Purvis, R (On the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Factual and Procedural Background

In October 2015, the Plaintiff was convicted of sexual offences against children, including making and distributing indecent images and breach of notification requirements, and is serving a custodial sentence. The Plaintiff made a formal complaint against a police officer, Detective Constable (DC) Uren, concerning his conduct during the investigation of those offences. The Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) decision not to prosecute DC Uren for perjury and/or misconduct in public office.

The key factual dispute concerns alterations made by DC Uren to a witness statement of an adult witness ("JH") relating to the dates of alleged events. DC Uren altered the original manuscript statement by changing dates from June to July 2013 on two occasions, including during the trial. These alterations led to a voir dire hearing where DC Uren gave evidence denying multiple alterations, which was contradicted by prosecution and defence counsel, resulting in the collapse of the first trial and a retrial at which the Plaintiff was convicted.

Following the trial collapse, an internal police disciplinary investigation found that DC Uren breached procedures and gave misleading evidence but concluded the actions were mistakes rather than intentional misconduct. A subsequent investigation found evidence that DC Uren lied under oath and deliberately altered evidence, recommending gross misconduct proceedings.

A disciplinary hearing was held in April 2016, where DC Uren admitted misconduct but denied dishonesty. The panel found him credible and imposed management advice rather than dismissal. The CPS Reviewing Lawyer then decided in September 2015 not to prosecute DC Uren, despite finding the evidential test met for perjury and misconduct in public office, citing public interest considerations including pending disciplinary proceedings.

The Plaintiff issued judicial review proceedings challenging the CPS decision. Initial permission to proceed was refused but later granted by the Court of Appeal on grounds including alleged misapplication of the public interest test and improper decision-making process. Various procedural applications for disclosure and amendments were made during the judicial review process. The court considered whether the CPS decision was lawful and whether the Reviewing Lawyer was the appropriate decision-maker.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision by the CPS Reviewing Lawyer not to prosecute DC Uren was unlawful or irrational.
2. Whether the Reviewing Lawyer was the appropriate person to make the prosecution decision under CPS guidance.
3. Whether the Reviewing Lawyer improperly took into account internal police disciplinary proceedings in the public interest assessment.
4. Whether the decision failed to properly apply the evidential and public interest stages of the Full Code Test, including the treatment of charges of perverting the course of justice.
5. Whether the Court of Appeal Civil Division had jurisdiction to grant permission to apply for judicial review in this criminal cause or matter.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Reviewing Lawyer was not the correct decision-maker as the CPS guidance requires cases involving police officers to be referred to the Special Crime Unit to avoid local bias.
• The decision unlawfully relied on internal disciplinary proceedings as a substitute for criminal prosecution, which was improper given the seriousness of the allegations.
• The decision was irrational and Wednesbury-unreasonable because the evidence clearly supported prosecution for serious offences including perjury and misconduct in public office.
• The decision erred in law by dismissing the charge of perverting the course of justice on an incorrect legal basis, failing to distinguish between the course and ends of justice.
• The Court of Appeal Civil Division lacked jurisdiction to grant permission to apply for judicial review in this criminal cause or matter, rendering the permission void.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Reviewing Lawyer was the appropriate decision-maker and had no working relationship with DC Uren.
• The conduct alleged did not amount to "seriously corrupt activity" warranting referral to the Special Crime Unit.
• The Reviewing Lawyer properly applied the Full Code Test, considering both evidential and public interest stages, including the impact of disciplinary proceedings.
• The decision was not irrational; it was a reasoned and compassionate decision given the circumstances and pressures on DC Uren.
• The Court of Appeal Civil Division had jurisdiction to grant permission to apply for judicial review, and the issue of jurisdiction raised late in proceedings was not appropriate for amendment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by summarizing the facts, focusing on the alterations made by DC Uren to the witness statement and the resulting collapse of the first trial. The internal police investigation found serious procedural breaches and evidence of deliberate falsehoods by DC Uren, but the disciplinary panel ultimately found no dishonesty warranting gross misconduct sanctions.

The court reviewed the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors, emphasizing the two-stage Full Code Test requiring sufficient evidence and public interest justification for prosecution. The Reviewing Lawyer had found sufficient evidence to prosecute for perjury and misconduct in public office but declined to prosecute on public interest grounds, primarily due to pending disciplinary proceedings and DC Uren's motivation.

The court considered the CPS Guidance on Handling Allegations of Criminal Offences against the Police (GHCOP), which promotes independence and referral to the Special Crime Unit in sensitive cases. While the Reviewing Lawyer was entitled to consider disciplinary proceedings in the public interest assessment, the court found it was highly desirable that such decisions be made by the Special Crime Unit to avoid any appearance of local partiality.

Regarding the jurisdictional issue, the court acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in Belhaj confirming that judicial review of prosecutorial decisions in criminal matters is itself a criminal cause or matter. The court refused the defendant's late application to amend pleadings to challenge the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction on grounds of unfairness and timing.

Substantively, the court found the Reviewing Lawyer's decision flawed for several reasons:

• Failure to properly consider the deliberate nature of DC Uren's false statements under oath.
• Speculative reliance on the outcome of pending disciplinary proceedings to justify non-prosecution.
• Failure to adequately weigh the seriousness of the offences, the impact on the administration of justice, and the need to maintain public confidence.
• Incorrect legal approach dismissing the charge of perverting the course of justice by conflating the ends and course of justice and improperly excluding it from consideration.

The court upheld the Plaintiff's grounds that the decision was irrational and legally incorrect. It emphasized the strong public interest in prosecuting police officers who lie under oath and pervert justice, especially given the severe consequences including the collapse of a Crown Court trial and the stress caused to victims and witnesses.

While recognizing that further evidence from subsequent disciplinary proceedings might affect a fresh decision, the court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of a new prosecution decision.

Holding and Implications

The court quashed the decision of the Reviewing Lawyer dated 11th September 2015 not to prosecute DC Uren. It directed that the question of whether DC Uren should be charged with any offence be referred to the Special Crime Unit of the CPS for a fresh decision.

The effect of this ruling is that the original CPS decision is set aside and must be reconsidered by a specialist unit, ensuring greater independence and adherence to CPS guidance in cases involving police officers. The court did not set new precedent on the merits of prosecution but clarified the proper application of the Full Code Test and CPS procedures in such sensitive cases. The procedural jurisdictional challenge to the Court of Appeal's permission was rejected on grounds of timing and fairness, preserving the current procedural posture of the judicial review claim.