VocabuLaw

Private Prosecution

What is it and what does it mean?

Description of the legal term Private Prosecution:

Private prosecution in the British legal system refers to a legal proceeding initiated by a private individual or entity, rather than by public prosecuting authorities such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This right is preserved under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and is a fundamental aspect of common law. It allows for the prosecution of a criminal offence without the involvement or endorsement of public prosecutors.

The commencement of a private prosecution usually requires the individual or entity to apply to a magistrate’s court for a summons or a warrant, presenting evidence that an offence has been committed and that there is sufficient grounds for the case to proceed. These cases are most often brought when the official prosecuting bodies, for various reasons, elect not to prosecute. It could be because they believe there isn’t sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, or it might be deemed not in the public interest.

However, private prosecutions are subject to strict rules. They must comply with the same legal procedures and standards of evidence as public prosecutions. Defendants in such cases have the same rights and are entitled to the same fair trial standards as if they were prosecuted by the CPS. Private prosecutors must also disclose all evidence, including that which might undermine their case or assist the defence, which is a duty akin to the duty of the CPS.

There is a significant responsibility on the private prosecutor to ensure fairness and due process. They cannot act out of malice or vexation; their actions must be in the interests of justice. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the power to take over a private prosecution at any point and either continue it or discontinue it if they believe it does not meet the evidential and public interest tests or for other reasons such as national security concerns.

Key challenges of private prosecution include the cost; it can be expensive for individuals to pursue without the financial backing of the state. Additionally, the lack of investigative powers equivalent to the police can make gathering sufficient evidence difficult. Moreover, the DPP’s aforementioned power to interfere can sometimes discourage individuals from initiating such cases.

Legal context in which the term Private Prosecution may be used:

One illustrative example of a private prosecution is the case of Stephen Lawrence, a black British teenager who was murdered in a racially motivated attack in 1993. Despite public outcry and significant evidence, the initial investigation by the police was flawed, and the CPS did not prosecute due to the evidence being deemed insufficient for a conviction. In response, Lawrence’s family initiated a private prosecution against the suspects. Although the private case did not lead to convictions due to technical challenges and evidence issues, it had significant implications. The public attention and subsequent inquiry led to major changes in police practices and the double jeopardy law, allowing the reopening of the case. Subsequently, two of the original suspects were convicted over 18 years later.

Another example is the case against Jon Platt, a parent who took his daughter on holiday during term-time, contrary to school regulations. The local education authority, after issuing a fine which Platt refused to pay, decided not to prosecute. A private prosecution was then initiated by a law firm, acting on behalf of schools in the area. Although the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, governments and educational authorities paid close attention to the legal question of parents taking children out of school during term time. This case did not result in a conviction for Platt but highlighted the power that a private prosecution can have in raising public awareness and potentially influencing policy.

The flexibility offered by the provision of private prosecution ensures that the public can seek legal redress when public authorities do not act. It acts as an important check and balance on the power of the state and can also be an instrument for societal change, as seen in the Lawrence case. This mechanism, though used sparingly, remains a critical component of the British justice system, preserving the right of individuals to pursue justice even where the state has chosen not to intervene.

This website is for informational purposes only and may contain inaccuracies. It should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.