Introduction

Thompson v The Public Prosecution Service (No 2) ([2024] NICA 28) is a pivotal case heard by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland on April 15, 2024. The appellant, William Thompson, challenged the decision of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to defer the prosecution of Soldier D in connection with the death of Kathleen Thompson. The core issue revolves around whether the PPS correctly exercised its discretionary powers under section 35(5)(a) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which pertains to the initiation of prosecutions pending the outcome of specific police investigations. This case is consolidated with another related appeal due to shared facts and legal questions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal reviewed the High Court's decision, which had favored the PPS's stance that prosecution should await the completion of designated police investigations. The appellant contended that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) erred in deferring prosecution, arguing that the PPS required all inquest materials before making a substantive prosecutorial decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the PPS acted within its discretionary powers. The court highlighted that the PPS's decision was based on standard practices, historical precedents, and the necessity to await comprehensive police investigations to inform any prosecutorial actions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that shaped the court's reasoning:

• R (Monica) v DPP [2018] EWHC 8: This case dealt with the discretion of the DPP in prosecutorial decisions, reinforcing the principle that such decisions are closely guarded and not easily overridden by external pressures.
• Re Duddy [2022] NIQB 23: This case emphasized the importance of comprehensive investigations before prosecution, supporting the need for thorough police work prior to any prosecutorial actions.
• DB v Chief Constable [2017] UKSC 7: While not directly cited as a precedent, the principles from this case regarding the discretion of public officials were considered relevant in assessing the PPS's actions.
• Re Frane's Application [2024] NICA 20: This recent judgment underscored the necessity for specificity in grounds of appeal, influencing how the Court of Appeal evaluated the appellant's submissions.

These precedents collectively reinforced the court's stance that prosecutorial discretion is exercised within a framework that allows for thorough and methodical decision-making.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the appellant's arguments, focusing on whether the PPS had overstepped its legal boundaries. Key points in the court's reasoning included:

• Discretionary Authority: The court affirmed that the PPS possesses broad discretionary powers under the Justice (NI) Act 2002 to determine when to initiate prosecutions, especially in complex cases requiring extensive investigations.
• Structured Investigation Files: It was emphasized that the PPS relies on structured and comprehensive investigation files compiled by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), ensuring that decisions are informed by complete and accurate information.
• Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The standard applied to assess the rationality of the PPS's decisions was Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court found no evidence that the PPS's actions met this threshold, thereby upholding their decision.
• Statutory Framework Compliance: The PPS's actions were found to be consistent with the statutory provisions governing prosecutorial decisions, particularly regarding the necessity of completing specific investigative steps before proceeding with prosecutions.

Additionally, the court addressed procedural concerns raised by the appellant regarding the consolidation of appeals and the specificity of the grounds of appeal, ultimately finding them insufficient to warrant overturning the PPS's decision.

Impact

This judgment reaffirms the robust discretionary powers held by the PPS in prosecutorial matters, particularly in cases requiring intricate and comprehensive investigations. It underscores the importance of allowing prosecutorial bodies the necessary time and resources to gather and assess evidence fully before making substantive decisions. Future cases involving the initiation of prosecutions will likely reference this ruling to support the PPS's discretion, especially in contexts where procedural and investigatory rigor is essential.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

This is a legal standard used to determine whether a decision made by a public authority is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it. In this case, the court assessed whether the PPS's decision met this high threshold, ultimately finding that it did not.

Discretionary Powers

Discretionary powers refer to the authority granted to certain public officials, like the PPS, to make decisions based on their judgment within the framework of their statutory obligations. These powers allow for flexibility in decision-making, particularly in complex or nuanced cases.

Declaratory Order

A declaratory order is a judgment that clarifies the rights and obligations of the parties without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. In this case, the High Court issued a declaratory order affirming the PPS's decision-making process.

Conclusion

The Thompson v PPS (No 2) [2024] NICA 28 judgment serves as a significant affirmation of the Public Prosecution Service's discretionary authority in handling prosecutorial decisions. By dismissing the appellant's challenges, the Court of Appeal reinforced the necessity for thorough investigative procedures and upheld the integrity of the prosecutorial process under the Justice (NI) Act 2002. This case delineates the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion, ensuring that prosecutions are based on comprehensive and substantiated evidence, thereby maintaining the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights.