R v DPP, ex parte C
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Year | 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
128 cases
- Datuk Mohd Zaid bin Ibrahim v Peguam Negara Malaysia
-
'L' v DPP & Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...The law is very clear as to challenges to decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is set out in a decision of this court in the R v DPP ex parte C 1995 1 Cr App R 136 at pages 140-141. 4 It is not necessary to restate the law, bearing in mind that these are renewed applications. But ......
-
R Michael O'Brien v Director of Public Prosecution
... ... parties are agreed that the proper approach to this application is set out by the Divisional Court in R -v- Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C [1995] 1 CAR 136 ... After reviewing previous authority, Kennedy LJ concluded: "From all of those decisions it seems to me that in ... The submission is that the decision was unreasonable or perverse. In the future, as was set out in L -v- DPP [2013] EWHL 1752 (Admin) , the court will take into account the CPS victim's Right to Review Scheme ... 81 Because of ... ...
-
[1] Henry Liu [2] Feng Huang Appellants v [1] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] DPP [3] Comptroller of Customs Respondents [ECSC]
...Commissioners, ex parte Meade [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782,, 'sparingly exercised' ( R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136 at 140), 'very hesitant' ( Kostuch v Attorney General of Alberta (1995) 128 DLR (4th) 440 at 449), 'very rare indeed' R (on the applicati......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Judicial review of executive power : legality, rationality and reasonableness (2)
...[2006] UKPC 2093paras 17 and 21.R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte Mead [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782.94R v DPP, Ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 at 140.95R (Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EW HC 798 para 49.96R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2006] 3 A......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...2 SLR 1012. 28 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Mead [1993] 1 All ER 772; R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C[1995] 1 Cr App R 136; R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office[2007] 2 WLR 635. In the UK, the discretion lies with the Crown Prosecution Office hea......
-
The Application of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 to Decisions not to Prosecute
...R v Direct or of Public Prosecu tions, Ex parte M anning [2001] QB 330 para 23; R v Director of Pub lic Prosecution s, Ex Parte C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136, 139G-140A.26 R v Director of Publ ic Prosecutions , Ex Parte C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 141B-C. 27 National Dire ctor of Public Prosec utions......
-
Legal Commentary
...mind in deciding whether a 12 year-oldgirl should appear before the juvenile court’. As expressed subsequently in R v DPP, ex p. C.[1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 136 by Kennedy LJ (who dealt with the application in the present case),the Court will need to be persuaded either that the CPS acted in fur......