F, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2003] EWHC 3266 (Admin) (12 December 2003)

F, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2003] EWHC 3266 (Admin) (12 December 2003)

The claimant's challenge failed because he did not make an unequivocal admission of guilt to a constable prior to charge, a statutory precondition for a final warning under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The police acted lawfully in refusing to re-interview or administer a final warning, and the CPS acted lawfully and rationally in pursuing the prosecution. There was no legal error or irrationality in the exercise of discretion by either the police or the CPS.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 3266 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: F; First Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: Chief Constable Merseyside Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Final Warning Scheme, Police Discretion, Crown Prosecution Service Discretion, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions, Youth Offending, Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Criminal Law Administrative Law Youth Justice Final Warning Scheme Police Discretion Crown Prosecution Service Discretion Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions Youth Offending +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

Chief Constable Merseyside Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police acted lawfully in refusing to re-interview the claimant after charge
  2. 2 Whether the police acted lawfully in refusing to administer a final warning to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Crown Prosecution Service acted lawfully in pursuing the prosecution rather than discontinuing it

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's challenge failed because he did not make an unequivocal admission of guilt to a constable prior to charge, a statutory precondition for a final warning under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The police acted lawfully in refusing to re-interview or administer a final warning, and the CPS acted lawfully and rationally in pursuing the prosecution. There was no legal error or irrationality in the exercise of discretion by either the police or the CPS.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • Order for assessment of claimant's costs subject to legal aid certificate being lodged