Ben Whitehead v Westminster Magistrates' Court
[2024] EWHC 2868 (Admin)
Clive Alexander Solly, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service
22 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1542 (Admin)
High Court
A man wanted to privately prosecute someone for bribery but needed the CPS's permission. The CPS said no because he didn't have enough evidence. He sued them, but the judge said the CPS didn't have to help him find evidence, so his lawsuit failed.
Key Facts
- •Clive Alexander Solly (Claimant) sought judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) refusal to consent to his private prosecution under the Bribery Act 2010.
- •The CPS refused consent due to insufficient admissible evidence, a conclusion reached in multiple decisions.
- •The Claimant alleged various offences, including bribery, perverting the course of justice, and breaches of the Legal Services Act 2007.
- •The Claimant argued the CPS breached a duty under paragraph 3.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors by failing to advise him on reasonable lines of enquiry.
- •The Claimant acted in person.
Legal Principles
Section 10 of the Bribery Act 2010 requires the DPP's consent for private prosecutions.
Bribery Act 2010, Section 10
Paragraph 3.2 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors advises prosecutors to advise police and other investigators on lines of enquiry, evidential requirements, etc.
Code for Crown Prosecutors, Paragraph 3.2
The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Section 10
The Code for Crown Prosecutors' advice on lines of enquiry is to assist investigators in completing investigations within a reasonable time and building effective cases. It's not an enforceable duty to advise when there is a lack of evidential support.
Code for Crown Prosecutors, Paragraph 3.2
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review was refused.
The court found the Claimant's argument that the CPS breached a public law duty under paragraph 3.2 of the Code was not arguable. The CPS's refusal to consent was based on a lack of evidential support, and paragraph 3.2 does not create an enforceable duty to provide advice in such circumstances.
Similar Cases
Brian Nesbitt, R (on the application of) v Clevland, Durham and Northumbria Legal Team HMCTS
[2022] EWHC 3090 (Admin)
Jessica Rooks, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service
[2024] EWHC 1941 (Admin)
Bakhtiar Abbasi, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Southwark
[2024] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)