The Crown Prosecution Service cited a non-existent authority in its written record when bringing a prosecution against an alleged rapist, a High Court judgment has revealed.
In LYC by his litigation friend LYM v Director of Public Prosecutions, the claimant LYC brought an application for leave to apply for judicial review. LYC was arrested for the alleged rape of his sister when he was 11. He is now 14, the judgment noted.
LYC lodged an application, which was opposed by the CPS, in Cannock Youth Court to stay the prosecution on the grounds it was 'an offence to the court’s sense of justice and propriety'. The application was refused.
LYC later issued a claim for judicial review challenging the CPS’ decision to continue with the prosecution. The application for permission was ordered to be dealt with at a rolled-up hearing.
As a result of that order, the CPS disclosed the written record of its decision. LYC applied to amend his statement of facts and grounds ‘based on three references in the written record to what was said to be an authority R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529’. Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Wall, in joint judgment, said: ‘It turned out, and it is agreed, that this decision does not exist.
Read more
‘[Senior Crown Prosecutor Ravinder Dhillon] said that the citation had been an error and that she had been referring instead to the decision of the House of Lords in R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20; [2009] 1 AC 1310.
‘The proposed ground 5 contends that the legal propositions which Ms Dhillon purported to derive could not be found in that case, are contrary to CPS guidance and are wrong in law.’
The judges acknowledged ‘the criticisms…of the witness statement of Ms Dhillon seeking to explain how the non-existent case of R v J came to be relied upon’ describing it as ‘unsatisfactory’.
They added: ‘But does it matter for the outcome of the claimant’s challenge to the decision to continue with the prosecution? Our firm answer is no.’
The judges refused the application to amend the claim and statement of facts and grounds and dismissed the application for judicial review finding a number of grounds unarguable.
