R (Hunt) v Criminal Cases Review Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Crime - Practice - Prosecution for tax evasion - Police arresting and charging applicant - Investigation of offence and prosecution on indictment conducted by revenue - Whether proceedings instituted on behalf of police force - Whether Director of Public Prosecutions under duty to take over conduct of case -
Following an investigation by the Inland Revenue, the applicant was arrested and charged by a police officer with conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. The prosecution of the offence on indictment was conducted by the revenue and the applicant was convicted. His appeal against conviction was dismissed. The applicant applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) pursuant to section 9 of the
On an application by the applicant for judicial review of the Commission's decision—
Held, dismissing the application, (1) that proceedings were only instituted on behalf of a police force where the police force had investigated and arrested the suspect and brought him before the custody officer; and that, accordingly, section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 had no application (post, pp 322F–G, H–323B).
(2) That there was a category of criminal behaviour in respect of which the Inland Revenue was in a peculiarly advantageous position to prosecute; that although the revenue had no express statutory power to prosecute, it had such a power at common law ancillary to, supportive of, and limited by its duty to collect taxes; and that, accordingly, the revenue could prosecute a trial on indictment before the Crown Court without the consent of the Attorney General (post, pp 325D–E, 327D–E, 328A–C).
Per curiam. It is important that the courts should not, in inappropriate cases, allow the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be sucked into judicial review proceedings which are bound to distract it from fulfilling its statutory role (post, p 323G–H).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lord Woolf CJ:
R v Bradbury [
R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, Ex p Pearson [
R v Croydon Justices, Ex p Holmberg [
R v Ealing Justices, Ex p Dixon [
R v Hudson [
R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Rossminster Ltd [
R v Pearce (Stephen) (
R v Stafford Justices, Ex p Customs and Excise Comrs [
R v W [
R v W (unreported) 7 August 1998,
R v W (unreported) 18 November 1999,
The following additional case was cited in argument:
R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Mead [
The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
R v Allsop (
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Roberts [
R v Dimsey [
R v Ghosh [
R v Hunt (
R v Jackson (Stephen) [
R v Lawrence (Stephen) [
R v Price (
R v Roberts (William) (
R v Scott [
R v Sinclair [
R v Staffordshire County Council Education Appeals Committee, Ex p Ashworth (
Wai Yu-tsang v The Queen [
Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions [
APPLICATION for judicial review
By an application dated 28 July 1999 and amended on 16 October 2000 Michael John Hunt applied for judicial review by way of an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission dated 27 May 1999 refusing to refer to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to section 9 of the
The facts are stated in the judgment of Lord Woolf CJ.
Robert Rhodes QC and Simon Stafford-Michael for the applicant.
Beverley Lang QC for the Commission.
Peter Rook QC and Jonathan Fisher for the Inland Revenue.
LORD WOOLF CJ
1 This judgment relates to an application for judicial review of a decision of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) dated 27 May 1999 refusing to refer, pursuant to section 9 of the
2 It raises an issue as to whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are entitled to prosecute at a trial on indictment before the Crown Court without the consent of the Attorney General. There is also a subsidiary issue as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was required to take over the prosecution because a police officer had charged the applicant.
3 Before the Commission can exercise its powers, the Commission is required to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the
4 It is not necessary to go into the facts of the present case in any detail. Suffice it to say that on 26 June 1993 the applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Southwark of conspiracy to cheat the revenue, contrary to section 1(1) of the
5 The substantive offence of cheating the revenue is not a statutory offence but an offence contrary to common law. There were other counts in the indictment of which the applicant was acquitted. In relation to the offence for which the applicant was convicted, there was a co-defendant who pleaded guilty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Police Federation v The Commissioner of The Independent Commission of Investigations
...prosecutions. In reliance on R v Rollins [2010] UKSC 39; [2010] 4 All ER 880 and Regina (Hunt) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] QB 1108, he found at paragraph [87] that it would: “…be an aberration for Parliament to have established an independent body removed from the Police Forc......
-
Police Federation and Others v Commissioner of The Independent Commission of Investigations and Attorney General
...one of stating expressly that a particular offence may only be prosecuted by a specified person or persons. 65 In Regina (Hunt) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] Q.B. 1108 the court similarly held in relation to the Inland Revenue:- The common law and statute has preserved the right......
-
R v Rollins and Another
...by decision to achieve.” The importance of the right is illustrated by the reliance placed on it by Lord Woolf CJ in R (Hunt) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] QB 1108, at paragraph [20], in support of the common law power of the Inland Revenue Commissioners to bring prosecutions: “......
-
R (Securiplan Plc) v Security Industry Authority
...Service. The SIA is in “a peculiarly advantageous position to prosecute”, to borrow the words of Lord Woolf CJ in R(Hunt) v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2001] QB 1108, 1116, where he was considering the position of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, albeit outside the ambit of a statute......
-
Judicial Review and the Criminal Cases Review Commission
...were no grounds for impeaching itsdecision. In R v (1) Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) Inland Revenue Commis- sioners, ex p. Hunt [2001] 2 WLR 319, the applicant applied for leave tojudicially review the decision of the CCRC not to refer his case back tothe Court of Appeal. Convicted ......