Hayes, R (On the Application Of) v Hayes

Hayes, R (On the Application Of) v Hayes

The CPS's policy of only conducting a Victims' Right to Review after offering no evidence in cases falling within paragraph 9(iii) of the VRR Guidance is inflexible but not unlawful. The restriction on timing is justified and proportionate, balancing the interests of the accused, prosecutorial independence, and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Tim Hayes; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Interested Party: Carole Hayes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Victims' Right to Review, Prosecutorial Discretion, Fettering of Discretion, Directive 2012/29/eu, Timing of Review, Private Prosecution, Public Interest Test
Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Victims' Right to Review Prosecutorial Discretion Fettering of Discretion Directive 2012/29/eu Timing of Review +2 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tim Hayes

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Carole Hayes

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS's policy or practice of only conducting a Victims' Right to Review (VRR) after offering no evidence is unlawful as an inflexible fetter of discretion
  2. 2 Whether the VRR scheme as operated provides an effective right of review to victims in cases where the CPS offers no evidence
  3. 3 Whether the policy is inconsistent with common law, the Directive 2012/29/EU, or the principles in Killick

Ratio Decidendi

The CPS's policy of only conducting a Victims' Right to Review after offering no evidence in cases falling within paragraph 9(iii) of the VRR Guidance is inflexible but not unlawful. The restriction on timing is justified and proportionate, balancing the interests of the accused, prosecutorial independence, and operational effectiveness against the interests of the victim. The scheme provides an effective right of review as required by law and the Directive, and does not unlawfully fetter discretion.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed