Introduction

The case of Purvis v Director of Public Prosecutions ([2018] EWHC 1844 (Admin)) involves Dominic Purvis, who was convicted of serious sexual offenses against children. While serving his sentence, Purvis lodged a complaint against DC Mark Uren concerning Uren's conduct during the investigation, specifically allegations of evidence tampering and perjury. Purvis sought a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) decision not to prosecute DC Uren for these serious offenses. This commentary examines the High Court's comprehensive judgment, which ultimately quashed the CPS's decision and set important precedents regarding prosecutorial accountability, especially in cases involving police misconduct.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court reviewed the process by which the CPS decided not to prosecute DC Uren for perjury and misconduct in public office. The decision in question was made by a CPS Reviewing Lawyer, who concluded that prosecuting Uren was not in the public interest, despite acknowledging that the evidential threshold for charges was met. The court found that the Reviewing Lawyer improperly weighed internal disciplinary proceedings against Uren over the significant public interest factors favoring prosecution. Consequently, the court quashed the CPS decision and directed that the question of prosecuting DC Uren be referred to the CPS Special Crime Unit for a fresh decision-making process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents and legal principles that influenced the court's decision:

• Belhaj v DPP [2017] EWHC 3056 (Admin): Addressed the classification of judicial review proceedings as criminal matters, thereby limiting appeal pathways.
• A-G's Reference number 30 of 2010 (R v Bohannon) [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 106: Concerned public interest considerations in prosecutorial discretion.
• A-G's Reference number 1 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2392: Examined intent in perverting the course of justice.
• Kuwaiti Airways Corp v Attorney-General for England & Wales [2017] EWCA Civ 133: Addressed application jurisdiction in judicial reviews.
• Re Poh [1983] 1 WLR 2: Discussed limitations on appeals in criminal matters.
• R v L [2013] EWHC 1752 (Admin): Highlighted the importance of respecting CPS independence and high evidential standards.

Legal Reasoning

The court scrutinized the CPS's application of the Full Code Test, which mandates that prosecutors must first ensure sufficient evidence exists for conviction and then assess whether prosecution serves the public interest. The Reviewing Lawyer had concluded that despite meeting the evidential threshold for charges of perjury and misconduct, prosecuting Uren was not in the public interest due to anticipated disciplinary actions, such as potential dismissal.

However, the court identified several flaws in this reasoning:

• Misapplication of Public Interest Factors: The Reviewing Lawyer unduly prioritized internal disciplinary outcomes over significant public interest factors, such as maintaining public confidence in the justice system and holding police officers accountable.
• Failure to Properly Assess Seriousness: The seriousness of Uren's alleged offenses, including perjury, which directly perverted the course of justice, warranted a stronger consideration in favor of prosecution.
• Ignoring Impact of Misconduct: The alteration of witness statements led to the collapse of Purvis's trial, causing undue stress and anxiety for the claimant and witnesses, further tipping the scale towards prosecution.
• Error in Assessing Intent: The Reviewing Lawyer incorrectly conflated Uren's intent to correct evidence with an inability to pervert justice, neglecting the clear evidence of deliberate misconduct.

Additionally, the court addressed procedural issues, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision in Belhaj and another v DPP and another [2018] UKSC 33, which clarified that judicial review of prosecutorial decisions falls under criminal matters, thus limiting appeal options. The court ultimately refused the defendant's application to amend the grounds of the judicial review, emphasizing fairness and the claimant's right to prepare adequate submissions.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that prosecutorial decisions, particularly those involving police officers, must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to ensure accountability and maintain public trust in the justice system. By quashing the CPS's decision, the court underscored that even within the prosecutorial discretion, adherence to legal standards and public interest considerations cannot be overshadowed by potential disciplinary outcomes. The directive to refer the matter to the CPS Special Crime Unit sets a precedent for handling similar cases with enhanced oversight, ensuring that internal biases and partialities do not impede justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts assess the lawfulness of decisions or actions taken by public bodies, ensuring they comply with legal standards and principles of fairness.

Full Code Test

The Full Code Test is a framework used by prosecutors to decide whether to proceed with a criminal charge. It involves two stages:

• Ensuring there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for each charge.
• Evaluating whether prosecuting the case serves the public interest, considering factors both in favor of and against prosecution.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Originating from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, this principle defines a decision as being so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It sets a high threshold for challenging administrative decisions through judicial review.

Misconduct in a Public Office

This is a criminal offense involving the abuse of public office for personal gain, acting dishonestly, or failing to perform duties properly, thereby undermining public trust.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Purvis v DPP [2018] marks a significant affirmation of prosecutorial accountability, especially concerning misconduct by police officers. By quashing the CPS's decision not to prosecute DC Uren, the court emphasized that public interest and the integrity of the justice system must prevail over internal administrative considerations. This case sets a vital precedent, ensuring that the CPS adheres strictly to legal standards and that judicial reviews serve as effective checks on prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, it reinforces public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the criminal justice system.