O (R) v DPP

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE LAWS,MR JUSTICE MCCOMBE
Judgment Date02 March 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWHC 804 (Admin)
Date02 March 2010
Docket NumberCO/11103/2009
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

[2010] EWHC 804 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before: Lord Justice Laws

Mr Justice Mccombe

CO/11103/2009

Between
The Queen on the Application of O
Claimant
and
Director of Prosecution Services
Defendant

Miss J Smart (instructed by Temple Vale &Law Solicitors, EC4Y 7BL) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

Mr T Godfrey (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

(Draft for approval)

LORD JUSTICE LAWS
1

: This is an application for judicial review brought with permission granted by Elias LJ and Openshaw J on 20 October 2009, after initial refusal by Irwin J on consideration of the papers on 23 June 2009. The challenge is directed to the position taken by the Crown Prosecution Service in criminal proceedings against the claimant, namely that they would not alter their previous position and administer a reprimand, rather than continue the prosecution in respect of offences said to be laid at the claimant's door.

2

The claimant is a teenager. He was born on 25 September 1994. He was arrested on suspicion of having a bladed article in a public place. The accusation arose out of an incident on 21 August 2008 when the claimant was nearly 14. On that day police officers were called to an estate in London E14. The caller stated that an eight-year-old boy had been threatened by a group of older boys with a knife. The police drove around the area and had two boys pointed out to them, one of whom was the claimant. He ran off and was chased. He was seen to discard an object which turned out to be an eight centimetre lock knife. He said he had found it on the floor and had intended to throw it away, but then the police had arrived.

3

The claimant was interviewed the same day in the presence of his mother and a duty solicitor. He repeated what he had said at interview. He was bailed from the police station pending further enquiries into the allegation of robbery which the eight-year-old boy had made. Whilst so bailed his mother was informed that the police would not pursue the robbery charge against him, but that the bladed article offence would be taken forward. The officers giving this information referred the claimant to the Youth Offending Team, whose offices the claimant attended with his mother. That was, as I understand it, in September 2008. They were seen by a female officer, PC Kim Wallace, who offered, as it was put, a final warning in substitution for a prosecution. PC Wallace's witness statement in part reads as follows:

“I explained that the Final Warning could only be administered if [H] admitted the offence and agreed to engage on a Final Warning Programme, which would include his involvement in diversionary activities. At the conclusion of this initial assessment, my intention was to invite H and his Mother back to the YOT (that must be the Youth Offending Team] the following week to administer him with a Final Warning. However, at this point H's Mother informed me that she did not want her Son to engage on the Final Warning programme and she would prefer it if he returned to the police station to answer his bail and be charged. She stated that she felt he had 'reasonable excuse' for possession of the offensive weapon and that she wanted his case to be heard at court. I pointed out that H had already admitted this offence in interview, hence his referral to the YOT but his Mother maintained he had 'reasonable excuse'. I also pointed out that should H be convicted at court it could result in a criminal record. I explained to H and his Mother that without his full and frank admission to the offence I could not administer him with a Final Warning.”

4

In fact the claimant's mother, who I should say is a solicitor (though as I understand it without experience in criminal practice) maintains that she simply requested time to consider the meaning of the proposed warning. Thus there is something of dispute as to what happened at the YOT. It is said that the mother contacted PC Wallace within a week, or so, and told her that she had not yet made a decision.

5

At all events the claimant and his mother attended the Bethnal Green Police Station, it seems, on 31 October 2008, when the claimant was charged with a bladed article offence. It is said that the mother was told it was then too late for a final warning.

6

The matter was listed in the Youth Court on 6 November 2008 and on that occasion the claimant pleaded not guilty. The case was adjourned. A further hearing took place on 29 January 2009. By that time the Crown Prosecution Service were involved and indicated that the prosecution would be persisted in.

7

Some time after the hearing on 6 November...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT