header-logo header-logo

23 May 2025 / Dr Ping-fat Sze
Issue: 8117 / Categories: Features , Profession , International , Public , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Slim grounds for review at the Privy Council

219526
Dr Ping-fat Sze is perplexed by the treatment of irrational prosecutorial decisions
  • The recent Privy Council decision in DPP v Durham renders prosecutorial decisions reviewable on the ground of illegality. Irrationality and abuse of process do not amount to exceptional circumstances for judicial review.
  • In practice, judicial review has no role when challenging criminal prosecutions. Such challenges should be raised in the trial.

In its latest decision on the reviewability of prosecutorial decisions in Trinidad and Tobago, DPP v Durham [2024] UKPC 21, the Privy Council reiterated its decision in Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2006] UKPC 57, thus rendering judicial review virtually irrelevant when challenging criminal prosecutions.

Both decisions maintained that such challenges be conveniently and effectively raised in the trial and determined by the criminal court (see also Mohit v DPP [2006] UKPC 20).

The decision in Durham again endorsed the Fijian supreme court decision in Matalulu v DPP [2003] 2 HKC 457 as representing the applicable law. Nevertheless, the Privy Council

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
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
back-to-top-scroll