Judicial Review In Criminal Proceedings
📚 What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is a procedure by which the High Court reviews the lawfulness of decisions, actions, or failures to act by public bodies — including lower criminal courts, police, and prosecutors.
In the context of criminal law, judicial review is not about determining guilt or innocence. Instead, it focuses on whether a decision made during the criminal process was:
Unlawful
Irrational or unreasonable
Procedurally improper
Contrary to natural justice or human rights
✅ When is Judicial Review Used in Criminal Proceedings?
Examples include:
Challenging a decision to prosecute or not prosecute
Challenging a search warrant
Challenging a decision of a magistrates’ court or Crown Court where no appeal is available
Challenging police or CPS conduct
Reviewing restraining orders, asset freezes, bail decisions, etc.
⚖️ Legal Principles of Judicial Review
Judicial review is based on three main grounds (from Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] – the GCHQ case):
Illegality – Decision-maker must understand and apply the law correctly.
Irrationality – Decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Procedural Impropriety – Breach of fairness, bias, or failure to follow rules.
Human rights considerations under the Human Rights Act 1998, especially Articles 6 (fair trial) and 8 (privacy), are often central in criminal judicial review cases.
📚 Landmark Cases in Judicial Review of Criminal Proceedings
✅ R v. Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Trader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 129
Facts:
Company challenged police decision to limit resources for escorting lorries during protests.
Claimed it was an unlawful interference with their business.
Held:
The decision was within the Chief Constable’s discretion.
Courts will not interfere unless the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (irrational in the extreme).
Legal Principle:
In criminal law, courts defer to policing discretion, unless decision is irrational or unlawful.
✅ R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Manning [2001] QB 330
Facts:
DPP decided not to prosecute police officers involved in a custodial death.
Victim’s family sought judicial review of the decision not to prosecute.
Held:
High Court ruled the DPP’s decision was irrational given the evidence.
DPP was ordered to reconsider.
Legal Principle:
Prosecutorial discretion is reviewable, especially where failure to prosecute may breach Article 2 (right to life) of the ECHR.
✅ R v. Inner London Crown Court, ex parte B [1996] COD 301
Facts:
Defendant’s trial was stopped for abuse of process.
CPS sought judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision to stop the trial.
Held:
Crown Court’s decision to stay proceedings can be subject to judicial review, but only in exceptional cases.
Legal Principle:
Although Crown Court is a superior court, judicial review is available in limited circumstances (usually where there's jurisdictional error).
✅ R (Corner House Research) v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60
Facts:
The SFO discontinued a corruption investigation into BAE Systems after Saudi pressure.
Judicial review sought of SFO’s decision to halt the investigation.
Held:
House of Lords upheld the decision.
SFO had lawfully considered national security implications.
Legal Principle:
Decisions to stop prosecutions may be upheld if grounded in legitimate concerns (e.g., national security), but must be closely scrutinised.
✅ R v. Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Pinochet (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Facts:
Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet challenged his extradition to Spain.
He argued judicial bias due to a judge’s connection to Amnesty International.
Held:
House of Lords set aside its original decision due to apparent bias.
Legal Principle:
Judicial review ensures fairness and impartiality in extradition and criminal proceedings.
Apparent bias (even without proof of actual bias) is sufficient to quash decisions.
✅ R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
Facts:
A South African national was kidnapped by British agents to face trial in the UK.
He argued abuse of process due to unlawful rendition.
Held:
House of Lords held that courts must refuse to try defendants where executive wrongdoing undermines the rule of law.
Legal Principle:
Judicial review can protect the integrity of the criminal justice system by preventing state misconduct from resulting in unfair trials.
✅ R (Monica) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] EWHC 3508 (Admin)
Facts:
An undercover police officer formed an intimate relationship with the claimant during a protest.
She sought judicial review of the DPP’s refusal to prosecute the officer.
Held:
The court found that the DPP had failed to properly apply the CPS guidelines and Human Rights Act when deciding not to prosecute.
Legal Principle:
The decision not to prosecute can be challenged where it fails to take human rights or policy into account.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| International Trader’s Ferry | 1999 | Police discretion reviewable only if irrational |
| Ex p Manning | 2001 | DPP’s refusal to prosecute can be judicially reviewed |
| Ex p B (Crown Court) | 1996 | Crown Court abuse of process decisions can be reviewed in rare cases |
| Corner House (SFO) | 2008 | Prosecutorial decisions can factor in national security, but must be lawful |
| Pinochet (No.2) | 2000 | Apparent bias in judicial decisions undermines fairness |
| Ex p Bennett | 1994 | Judicial review prevents trials tainted by executive misconduct |
| Monica v DPP | 2018 | Human rights must be considered in DPP’s prosecutorial decisions |
🧠 Key Takeaways
Judicial review is not an appeal — it focuses on lawfulness, not correctness.
Decisions by prosecutors, police, and even criminal courts may be reviewed if:
They exceed legal powers
They are irrational
They violate human rights
They involve bias or unfairness
Courts show restraint in interfering with prosecutorial discretion, but not deference where rights are at stake.
Human rights (especially under the ECHR) now play a central role in assessing the legality of decisions in criminal justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments