header-logo header-logo

Reforms proposed for private prosecutions

12 March 2025
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
Private prosecutors would be accredited, inspected and subject to sanctions if they failed to comply with a compulsory code of conduct, under plans for a radical shake-up.

Currently, private prosecutions are not subject to formally agreed standards—Crown Prosecution Service guidance applies only on an advisory basis.

Last week, however, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) launched a ‘Consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors in the criminal justice system’. Its proposals—based on the Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report, ‘Private Prosecutions: safeguards’—would introduce a binding code of conduct, requiring private prosecutions to be conducted in a proportionate way and for a clear and valid reason.

There could be mandatory inspections to test compliance, a formal accreditation system for private prosecutors, and a public register of private prosecutors and the volume, type and results of prosecutions they bring.

Sanctions could include restrictions on bringing prosecutions, or a requirement to obtain prior consent from the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions.

The MoJ consultation also proposes safeguards for the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), a fast-track process for magistrates to handle minor offences without a court hearing. SJP prosecutors would be required to engage with defendants and review mitigating circumstances before moving to prosecute.

Private prosecutions have been beset by a slew of high-profile scandals, notably the Post Office Horizon debacle, and the misuse of the SJP against alleged fare-dodgers by train operating companies which resulted in about 60,000 cases being declared void last year.

Justice minister Sarah Sackman KC said: ‘One of the greatest concerns for the purposes of this consultation is how the unacceptable behaviour of the Post Office as a private prosecutor could have gone undetected for so long—and whether better oversight and regulation could have prevented it.

‘As things stand, there is no coordinated oversight or scrutiny of the steps private prosecutors must take before commencing a prosecution. There are also no quality assurance processes to ensure that private prosecutors are taking proper account of whether a prosecution is in the public interest… we must address these issues as a matter of urgency.’ The consultation ends on 8 May.

Issue: 8108 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll