Raymond v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CUMMING-BRUCE,SIR SEBAG SHAW |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J0309-1 |
| Docket Number | 82/0120 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 March 1982 |
and
[1982] EWCA Civ J0309-1
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
and
Sir Sebag Shaw.
82/0120
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
(CIVIL DIVISION)
From: Mr Justice Glidewell (In Chambers), Q.B.D., London.
Royal Courts of Justice,
MR LOUIS BLOM-COOPER, Q.C. and MR JUSTIN PHILIPS (instructed by Messrs. Hallinan, Blackburn Gittings & Co., SWl) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR ANDREW COLLINS (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor, SWl) appeared on behalf of the Defendant and Fourth Defendant.
Sir Sebag Shaw will deliver the judgment of the Court.
The appellant (referred to in this judgment as "Mr Raymond") was, together with others, convicted in February 1980 at the St. Alban's Crown Court of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The trial in which he was involved had begun on 3 October 1979, At the outset Mr Raymond pleaded not guilty, but on 4 February 1980 he changed his plea in respect of a number of counts and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Amongst those implicated in the offences of which the defendants at the trial were accused was one Desmond Roy Carne (referred to as "Mr Carne"). His role was not, however, that of a defendant but of a witness for the Crown. He had given evidence on behalf of the prosecution in the committal proceedings before the examining justices at the St. Alban's Magistrates Court which led to the trial at the Crown Court.
Those proceedings began on 5 September 1978, and continued until 11 March 1979, when the defendants (with one exception) were all sent for trial. On 11 May 1979, when that trial was still pending, Mr Raymond laid informations before the St. Alban's Justices alleging that Mr Carne had committed perjury and other criminal offences in relation to the matters which had been the subject of the committal proceedings in which Mr Carne had given evidence for the prosecution.
The Clerk to the Justices took the step (very properly, in our view) of writing on 14 May 1979 to the Director of Public Prosecutions calling attention to the fact that the justices had issued summonses on the informations laid by Mr Raymond against a witness for the Crown who would in the ordinary course be called to give evidence at the trial then in prospect. The Director's response at that stage was that he would take no action in relation to those summonses. However, he had second thoughts in the matter. One view of Mr Raymond's initiative in instituting criminal proceedings against Mr Carne at that time was that it was intended to inhibit, or at least to discredit, Mr Carne in his role as a witness for the prosecution. On 10 July 1979 the Director intimated that he proposed, as he was satisfied it was appropriate in the circumstances, to exercise the powers conferred on him by section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1979. That section provides that
"Nothing in this Act shall preclude any person from instituting or carrying on any criminal proceedings; but the Director may undertake, at any stage, the conduct of those proceedings, if he thinks fit".
Notice was accordingly given to the court and to Mr Raymond of the Director's intended intervention. On 16 July 1979 Mr John Wooler, a senior member of the Director' office attended the St. Alban's Magistrates Court. He outlined the history of the matter to the bench and explained that it had become apparent from what Mr Raymond had said when applying for the summonses that the allegations he intended to make against Mr Carne had already been canvassed in the earlier committal proceedings. He went on to inform the court that the Director was satisfied in regard to a number of factors which, in his view, showed that the proceedings instituted by Mr Raymond were vexatious and were designed to discredit Mr Carne as a witness and not to bring him to justice in regard to the allegations on which the summonses were founded. Overall, the general public interest, and in particular the ends of justice,would be disserved if the summonses were proceeded with.
Accordingly, so Mr Wooler informed the court, he offered no evidence against Mr Carne. The major offences alleged by Mr Raymond were triable only on indictment. The bench accordingly discharged Mr Carne.
Mr Raymond's first reaction was to seek judicial review by way of an order of mandamus requiring the Director to pursue the charges laid against Mr Carne. Having obtained leave Mr Raymond moved the Queen's Bench Divisional Court accordingly. Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, dealt with the matter very concisely. He said that
"the Director's conduct cannot be attacked except on the footing of proving bad faith, not just talking about it; or, alternatively, showing he worked on a wrong principle. We are all of the opinion", the Lord Chief Justice went on "that no progress has been made by the applicant on any of these matters, and that being the case the motion must be refused".
Mr Raymond sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal but this proved abortive on the ground of jurisdiction, that court being of the view that the subject of the application to it was a criminal cause or matter within the meaning of section 31 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925. In the course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tapper el al v Director of Public Prosecutions el al
...not be open to judicial review. Such intervention would essentially be a matter for the D.P.P.(s discretion Attorney General v. Raymond [1982] Q.B. 839. 85 For the reasons: stated above I agree with my brothers that the right of the D.P.P., to enter a nolle prosequi is subject to judicial c......
-
Graham’s (Jason) Application
...for judicial review or in bail applications).” [23] These provisions reflect what the Court of Appeal determined in Raymond v AG [1982] QB 839. In that case the Director of Public Prosecut ions had taken over a private summary prosecution and through his representative offered no evidence w......
-
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Mead and Cook
...is one which is reviewable by the court if exercised in bad faith or based on the wrong principle - Raymond v. Attorney-General, ELR([1982] Q.B. 839), Tanner v. Director of Public Prosecutions UNK(1979) 68 Cr App R 70, 77. Richard v Director of Public Prosecutions UNK[1973] 2 All E.R. 935,9......
-
R (Gujra) v Crown Prosecution Service
...to exist in two cases decided shortly thereafter, namely in Turner v Director of Public Prosecutions (1978) 68 Cr App R 70 and in Raymond v Attorney General [1982] QB 16 In January 1981 a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, of which the chairman was Sir Cyril Philips, produced a report......