Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Sheffield Crown Court & Ors

A Crown Court cannot use its costs jurisdiction under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to punish or review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the DPP or another independent state prosecutor after a trial. Challenges to a decision to prosecute must ordinarily be made before the trial court through the abuse-of-process jurisdiction, or exceptionally by judicial review where no adequate trial-court remedy exists.

The Administrative Court may review and quash a Crown Court order made without jurisdiction, despite the statutory restriction on reviewing decisions relating to trial on indictment. The statutory concept of an improper act or omission requires the rigorous approach stated in Ridehalgh v Horsefield, not the broader approach taken in DPP v Denning.

The DPP challenged an order made by Sheffield Crown Court after the acquittal of Peter Barry Goodison, who had been prosecuted for causing death by careless driving. The Crown Court held that the CPS had acted improperly by prosecuting Mr Goodison without prosecuting another driver involved in the collision and ordered the CPS to pay his costs under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The central issues were whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to make that order and whether the Administrative Court had jurisdiction to review it under sections 28(2) and 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The court also considered the proper meaning of an improper act or omission.

1. Jurisdiction of the Crown Court. The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to use section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to impugn the DPP’s earlier decision to prosecute. Decisions whether to prosecute belong to the CPS or other state prosecutors. The Crown Court’s role is not to discipline the DPP for an allegedly aberrant exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
2. Challenges to prosecutorial decisions should ordinarily be made before the trial court by an application to stay proceedings for abuse of process. Such challenges are highly exceptional, particularly where the prosecution case is sufficient to leave the issue to the jury. Judicial review by the Administrative Court is available only exceptionally where there is no adequate route before the trial court.
3. Administrative Court jurisdiction. The restriction in section 28(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not prevent review of a Crown Court order made without jurisdiction. Since the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to make the section 19 order, the Administrative Court had jurisdiction under section 29(3) to quash it.
4. Meaning of improper act or omission. Although unnecessary to the result, the court agreed with Ridehalgh v Horsefield that impropriety requires a rigorous assessment. It covers conduct warranting serious professional sanction or a significant breach of a substantial professional duty, and may also include conduct regarded as improper by professional consensus. The broader approach in DPP v Denning was not the correct test.
5. The part of the order requiring the CPS to pay costs was quashed. The order allowing any remaining costs to be recovered from central funds stood.

Not stated in the judgment. The proceedings were an application for judicial review of an order made by Sheffield Crown Court.