Smith, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2010] EWHC 3593 (Admin) (24 November 2010)

Smith, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2010] EWHC 3593 (Admin) (24 November 2010)

It was an abuse of process and an affront to justice for the CPS to proceed with prosecution after an agreement had been reached in open court to dispose of the case by restraining order and acquittal upon no evidence being offered, especially where the only reasons advanced for changing position were either legally incorrect or not acted upon (lack of consultation), and where the claimant had not contributed to the breakdown of the agreement.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3593 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Smith; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; prosecution decision quashed as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Prosecutorial Discretion, Restraining Orders, Domestic Violence, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Administrative Law Abuse of Process Prosecutorial Discretion Restraining Orders Domestic Violence Judicial Review

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

Parties

Robert Smith

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is an abuse of process for the CPS to proceed with prosecution after an agreement was reached to dispose of the case by restraining order and acquittal upon no evidence being offered
  2. 2 Whether the CPS's change of position without consultation with the complainant or support agencies justified continuing the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

It was an abuse of process and an affront to justice for the CPS to proceed with prosecution after an agreement had been reached in open court to dispose of the case by restraining order and acquittal upon no evidence being offered, especially where the only reasons advanced for changing position were either legally incorrect or not acted upon (lack of consultation), and where the claimant had not contributed to the breakdown of the agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; prosecution decision quashed as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • CPS must offer no evidence against the claimant, conditional on claimant's continued willingness to accept a restraining order.
  • Claimant's costs to be subject to detailed assessment; question of payment out of central funds adjourned for consideration on paper by a divisional court.