Case Studies On Crown Discretion In Indictments
1. R v DPP, ex parte C [1995] 1 AC 1 – UK House of Lords
Facts:
C challenged the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) decision not to prosecute certain alleged offences. The challenge was based on the allegation that the decision was arbitrary or irrational.
Issue:
Does the DPP have absolute discretion in deciding whether to bring charges, or can that discretion be judicially reviewed?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the Crown (or DPP) has wide discretion in prosecutorial decisions, but such discretion is not unfettered.
Courts can intervene if the decision is malicious, irrational, or an abuse of power.
Significance:
Established the principle that while prosecution decisions are largely discretionary, judicial review exists to prevent abuse.
Reinforced the balance between independence of prosecutors and legal accountability.
2. R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
Facts:
The National Federation challenged the Inland Revenue’s decision not to prosecute tax evaders, claiming the discretion was exercised improperly.
Issue:
Can a failure to prosecute be challenged under judicial review for abuse of discretion?
Judgment:
The House of Lords ruled that the decision not to prosecute is generally not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of improper motive or irrationality.
Significance:
Strengthened the notion that the Crown’s discretion in prosecutions is broad.
Judicial oversight is limited to cases of bad faith or procedural impropriety.
3. R v Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1990) [1992] QB 630
Facts:
The Attorney-General referred a point of law regarding the Crown’s decision to direct a particular indictment after a defendant’s acquittal.
Issue:
Does the Crown have the authority to guide or direct indictments, and to what extent can this be challenged?
Judgment:
Courts confirmed that the Attorney-General and prosecution authorities have statutory authority to direct indictments.
Their discretion must serve the interests of justice, not personal or political motives.
Significance:
Emphasized the public interest test in prosecutorial discretion.
Reinforced the principle that prosecutorial discretion is guided by justice, not merely technical legality.
4. R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Facts:
The case involved the extradition of General Pinochet and raised issues about whether the Crown’s decision not to prosecute in the UK was lawful given allegations of human rights abuses.
Issue:
Is the Crown’s decision not to prosecute subject to judicial scrutiny where human rights violations are alleged?
Judgment:
The House of Lords noted that prosecutorial discretion includes consideration of public interest, and courts can examine if human rights obligations were ignored.
The decision must be rational and consider international obligations.
Significance:
Crown discretion is not absolute when international law or human rights obligations are implicated.
Public interest and justice considerations are central.
5. R v DPP, ex parte Kebeline [1999] EWCA Civ 673
Facts:
Kebeline challenged the DPP’s refusal to prosecute police officers for alleged assault during a protest.
Issue:
Could the decision to decline prosecution be judicially reviewed on the grounds of abuse of discretion?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that the Crown has wide discretion, but refusal must not be based on irrational or improper grounds.
Reviewable grounds include illegality, procedural impropriety, or irrationality.
Significance:
Confirms the consistent judicial approach: discretion is wide but reviewable in exceptional circumstances.
Public confidence in prosecutorial decisions requires accountability without undermining independence.
6. R v DPP, ex parte Jones [2000] 2 AC 39
Facts:
Jones sought to compel the DPP to prosecute a company director for alleged corporate fraud.
Issue:
Does the DPP have a legal duty to prosecute when sufficient evidence exists?
Judgment:
The House of Lords ruled that the DPP is under no legal duty to prosecute, even when evidence is sufficient, unless there is evidence of bad faith or discriminatory motives.
The decision lies within prosecutorial discretion guided by public interest and legal standards.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle of selective prosecution: the Crown considers wider societal interests beyond mere evidence sufficiency.
Key Principles from These Cases
Wide Prosecutorial Discretion: The Crown or DPP generally has broad discretion in deciding whether to prosecute.
Public Interest Test: Decisions must consider public interest, not merely technical legality.
Limited Judicial Review: Courts intervene only if discretion is exercised maliciously, irrationally, or unlawfully.
Human Rights and International Law: Discretion must respect human rights obligations.
No Legal Duty to Prosecute: Even if evidence is sufficient, prosecution is not mandatory.
RELATED Blog
comments