DPP, R (On the Application Of) v Taylor

An initial decision not to prosecute may be revisited only in exceptional circumstances. Where the decision was based solely on the evidential test and was clearly wrong, it may be revoked. Where public-interest considerations may also have influenced the decision, that exception is not established without evidence. An unqualified assurance that no prosecution will follow should ordinarily be relied upon. Proceeding with a prosecution after such an assurance may be unfair and an abuse of process even where the defendant has suffered no severe prejudice.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated from Alnwick Magistrates’ Court, which had stayed an information charging the defendant with careless driving. The charge arose from a fatal road accident in which both the defendant, a bus driver, and the deceased driver appeared to have been at fault.

The Crown Prosecution Service had first notified the defendant that no further action would be taken. Following representations by the deceased driver’s family, it reviewed the matter and initiated a prosecution. The central issue was whether the change of decision made continuation of the prosecution unfair, vexatious or an abuse of process.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to stay the proceedings as unfair, or in traditional terminology vexatious or abusive.
2. The relevant exception permitting a prosecution after an earlier decision not to prosecute arises where the original decision was based exclusively on the evidential test and was clearly wrong. The evidential assessment in this case was plainly wrong because the available evidence disclosed a clear case of careless driving.
3. That did not establish the exception. The court could not accept, without evidence, that the original decision had been based only on evidential grounds. Public-interest considerations could rationally have influenced the decision, including the defendant’s genuine mistake or misunderstanding, the deceased driver’s contributory fault and the likelihood of a very lenient penalty.
4. An unqualified assurance that no prosecution will follow should ordinarily be relied upon. Following such an assurance may be an abuse of process even without severe prejudice to the defendant. The principle in Bloomfield 1 Cr App R 135 supported the magistrates’ approach.
5. The magistrates were entitled to infer that the defendant could rely on the original decision, particularly since the Crown provided no convincing explanation for its failure initially to take account of the accident investigator’s conclusions. No good reason existed to disturb their decision.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The stay imposed by Alnwick Magistrates’ Court was upheld.