Armani Da Silva, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin) (14 December 2006)

Armani Da Silva, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin) (14 December 2006)

The Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to prosecute individual officers was lawful because it was made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, applying the correct evidential test, and was a decision reasonably open on the material before him. Article 2 ECHR does not require a different evidential test or a more intensive standard of judicial review. The refusal to disclose underlying evidence was also lawful as it was unnecessary for the determination of the claim and justified by the risk of prejudice to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3204 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Patricia Armani da Silva; First Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Defendant: Independent Police Complaints Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Decision to Prosecute, Article 2 ECHR, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion, Disclosure Obligations, Deaths in Custody
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Decision to Prosecute Article 2 ECHR Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion Disclosure Obligations Deaths in Custody

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Armani da Silva

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Defendant

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to prosecute individual police officers for murder or gross negligence manslaughter was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors is compatible with Article 2 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether Article 2 ECHR requires a more intensive judicial review of prosecutorial decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Director of Public Prosecutions' decision not to prosecute individual officers was lawful because it was made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, applying the correct evidential test, and was a decision reasonably open on the material before him. Article 2 ECHR does not require a different evidential test or a more intensive standard of judicial review. The refusal to disclose underlying evidence was also lawful as it was unnecessary for the determination of the claim and justified by the risk of prejudice to ongoing criminal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's challenge to the Director's decision is dismissed
  • No order for disclosure of underlying evidence