R v Criminal Cases Review Commission, ex parte Hunt

Date

8 November 2000

Legislation

Criminal Appeal Act 1995, s.9
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s.3(2)

Keywords

judicial review; private prosecution; police; charging

Counsel

Robert Rhodes QC and Simon Stafford-Michael for the applicant, Beverley Lang QC for the Commission, Peter Rook QC and Jonathan Fisher for the Inland Revenue

Solicitors:

Wakefields; Solicitor, Criminal Cases Review Commission; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.

Judge:

Lord Woolf CJ and Butterfield J.

Court:

High Court (Administrative Court)

Reported:

[2001] QB 1108; [2001] Crim LR 325; [2001] 2 WLR 319.

Summary:

Hunt was convicted of conspiracy to cheat the Inland Revenue contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay approximately £500,000 towards the prosecution costs.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission considered Hunt’s case and refused to refer it to the Court of Appeal. Hunt then applied for judicial review of that decision by the Commission.

Hunt’s case concerned two questions:

• whether the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue are entitled to prosecute an individual at trial before the Crown Court without the consent of the Attorney General; and
• whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was required to take over the prosecution because a police officer had charged Hunt.

Decision:

The High Court concluded that:

• the principles set out in the case of ex parte Dixon should no longer be considered as the judgment was mistaken (in the case of R v Ealing Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Dixon (1989) it was held that, once a person had been arrested without warrant and charged by the police, it was no longer open to a private prosecutor to continue the prosecution);
• if the Inland Revenue Commissioners could promote the prosecution then there was no reason for them not to continue to prosecute the charges on indictment in the Crown Court exactly as they did in this case;
• there is no clear statutory authority indicating that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are entitled to prosecute this type of case;
• if an ordinary member of the public can bring proceedings for breaches of the criminal law, it would be surprising if the Inland Revenue were not in a similar position; and
• the Director of Public Prosecutions was not required to take over the prosecution on behalf of the Inland Revenue.

Consequently the decision of the Criminal Review Commission was correct and should continue to stand. Hunt subsequently petitioned the House of Lords but his petition was rejected.

This case is significant because it sets out the principle that the act of a defendant being charged by the police does not preclude a local authority or private prosecutor continuing with a prosecution.