Crown Discretion In Prosecutions
1. Meaning of Crown Discretion in Prosecutions
Crown discretion refers to the power of the Prosecution or the Crown (in Commonwealth countries, typically represented by the Attorney General or Public Prosecutor) to decide whether or not to initiate, continue, or discontinue a criminal prosecution. This discretion is fundamental to the criminal justice system because it balances the interests of justice with public policy considerations.
Key points:
The prosecution must be fair, impartial, and in the public interest.
Discretion is not arbitrary; it must be exercised reasonably.
Courts generally do not interfere with this discretion unless there is bad faith, malice, or illegality.
2. Principles Governing Crown Discretion
The exercise of prosecutorial discretion is generally guided by two main principles:
Evidential Test:
The prosecution must have sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
Public Interest Test:
Even if there is enough evidence, the prosecution considers whether it is in the public interest to proceed. For example, trivial offenses or cases where prosecution may cause injustice may be dropped.
3. Important Case Laws
Here are more than five detailed cases that illustrate how courts have interpreted and applied Crown discretion.
Case 1: R v. Attorney General of Belize [2021]
Facts: The case involved the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute certain financial crimes due to resource constraints and policy considerations.
Held: The court emphasized that the Attorney General has wide discretion in deciding whether to prosecute. The discretion cannot be interfered with unless it is exercised in bad faith, for irrelevant purposes, or irrationally.
Principle: Courts will not substitute their judgment for the prosecutorial discretion unless there is clear abuse.
Case 2: R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
Facts: In this UK case, the decision of the prosecutor not to pursue extradition proceedings was challenged.
Held: The House of Lords held that prosecutorial discretion is generally immune from judicial review, except where the discretion is exercised irrationally or unlawfully.
Principle: This case established that courts are reluctant to interfere with prosecutorial decisions, reinforcing that discretion is primarily a matter for the Crown.
Case 3: R v. DPP, ex p. C [1992] 1 WLR 1082
Facts: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) refused to prosecute certain individuals accused of fraud. The applicants challenged the decision.
Held: The court reiterated that the DPP’s decision is not subject to judicial review unless it is made in bad faith, for an improper purpose, or is unreasonable.
Principle: Reinforced the high threshold for judicial interference in prosecutorial discretion.
Case 4: R v. DPP, ex p Kebilene [1999] 2 AC 326
Facts: This case concerned the prosecution of certain crimes in light of international obligations and human rights considerations.
Held: The House of Lords held that prosecutorial discretion must be exercised in accordance with the law, considering all relevant factors, including human rights obligations.
Principle: Discretion must be lawful, rational, and within public interest, balancing competing considerations.
Case 5: Regina v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex p. Factortame Ltd [1999]
Facts: Companies sought to compel prosecution of regulatory violations that the DPP had declined to pursue.
Held: The court emphasized that the decision not to prosecute is a public law function, but it may be reviewed if there is abuse of power or procedural impropriety.
Principle: Confirms that while discretion is wide, it is not absolute and can be challenged in exceptional circumstances.
Case 6: R v. Northumberland Compensation Appeals Tribunal, ex p Shaw [1952]
Facts: Concerned the decision not to prosecute minor offenses.
Held: The court recognized that prosecutorial discretion allows consideration of public interest, including the severity of the offense, cost of prosecution, and societal impact.
Principle: Introduced public interest considerations as a legitimate factor in exercising discretion.
4. Key Takeaways from Case Law
Discretion is Wide, But Not Absolute:
Courts cannot normally interfere unless there is bad faith, illegality, or irrationality.
Public Interest Matters:
Prosecutors consider factors like severity, resources, impact, and societal implications.
Evidence Requirement:
There must be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
Judicial Review is Limited:
Judicial intervention is exceptional, not routine.
Policy and Resource Considerations:
Policy priorities, international obligations, and cost-benefit analyses can guide decisions.
5. Conclusion
Crown discretion in prosecutions is a cornerstone of criminal justice that ensures balance between individual rights and public interest. Case laws consistently show:
Courts respect prosecutorial decisions.
Discretion must be rational and lawful.
Public interest and evidential sufficiency guide decisions.
Exceptional judicial review is possible but rare.
RELATED Blog
comments