NXB v Crown Prosecution Service [2015] EWHC 631 (QB) (12 March 2015)

NXB v Crown Prosecution Service [2015] EWHC 631 (QB) (12 March 2015)

The CPS's decision to withdraw the prosecution was neither irrational nor unlawful; it was a reasoned application of the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, made in light of credibility issues arising from the edited diary and the Claimant's unwillingness to answer relevant questions. There was no breach of Article 3 ECHR, as there was no systemic failure or irrationality in the state's investigation or prosecution.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 631
Parties
Claimant: NXB; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Under the Human Rights Act 1998 / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 3 ECHR, Prosecutorial Discretion, Positive Obligations of the State, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions, Historic Sexual Abuse, Code for Crown Prosecutors
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Public Law Article 3 ECHR Prosecutorial Discretion Positive Obligations of the State Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions Historic Sexual Abuse +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NXB

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Damages Under the Human Rights Act 1998 / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS's decision to withdraw prosecution breached Article 3 ECHR by failing the state's positive obligation to investigate and prosecute serious crime
  2. 2 Whether the CPS's decision was irrational, unlawful, or a misapplication of prosecutorial policy under public law principles

Ratio Decidendi

The CPS's decision to withdraw the prosecution was neither irrational nor unlawful; it was a reasoned application of the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, made in light of credibility issues arising from the edited diary and the Claimant's unwillingness to answer relevant questions. There was no breach of Article 3 ECHR, as there was no systemic failure or irrationality in the state's investigation or prosecution.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed