Samir v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 2660 (Admin) (20 June 2013)

Samir v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 2660 (Admin) (20 June 2013)

There was no evidence of bad faith or malice by the CPS; the errors amounted to incompetence, not misconduct. The threshold for abuse of process was not met. The arguments under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR were wholly without merit and unsupported by evidence.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2660 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Samir; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prosecution for Employing Illegal Workers, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Immigration Law Human Rights Prosecution for Employing Illegal Workers Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Abuse of Process

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

Samir

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the CPS warranted a stay of prosecution as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether there was bad faith or malice by the CPS
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution breached Article 3 or Article 8 of the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of bad faith or malice by the CPS; the errors amounted to incompetence, not misconduct. The threshold for abuse of process was not met. The arguments under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR were wholly without merit and unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Renewed application for judicial review refused
  • Matter to proceed before the district judge as soon as possible