R v AYP
[2024] EWCA Crim 952
Jessica Rooks, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1941 (Admin)
High Court
A woman tried to get a court to overturn the decision not to prosecute her ex-boyfriend for assault. The court said that the prosecutors had the right to make their own decision about whether there was enough evidence to prosecute, and that their decision was reasonable even if their explanation wasn't perfectly clear. They wouldn't interfere unless the prosecutors had broken the law or acted completely unreasonably. In this case, they didn't.
Key Facts
- •Jessica Rooks (Claimant) sought judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) decision to discontinue a prosecution against her former partner, Patrick Flaherty, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
- •The CPS decision was based on concerns about the Claimant's credibility, inconsistencies in her account, and the presence of additional evidence that could undermine the prosecution.
- •The Claimant argued that the CPS erred in law by failing to adequately consider the objective limb of the self-defence test.
- •The Claimant's arrest on suspicion of stalking and sending malicious communications, and the subsequent discovery of a stun gun and CS gas canister in her possession, further impacted the CPS's assessment of her credibility.
Legal Principles
The CPS is responsible for conducting prosecutions and has a significant margin of discretion in deciding whether to prosecute.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s. 3(2)(a) and s. 10; Code for Crown Prosecutors
Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions is available only on conventional public law grounds (e.g., unlawful policy, failure to follow policy, irrationality, error of law).
R v DPP ex parte C [1995], L v DPP & Comm [2013], R (Monica) v DPP [2022], Campaign Against Antisemitism v DPP [2019]
The evidential test requires an objective assessment of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction, considering the evidence and potential defences.
Code for Crown Prosecutors, section 4.6-4.8
Courts should apply a “self-denying ordinance” and only interfere with prosecutorial decisions sparingly, unless there's an unlawful policy, failure to follow policy, or a perverse decision.
R v DPP ex parte C [1995], L v DPP & Comm [2013], R (Monica) v DPP [2022]
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found no error of law or other justiciable failing in the CPS's decision. The CPS considered all relevant material, including the Claimant's credibility issues and the objective limb of self-defence, albeit not explicitly articulated in every review letter. The court deferred to the CPS's expertise and discretion in assessing the evidence and reaching a decision on whether a realistic prospect of conviction existed.
Similar Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Joseph Barton
[2024] EWHC 1350 (Admin)
R v BKJ
[2024] EWCA Crim 1354
SIMARPAUL THANDI (R on the application of) v SEVENOAKS MAGISTRATES' COURT
[2023] EWHC 507 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Chris Durham also called Bouye (deceased) and 2 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2024] UKPC 21