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 modified its earlier stance by ruling that a prosecutorial

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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll