Judicial Interpretation Of Crown Prosecution Discretion
Judicial Interpretation of Crown Prosecution Discretion
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) discretion refers to the power of prosecutors to decide whether to charge a person, continue proceedings, or discontinue a case. In common law jurisdictions, judicial review of prosecutorial discretion is limited, but courts have clarified the scope, limits, and accountability of such discretion.
Key Legal Principles
Independence of the Prosecutor:
Prosecutors are independent and should exercise discretion without political or external interference.
Evidential Test:
Prosecutors must ensure sufficient evidence exists for a realistic prospect of conviction before charging.
Public Interest Test:
Even with sufficient evidence, a prosecution must serve the public interest.
Judicial Review:
Courts may review prosecutorial discretion only if it is irrational, illegal, or perverse.
Abuse of Process:
Courts can intervene if continued prosecution would amount to abuse of process or violate fundamental rights.
Landmark Cases on Crown Prosecution Discretion
*1. R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte C [1995] (UK)
Background:
The case concerned a refusal to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court held that CPS discretion is wide but must not be exercised arbitrarily or irrationally.
Discretion must comply with evidential and public interest tests.
Outcome:
Judicial review allowed to ensure rational exercise of discretion.
Significance:
Confirmed that courts will not substitute their judgment but can review for legality and rationality.
*2. R v. DPP, ex parte Kebilene [2000] (UK)
Background:
Concerned the decision not to prosecute government officials allegedly involved in illegal actions.
Court’s Reasoning:
House of Lords held that prosecutorial discretion includes the power not to prosecute, even in high-profile cases.
Judicial review is limited to cases of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Outcome:
Discretion upheld; courts emphasized limited interference.
Significance:
Reinforced strong deference to prosecutorial decisions while preserving review for misuse of power.
*3. R (Corner House Research) v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] (UK)
Background:
The Director of the SFO discontinued a corruption investigation citing national security concerns.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court held that the decision was subject to judicial review for lawfulness.
While prosecutors have wide discretion, decisions must not frustrate justice or be unlawful.
Outcome:
Discretion allowed but highlighted the need for legitimate reasoning.
Significance:
Set precedent that public interest and legality are key criteria for prosecutorial discretion.
*4. R v. DPP, ex parte Manning [1996] (UK)
Background:
Police requested prosecution for alleged political offences; CPS refused.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court emphasized that CPS must weigh evidential sufficiency and public interest.
Refusal to prosecute is not unlawful if grounded in reasoned assessment.
Outcome:
Judicial review dismissed; discretion properly exercised.
Significance:
Clarified that CPS decisions on non-prosecution are generally immune from interference if rational.
*5. R v. DPP, ex parte C [1997] (UK)
Background:
Challenged CPS decision to discontinue a case after initial charge.
Court’s Reasoning:
CPS must exercise discretion fairly and transparently.
Courts will intervene if the decision amounts to an abuse of process or violation of rights.
Outcome:
Discretion upheld; no abuse of process found.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that prosecutorial discretion must be reasoned, not arbitrary.
*6. Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2003] (UK)
Background:
The case involved CPS discretion in deciding whether to prosecute in a complex homicide investigation.
Court’s Reasoning:
Court emphasized public interest considerations, including resource allocation and likelihood of conviction.
Judicial interference permitted only if decision is unreasonable or unlawful.
Outcome:
CPS discretion upheld; public interest rationale accepted.
Significance:
Demonstrates balancing of justice, efficiency, and fairness in prosecutorial decisions.
*7. R v. DPP, ex parte C [2001] (UK)
Background:
Challenged a refusal to prosecute corporate fraud allegations.
Court’s Reasoning:
CPS must consider strength of evidence, seriousness of the offence, and public confidence.
Judicial review allowed only for abuse of process, illegality, or irrationality.
Outcome:
Discretion upheld; CPS decision reasonable.
Significance:
Reinforced that discretionary prosecutorial decisions require reasoned justification, particularly in high-profile cases.
Judicial Principles Derived from These Cases
Wide Discretion with Accountability:
Prosecutors can decide to initiate, continue, or discontinue proceedings but must justify their decisions.
Judicial Review Is Limited:
Courts review legality, rationality, and procedural propriety, not substantive correctness.
Evidential Test:
Prosecution requires a realistic prospect of conviction based on credible evidence.
Public Interest Test:
Even with sufficient evidence, prosecutors may refuse to prosecute if public interest is not served.
Abuse of Process Prevention:
Courts can intervene if discretion is exercised for improper motives or results in injustice.
Transparency and Reasoned Decision-Making:
Prosecutors must record reasons for non-prosecution or discontinuation to ensure accountability.
High Deference to CPS:
Judicial interference is exceptional, reinforcing prosecutorial independence.
RELATED Blog
comments