Application for Judicial Review of the CPS Victims’ Right to Review Scheme
| Author | Stephen Colman |
| Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Published date | 01 February 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018316686473 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Application for Judicial Review of the
CPS Victims’ Right to Review Scheme
R (Chaudhry) vDPP [2016] EWHC 2447 (Admin)
Keywords
Crown Prosecution Service, decisions to prosecute, Victims’ Right to Review scheme, judicial
review
The background to this case is that two of the Claimant’s children were abducted by her former husband
in 1998 and taken to Pakistan. He was subsequently arrested in the Netherlands on a European Arrest
Warrant in 2013 and convicted of two counts of child abduction, for which he was sentenced to seven
years’ imprisonment.
Farkhanda Choudhry (FC) was the sister of the Claimant’s ex-husband. The Claimant believed that
FC had been involved in the abduction of her children. The Claimant attempted to use the CPS Victims’
Right to Review scheme (VRR) to challenge the decision of the CPS that there was insufficient evidence
to prosecute FC.
The VRR came into force on 21 July 2014 following the indication from the Court of Appeal in Rv
Killick [2011] EWCA Crim 1608 that the Director of Public Prosecutions should consider implementing
a system of review for decisions not to prosecute.
The Claimant’s initial request for review under the VRR failed as, under paragraph 11(iii) of the
guidance, ‘cases where charges are brought against some (but not all) possible suspects’ were specif-
ically excluded from the scope of the scheme. As the Claimant’s ex-husband had been prosecuted in
relation to the same allegation, the Claimant was prohibited from invoking the scheme to challenge the
decision not to prosecute FC.
The Claimant applied for judicial review of the CPS decision on the following basis (at [4]):
that the CPS erred in law in its application of the VRR and/or that the VRR Guidance is itself unlawful and
contrary to Directive 2012/29/EU of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council of 25 Octobe r 2012,
establishing ‘minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime’ (‘the Directive’)
and common law, on the following grounds:
i) That the CPS had interpreted para. 11(iii) of the VRR as an absolute bar on its reviewing the decision not
to prosecute FC; the imposition of such a bar was unlawful.
ii) Alternatively, if para . 11(iii) of the VRR did not imp ose an absolute bar, that th e CPS had acted
unlawfully in treating it as doing so and/or in failing to indicate to the public the circumstances in which
a review apparently barred by para. 11(iii) would nevertheless be conducted.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2017, Vol. 81(1) 5–8
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018316686473
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial