CM, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 4457 (Admin) (25 November 2014)

The CPS's decision to prosecute was not irrational, was not materially affected by the age gap error, and did not breach settled policy; the threshold for judicial review intervention was not met.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2014] EWHC 4457 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: CM; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 November 2014
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome: Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics: Prosecution of Minors, Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions, Public Interest in Prosecution, CPS Policy on Young Offenders, Mistake of Fact in Prosecutorial Decisions

Criminal Law Administrative Law Juvenile Justice Prosecution of Minors Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Decisions Public Interest in Prosecution CPS Policy on Young Offenders Mistake of Fact in Prosecutorial Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

1 Whether the CPS decision to prosecute a 10-year-old was irrational
2 Whether a material mistake of fact (age gap) vitiated the CPS decision
3 Whether the CPS failed to follow its settled policy regarding prosecution of young offenders

Ratio Decidendi

The CPS's decision to prosecute was not irrational, was not materially affected by the age gap error, and did not breach settled policy; the threshold for judicial review intervention was not met.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

Detailed assessment of legal aid costs ordered
No further orders made regarding trial arrangements

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.