header-logo header-logo

Slim grounds for review at the Privy Council

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll