Constable v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) (Rev 1)

Constable v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) (Rev 1)

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable foundation that the CPS's decision not to prosecute was perverse or one which no reasonable prosecutor could reach. Multiple independent reviews applied the correct legal test and found insufficient evidence for prosecution. There was no misunderstanding of law or facts. The threshold for judicial review intervention was not met. Both the application for extension of time and permission for judicial review were refused.

Parties
Claimant: Charles Constable; Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Discretion, Judicial Review, Costs, Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud
Criminal Law Administrative Law Prosecutorial Discretion Judicial Review Costs Fraud Conspiracy to Defraud

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Constable

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CPS's decision not to prosecute was perverse or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether there are grounds for judicial review of the CPS's decision
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for the application should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable foundation that the CPS's decision not to prosecute was perverse or one which no reasonable prosecutor could reach. Multiple independent reviews applied the correct legal test and found insufficient evidence for prosecution. There was no misunderstanding of law or facts. The threshold for judicial review intervention was not met. Both the application for extension of time and permission for judicial review were refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Application for permission for judicial review refused