R v Croydon Justices, ex parte Dean
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1993 |
| Date | 19 February 1993 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Crime - Abuse of process - Undertaking not to prosecute - Police lacking authority to give undertaking - No bad faith - Applicant charged and committed for trial - Whether abuse of process of court - Whether committal to be quashed - Judicial Review - Magistrates' court - Committal proceedings - Committal hearing following police undertaking not to prosecute - Justices committing applicant for trial - Whether judicial review appropriate remedy - Whether certiorari available to quash committal
The applicant, who was then aged 17, was arrested and interviewed by the police in the course of a murder investigation. During the interview he effectively admitted that he had assisted in the destruction of a car with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of others knowing or believing that they were guilty of an arrestable offence. He was released without charge on the basis that he was to be a prosecution witness. The applicant duly made a prosecution witness statement and continued to assist the police voluntarily for a period of over five weeks. The police continued to refer to him as a prosecution witness and he alleged that they made specific assurances that he would not be prosecuted in connection with the murder. Thereafter the Crown Prosecution Service decided that the applicant should be charged with doing acts with intent to impede the apprehension of another, contrary to section 4(1) of the
On an application for judicial review by way of certiorari to quash both the justices' decision and the committal: —
Held, (1) that although an application to quash a committal ought normally to be made to the Crown Court, particularly if the indictment had already been signed, the High Court would, in exceptional cases, entertain such an application brought by way of judicial review if the point could be decided on the undisputed facts, together with any other fact which the court felt bound to accept as true, without hearing oral evidence; and that, in the circumstances, the court would determine the application (post, pp. 203G, 204E–F).
(2) Granting the application, that the prosecution of a person who had received a representation or promise from the police that he would not be prosecuted was capable of being an abuse of the process of the court notwithstanding the absence of bad faith on the part of the police or of any authority in them to make such a representation or promise; and that, since the court was satisfied that the police had told the applicant that he would not be prosecuted and having particular regard to his age, it was an abuse of process for him to be prosecuted subsequently, and the justices had been bound to treat the case as one of abuse of process (post, pp. 206E–H, 207B–C).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Staughton L.J.:
Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1990) [
Chu Piu-wing v. Attorney-General [
Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [
Moevao v. Department of Labour [
Reg. v. Barnet Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Wood [
Reg. v. Betesh (
Reg. v. Crneck, Bradley and Shelley (
Reg. v. Derby Crown Court, Ex parte Brooks (
Reg. v. Georgiadis [
Reg. v. Milnes and Green (
Reg. v. Redbridge Justices, Ex parte Whitehouse (
Reg. v. Rotherham Justices, Ex parte Brough [
Reg. v. Telford Justices, Ex parte Badhan [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd. and The Queen, In re (
Hui Chi-ming v. The Queen [
McDonald v. The Queen (
Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Pooley (
Reg. v. Ashton-under-Lyne Justices, Ex parte Potts, The Times, 29 March 1984,
Reg. v. Heston-Francois [
Reg. v. Humphrys [
Reg. v. Norwich Crown Court, Ex parte Belsham [
Reg. v. Sang [
Reg. v. Turner (Bryan) (
APPLICATION for judicial review.
On an application for judicial review made pursuant to leave granted by Brooke J. on 26 October 1992, the applicant, George Franklyn Phillip Dean, sought an order of certiorari to bring up and quash the decision of the justices sitting at Croydon Magistrates' Court on 9 July 1992 to refuse an application that they should not proceed as examining justices to inquire into the allegation that the applicant had committed the offence of doing acts with intent to impede the apprehension of another, and their subsequent decision on 14 July 1992 to commit the applicant to the Central Criminal Court for trial.
The grounds upon which relief was sought were that the justices had erred in law and in the exercise of their discretion in refusing to stay their inquiry as examining justices into the alleged offence because the prosecution was an abuse of the process of the court in that investigating officers had undertaken to the applicant that proceedings would not be commenced or continued against him in consideration of his assistance to them in their inquiries in relation to another offence.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Staughton L.J.
James Wadsworth Q.C. and Robert Good for the applicant.
Andrew Collins Q.C. and Charles Miskin for the prosecution.
STAUGHTON L.J. Late in the evening of Friday 13 March 1992, a man called Ronald Eades was stabbed and killed in woodland near Croydon. The principal offenders were, as it subsequently turned out, Kevin Gallagher and Justin Benham. Gallagher was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; Benham pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is awaiting sentence.
The present applicant, George Dean, has been committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of doing acts with intent to impede the apprehension of another, contrary to section 4(1) of the
At the committal proceedings before the Croydon justices in July 1992...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sookoonsingh v Summary Ct
...A.C. 529, [1981] 3 All E.R. 727, considered. (8) Marsh, Ex p., [1966] Qd.R. 357, distinguished. (9) R. v. Croydon JJ., ex. p. Dean, [1993] Q.B. 769; [1993] 3 All E.R. 129; [1993] Crim. L.R. 759; (1994), 98 Cr. App. R. 76, distinguished. (10) R. v. George Maxwell (Dev.) Ltd., [1980] Crim. L.......
-
R v Bloomfield
...one more is before us. The first is a decision of one member of this Court, together with Buckley J, in the Divisional Court, R. v. Croydon Justices Ex parte Dean [1993] QB 769. That was a case where a young man aged 17 had been told that he would not be prosecuted for a particular crime, ......
-
Maycock et Al v Commissioner of Police
...made by them in full understanding of what is entailed by the bargain.’ And in a recent decision of the Divisional Court in Reg v. Croydon Justices, Ex Parte Dean [1993] 3 All E.R. 129, the committal of the accused on a charge of doing acts to impede the apprehension of another contrary to ......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...[2007] UKPC 4: referred to B Proulx v Quebec (Attorney-General) 2001 SCC 66 ([2001] 3 SCR 9): referred to R v Croydon Justices, Ex p Dean [1993] QB 769 ([1993] 3 All ER 129): referred to R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebeline and Others; R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p......
-
Testing Fidelity to Legal Values: Official Involvement and Criminal Justice
...(for example) topromises not to prosecute in exchange for providing evidence against another: see Croydon Justices,ex parte Dean (1994) 98 Cr App R 76, Bloomfield [1997] 1 Cr App R 135, and Townsend, Dearsleyand Bretscher [1998] Crim LR 126.19 (1986) 52 CR (3d) 188, building on comments in ......
-
Overseeing Criminal Justice: The Supervisory Role of the Public Prosecution Service in China
...Analysis of the United Kingdom National Prosecuting Agencies (2008) 107.90 See, for example, Rv. Croydon Justices, ex Parte Dean [1993] 3 All E.R. 129.91 Loeber, op. cit., n. 29.92 Normally, the counter-appeal should be initiated before the judgment becomes final.However, according to artic......