Laing v The Crown Prosecution Service

Where a person complains about the conduct of a prosecution and related civil proceedings are ongoing, the prosecuting authorities may reasonably defer investigating the complaint until those proceedings conclude. A decision to await the outcome of related litigation is not irrational merely because the prosecution ended in acquittal. The legality of the decision is assessed at the time it was made. Once the related proceedings have ended, the original justification may cease to exist, and any later refusal to investigate may require separate consideration on its own facts.

The claimant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the decision by the defendants not to investigate his complaint about the conduct of a prosecution against him. The prosecution had ended in his acquittal after a judge ruled that there was no case to answer. He alleged that the prosecution had been malicious and brought without reasonable cause.

The defendants had deferred investigation because the claimant had brought related proceedings against the police in the Manchester County Court. Permission was refused on paper by Claire Montgomery QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The claimant renewed the application before the Divisional Court, relying on the papers in his absence.

1. Permission refused. The decision of Claire Montgomery QC refusing permission was correct on the facts relevant to the defendants’ original decision.
2. The defendants were entitled to take the view that investigation of the complaint should await the conclusion of the claimant’s related County Court proceedings. That was a permissible stance while those proceedings remained ongoing and was not irrational.
3. The court assessed the lawfulness of the defendants’ decision at the time when they first declined to investigate the complaint. The claimant’s acquittal and allegation of malicious prosecution did not make the decision irrational.
4. The County Court proceedings had subsequently been dismissed and permission to appeal had been refused. If no further appeal was pursued, the original reason for deferring investigation would no longer exist. The defendants might then investigate the complaint, and any later refusal to continue an investigation could be subject to review depending on the basis of that decision.
5. Mr Justice Tugendhat agreed with Lord Justice Latham.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on paper by Claire Montgomery QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
• High Court (Administrative Court), Divisional Court: The renewed application was considered in the claimant’s absence and permission was refused.