Koro v Secretary of State for Justice

Koro v Secretary of State for Justice

The claim is a public law claim seeking remedies that must be pursued by judicial review, not by Part 8 procedure. The Directive does not confer enforceable private law rights to legal aid or reimbursement for private prosecutions under UK law. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and constitutes an abuse of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Rezq Allah Koro; Defendant: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process; no permission to amend granted.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Legal Aid, EU Law Directives, Victims' Rights
Public Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Abuse of Process Judicial Review Legal Aid EU Law Directives Victims' Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rezq Allah Koro

Claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can use Part 8 procedure to enforce alleged rights under Directive 2012/29/EU and Articles 13 and 14 regarding legal aid and reimbursement of expenses for private prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds or constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Directive confers private law rights enforceable by ordinary action

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is a public law claim seeking remedies that must be pursued by judicial review, not by Part 8 procedure. The Directive does not confer enforceable private law rights to legal aid or reimbursement for private prosecutions under UK law. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and constitutes an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process; no permission to amend granted.

Orders

  • Parties to agree a form of order and any necessary consequential directions.