Silver, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 543 (13 March 2025)

Silver, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 543 (13 March 2025)

The judge erred in law by taking too narrow a view of 'police privileges' under s.26 CJCA 2015. The defendant's ability to drive C1 home and enter the homes of C1 and C2 arose from privileges available to him as a constable, which would not have been available to others. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendant exercised a police privilege improperly for the purpose of achieving a benefit (including sexual gratification). The judge was correct to rule no case to answer on count 7 due to insufficient evidence of a relevant power, privilege, or duty.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 543
Parties
Applicant: Rex; Respondent: Luke Silver
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judge's ruling reversed on counts 1, 3, and 4; confirmed on counts 2, 5, 6, and 7.
Legal Topics
Corrupt or Improper Exercise of Police Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Police Misconduct, Computer Misuse, Benefit Under S.26 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Criminal Law Corrupt or Improper Exercise of Police Powers Statutory Interpretation Police Misconduct Computer Misuse Benefit Under S.26 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Applicant

Luke Silver

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under S.58 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of 'powers and privileges' under s.26 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether 'benefit' under s.26 includes sexual gratification
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was exercising a police power, privilege, or duty in the alleged conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by taking too narrow a view of 'police privileges' under s.26 CJCA 2015. The defendant's ability to drive C1 home and enter the homes of C1 and C2 arose from privileges available to him as a constable, which would not have been available to others. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendant exercised a police privilege improperly for the purpose of achieving a benefit (including sexual gratification). The judge was correct to rule no case to answer on count 7 due to insufficient evidence of a relevant power, privilege, or duty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judge's ruling reversed on counts 1, 3, and 4; confirmed on counts 2, 5, 6, and 7.

Orders

  • Defendant acquitted on counts 2, 5, 6, and 7.
  • Proceedings on counts 1, 3, and 4 may be resumed in the Crown Court; trial to start afresh.