Charlson, R (on the application of) v Guildford Magistrates' Court & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application to quash three decisions made by magistrates regarding the issuance of summonses for private prosecutions following the discontinuance of a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecution. The claimant seeks to challenge decisions made by Guildford Magistrates and South Western Magistrates Courts related to a tragic accident on 19 August 2004, in which the claimant's three-year-old son was fatally struck by a car driven by the interested party at a pelican crossing.

The CPS initially prosecuted the interested party for driving without due care and attention but discontinued the proceedings in May 2005. Subsequently, the claimant sought to initiate private prosecutions by applying for summonses alleging causing death by dangerous driving. The first application to Guildford Magistrates was refused summoning in October 2005. A further application to South Western Magistrates in April 2006 resulted in summonses being issued but later withdrawn upon learning of the earlier refusal. A request to Guildford Magistrates to reconsider the matter was refused in May 2006. The claimant challenges all three decisions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. How should magistrates approach applications to issue summonses for private prosecutions after the CPS has discontinued a prosecution for the same conduct?
2. Whether the test requiring "special circumstances" to justify issuing summonses for private prosecutions after CPS discontinuance is correct.
3. Whether the decisions by the Guildford and South Western Magistrates Courts refusing or withdrawing summonses were lawful and properly reasoned.
4. What principles govern the discretion of magistrates in issuing summonses for private prosecutions when CPS prosecutions have been discontinued or are ongoing.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments

• The magistrates erred in requiring "special circumstances" such as new evidence or bad faith by the CPS before issuing summonses for private prosecutions after CPS discontinuance.
• The legal tests applied by the magistrates, as reflected in Stones' Justices Manual and Archbold, are inaccurate or misleading regarding private prosecutions post-CPS discontinuance.
• The first decision refusing to issue summonses was flawed and should be quashed.
• The second decision withdrawing summonses relied improperly on the first flawed decision and failed to apply correct legal principles.
• The third decision refusing to re-list the application wrongly assumed the correctness of the first decision and demanded additional information without considering the merits.
• The claimant seeks an order for costs out of public funds related to these proceedings.

Interested Party's Arguments

• Accepted that the first decision refusing summons was flawed.
• No positive defence was offered against challenges to the second and third decisions.
• Indicated intention to argue in due course for a stay or dismissal of any proceedings arising from the private prosecution.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the legal framework governing private prosecutions after CPS discontinuance. It emphasized that the statutory right to private prosecution remains intact and that the evidential and public interest tests applicable to CPS prosecutions do not apply to private prosecutions.

The court distinguished between two scenarios: (i) where CPS prosecutions are ongoing and (ii) where CPS prosecutions have been discontinued. In the former, magistrates should generally be slow to issue summonses to avoid oppressive concurrent prosecutions, unless special circumstances exist. In the latter, magistrates should not require special circumstances before issuing summonses and should apply a less onerous test focused on whether the alleged offence is known to law, not time-barred, within jurisdiction, and whether the informant has authority to prosecute.

The court found that the first magistrate erred by requiring special circumstances such as new evidence or bad faith to justify issuing summonses after CPS discontinuance, relying incorrectly on Stones' Justices Manual. The second magistrates improperly gave determinative weight to the first flawed decision and failed to apply the proper legal criteria set out in ex parte Klahn. The third magistrates wrongly assumed the first decision was correct and demanded additional information without merit-based consideration.

Consequently, all three decisions were quashed. The claimant is entitled to have the Guildford Magistrates reconsider the summons application under the correct legal principles. The court also granted the claimant's costs out of public funds.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is to QUASH all three magistrates' decisions challenged by the claimant:

• The Guildford Magistrates' decisions of 3 October 2005 and 3 May 2006 are quashed.
• The South Western Magistrates' decision of 7 April 2006 to withdraw summonses is quashed.
• The Guildford Magistrates are ordered, if requested by the claimant, to reconsider whether to issue summonses against the interested party in accordance with the correct legal principles.
• The claimant's costs of these proceedings are to be paid out of Central Funds.

The implications are that magistrates must apply a proper and less onerous test for issuing summonses in private prosecutions after CPS discontinuance, ensuring that private prosecutors' rights are preserved. No new precedent beyond the clarification and application of established principles was set. The decision directly affects the parties by enabling the claimant to pursue a private prosecution under the correct legal framework.