Crown Discretion In Indictments
1. Meaning of Crown Discretion
Crown discretion refers to the prosecutorial discretion exercised by the State (the Crown in Commonwealth countries) in deciding whether to initiate, continue, or discontinue criminal proceedings, including:
Deciding to charge or not charge a person
Selecting the type of charges (summary vs. indictment)
Framing the indictment
Entering a nolle prosequi (dropping charges)
In essence, it is the power of the State to control the prosecution of criminal offences while ensuring justice and public interest.
2. Legal Basis
India:
Section 173 and Section 227–239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
The Public Prosecutor or State decides whether a case should proceed to trial or be compounded.
UK & Commonwealth:
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) exercises discretion under Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985.
The Attorney General has the power to discontinue proceedings or enter a nolle prosequi.
3. Key Principles Governing Crown Discretion in Indictments
Public Interest vs. Private Interest:
Prosecutors must act in the public interest, not based on personal bias or vendetta.
No Arbitrary Exercise:
Discretion cannot be exercised maliciously, capriciously, or in violation of constitutional rights.
Legal Sufficiency:
Before filing an indictment, the prosecution must ensure prima facie evidence exists.
Separation from Judicial Function:
Prosecutorial discretion is distinct from judicial powers; courts generally do not interfere unless there is abuse.
4. Case Laws on Crown Discretion in Indictments
Case 1: R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte C (UK, 1995)
Facts:
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) refused to prosecute a minor for theft due to age and circumstances.
Legal Issue:
Whether the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is reviewable by courts.
Judgment:
Court held:
Prosecutorial discretion is primarily executive in nature.
Judicial interference is limited to cases of malice, illegality, or procedural impropriety.
Importance:
Established that Crown discretion is wide but not absolute.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang Patil (Supreme Court of India, 2006)
Facts:
Public Prosecutor declined to file charges against a politician accused of criminal intimidation.
Legal Issue:
Whether the decision not to prosecute can be challenged in court.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held:
Prosecutorial discretion under CrPC Sections 173 and 227 is subject to judicial review only in cases of mala fide or abuse of power.
Mere disagreement with the decision does not warrant interference.
Importance:
Reaffirmed that Crown discretion is broad but reviewable in exceptional circumstances.
Case 3: R. v. Gough (UK, 1994)
Facts:
DPP issued an indictment for a complex fraud case, but some charges were withdrawn before trial.
Legal Issue:
Whether prosecutors can amend or reduce charges without court permission.
Judgment:
Courts held:
Prosecutors may alter the indictment in public interest before trial, provided it does not prejudice the accused.
Emphasized balance between flexibility and fairness.
Importance:
Highlighted that Crown discretion includes framing and amending indictments.
Case 4: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith (UK, 2000)
Facts:
DPP refused to prosecute a police officer for alleged misconduct during investigation.
Legal Issue:
Whether refusal to prosecute can be judicially challenged.
Judgment:
Held that refusal is reviewable only for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Mere disagreement over merits does not constitute grounds for judicial interference.
Importance:
Strengthened principle of limited judicial review of prosecutorial discretion.
Case 5: R. v. Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet (No.2) (House of Lords, 2000)
Facts:
Debate arose over whether the Crown should issue a warrant for extradition.
Judgment:
Crown discretion can be influenced by human rights obligations and international law.
Importance:
Demonstrated that discretion is not unfettered; it must conform to constitutional and international legal standards.
Case 6: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (Kerala High Court, 2002)
Facts:
Public Prosecutor decided not to proceed against a high-ranking official accused of corruption.
Judgment:
Court held:
Discretion is a prerogative of the prosecuting authority.
Judicial intervention is permissible only if there is malafide, extraneous considerations, or violation of law.
Importance:
Reinforced that prosecutorial discretion is guided by law, not personal preference.
Case 7: R. v. Smith & Ors. (UK, 1991)
Facts:
Multiple co-accused were involved in a criminal conspiracy. The Crown decided to drop charges against minor participants.
Judgment:
Prosecutors can selectively pursue charges to ensure efficient and fair prosecution.
Emphasized that discretion serves public interest and judicial economy.
5. General Principles from Case Laws
Wide but Limited Discretion:
Prosecutors have broad authority to initiate, amend, or discontinue indictments but must act legally, fairly, and in public interest.
Judicial Review is Exceptional:
Courts interfere only in cases of malafide, irrationality, or illegality.
Amendment of Indictments:
Crown discretion includes framing, amending, and withdrawing charges before trial.
Public Interest and Efficiency:
Prosecutors can drop charges or limit indictments to serve justice efficiently.
Compliance with Law and Rights:
Discretion must respect constitutional, statutory, and human rights obligations.
RELATED Blog
comments