Sharma v Brown-Antoine, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and others: PC 30 Nov 2006

(Trinidad and Tobago) Complaint was made as to a decision to begin professional discliplinary proceedings against a senior member of the judiciary.
Held: Although a decision to prosecute was in principle susceptible to judicial review on the ground of interference with a prosecutor’s judgment, such relief would in practice be granted extremely rarely and that the court had to be satisfied, not only that the claim had a realistic prospect of success, but also that the complaint could not be resolved within the criminal process, either at the trial or by way of an application to stay for abuse of process. Since all the issues could best be investigated and resolved in a single set of criminal proceedings, permission for judicial review ought not to have been granted and had rightly been set aside. The test on the permission application is whether on the material before the court, the claimants have an arguable case which merits an oral hearing
Lord Bingham, for the Privy Council, said: ‘The rule of law required that, subject to any immunity or exemption provided by law, the criminal law of the land should apply to all alike. A person is not to be singled out for adverse treatment because he or she holds a high and dignified office of State, but nor can the holding of such an office excuse conduct which would lead to the prosecution of one not holding such an office. The maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice required that it be, and be seen to be, even-handed.’
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
[2006] UKPC 57, [2007] 1 WLR 780
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedPanday v Virgil PC 9-Apr-2008
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant’s appeal against conviction had succeeded on the basis of apparent bias in the tribunal. He now appealed the order remitting the case to be reheard, saying that a fair trial was no longer possible.
Held: The . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
See alsoMcNicholls v Judicial and Legal Service Commission PC 17-Feb-2010
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant, the Islands’ chief magistrate appealed against a decision to proceed with disciplinary allegations against him. He had refused to give evidence in a prosecution of the then Chief Justice, though his own statement . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
CitedLoughlin, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 18-Oct-2017
The court was asked as to the circumstances in which sentences passed on offenders who have given assistance to prosecuting authorities should be referred back to the sentencing court under section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.247459