discontinue a private prosecution as the Code enjoins Crown Prosecutors to follow in deciding whether to institute or proceed with a prosecution themselves; the consequence would be that the D.P.P. would stop a private prosecution merely on the ground that the case is not one which he would himself proceed with. But that, in my judgment, would amount to an emasculation of section 6(1) and itself be an unlawful policy; and in fairness Mr. Harrison made it clear that he did not submit so much. The very premise of section 6(1) must be that some cases will go to trial which the D.P.P. himself chooses not to prosecute.’
Judges:
Laws LJ
Citations:
Times 21-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 286, [2000] 1 WLR 55
Links:
Statutes:
Police Act 1996, Criminal Justice Act 1987
Cited by:
Cited – Scopelight Ltd and Others v Chief of Police for Northumbria CA 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought return of items removed by the defendants under the 1984 Act. A decision had been made against a prosecution by the police. The police wished to hold onto the items to allow a decision from the second defendant.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 9-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to take over and discontinue his private prosecutions arising from public order incidents, saying that the respondent’s policy was unlawful in restricting such prosecutions.
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 14-Nov-2012
The appellant had twice begun private prosecutions only to have them taken over by the CPS and discontinued. He complained that a change in their policy on such interventions interfered with his statutory and constitutional right to bring such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139550
