QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE JAY
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
|SUNDERLAND MAGISTRATES' COURT
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R Smith QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Interested Parties
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Crown Copyright ©
"On an information being laid before a justice of the peace that a person has, or is suspected of having, committed an offence, the justice may issue-(a) a summons directed to that person requiring him to appear before the magistrates' court to answer the information..."
While the informations relate to an offence known to the law and the elements of the offence may be prime facie present (ie the allegation that the defendant abused his/her power as a public official) the reality is that this is a collateral attack on the decision of the CPS not to prosecute. That is a matter which ought properly to be considered by the Administrative Court and, in my opinion, therefore, this is an appropriate case for which we should decline jurisdiction by refusing to issue a summons."
"DJ Roger Elsey considers the informations dated 29 November 2013 and informs the legal adviser [named] that the summonses could now be issued and the informations should be laid before a lay magistrate for consideration. The reason to issue the summons was the view that Mr Andrew Beardmore was likely to judicially review HMCTS."
To this puzzling comment we shall return.
"(1) The Director shall issue a Code... giving guidance on general principles to be applied by them...
(a) in determining, in any case-
(i) whether proceedings for an offence should be instituted or, where proceedings have been instituted, whether they should be discontinued; or
(ii) what charges should be preferred..."
"Draft information you submitted in these cases were considered on 11 November 2013 and it was decided [by DJ Elsey] that no summons should be issued upon them for the following reasons:
While the information related to an offence known to the law, the elements of the offence may prima facie be present (ie the allegation that the defendant abused his powers of a public official), the reality is this is a collateral attack on the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute. That is a matter which ought properly to be considered by the Administrative Court and in my opinion therefore this is an appropriate case in which we should decline jurisdiction by refusing to issue the summons."