R v AYP
[2024] EWCA Crim 952
Director of Public Prosecutions v Chris Durham also called Bouye (deceased) and 2 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
18 July 2024
[2024] UKPC 21
Privy Council
The police charged three people with murder based on one witness's testimony. Before trial, the witness said he lied. The lower courts stopped the trial, saying it wasn't fair. The highest court said the trial should continue because there were ways to deal with the lying witness within the trial itself, and it's very hard to stop a trial using other legal means.
Key Facts
- •The DPP brought murder charges against three respondents based on the eyewitness testimony of Mr. Benjamin.
- •Before trial, Mr. Benjamin recanted his testimony, stating it was untrue but intending to repeat it in court.
- •The Respondents sought judicial review of the DPP's decision to continue the prosecution.
- •The High Court and Court of Appeal (majority) quashed the indictment, finding the DPP's decision unreasonable.
- •The Privy Council appeal questions the correctness of the lower courts' decisions.
Legal Principles
Judicial review of prosecutorial decisions is a highly exceptional remedy, granted only in extremely rare circumstances.
Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2006] UKPC 57
Leave for judicial review should not be granted if a suitable alternative remedy exists.
Judicial Review Act Chapter 7:08, section 9
The DPP has a wide discretion in deciding whether to prosecute or continue a prosecution, and this discretion is subject to judicial review only in exceptional circumstances, such as bad faith or an abuse of process.
Matalulu v DPP [2003] 4 LRC 712; Mohit v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] UKPC 20
A prosecutor must act lawfully and direct himself correctly in law.
R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60
Abuse of process in criminal proceedings can occur when a fair trial is impossible or when the trial would offend the court's sense of justice and propriety.
R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48; Warren v Attorney General for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10
Outcomes
The Privy Council allowed the appeal.
The Respondents had an adequate alternative remedy available within the criminal proceedings. The lower courts erred in finding irrationality and abuse of process; the DPP's decision to continue the prosecution, given conflicting statements from the key witness, was not exceptionally unreasonable or an abuse of process.