S v Crown Prosecution Service

S v Crown Prosecution Service

The CPS decision to prosecute following a Victims' Right to Review was lawful, rational, and based on proper consideration of evidence and legal principles; the Guidance is lawful and does not breach natural justice; the District Judge's refusal to adjourn was within statutory powers and did not prejudice judicial review; no further disclosure was required.

Parties
Claimant: S; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: Oxford Magistrates’ Court; Interested Parties: Oxford Crown Court
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Disclosure
Outcome
Applications for permission to apply for judicial review and for disclosure dismissed.
Legal Topics
Victims' Right to Review, Prosecutorial Discretion, Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Natural Justice
Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Victims' Right to Review Prosecutorial Discretion Disclosure Abuse of Process Natural Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Oxford Magistrates’ Court

Defendant

Oxford Crown Court

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPS decision to prosecute after review was irrational or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether District Judge's refusal to adjourn was ultra vires
  3. 3 Whether CPS Guidance on Victims' Right to Review is unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The CPS decision to prosecute following a Victims' Right to Review was lawful, rational, and based on proper consideration of evidence and legal principles; the Guidance is lawful and does not breach natural justice; the District Judge's refusal to adjourn was within statutory powers and did not prejudice judicial review; no further disclosure was required.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to apply for judicial review and for disclosure dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications by S for disclosure and permission to apply for judicial review are refused.
  • Anonymisation order lapses at conclusion of criminal proceedings unless specifically renewed.