header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 August 2022 / David Walbank KC
Issue: 7991 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Crime brief: 12 August 2022

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
90408
David Walbank QC examines a tragic case which underlines the polycentric decision-making process for offences involving young persons
  • Victims’ Right to Review scheme.
  • Charging decisions involving young persons.

We live in an era when decision-making throughout the criminal justice system is ever more hedged about by guidelines, protocols, codes of practice and the like. Whether it be grounds for arrest, charging decisions, legal directions to the jury, sentencing parameters or Parole Board reviews, the exercise of discretion is constrained like never before. It is against that background that the Divisional Court recently struck a blow for common sense and compassion when it comes to the laying of serious criminal charges against young persons.

In R (on the application of Joseph) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2022] EWHC 131 (Admin), [2022] All ER (D) 96 (Jan), Popplewell LJ referred to what he called the ‘polycentric’ decision-making process when considering the possible criminal prosecution of a young person, and also explained the approach to be taken where there is a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll