Clive Alexander Solly, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Clive Alexander Solly, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

There is no arguable ground for judicial review because paragraph 3.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors does not impose an enforceable public law duty on the CPS to advise a private prosecutor on lines of enquiry where the proposed prosecution is assessed as lacking evidential support. The refusal of consent was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Clive Alexander Solly; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission (oral Renewal)
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Bribery Act 2010, Prosecution Consent, DPP Discretion
Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Bribery Act 2010 Prosecution Consent DPP Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clive Alexander Solly

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission (oral Renewal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS breached a duty under paragraph 3.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors to advise the claimant as an 'other investigator' on reasonable lines of enquiry before refusing consent for private prosecution under the Bribery Act 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no arguable ground for judicial review because paragraph 3.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors does not impose an enforceable public law duty on the CPS to advise a private prosecutor on lines of enquiry where the proposed prosecution is assessed as lacking evidential support. The refusal of consent was lawful.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review is refused