Police Charging Authority Under English Law

0

0

0

Under English jurisprudence, no authority, neither the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Home Secretary, nor the courts, has the legal power to direct or compel the police to institute criminal charges against a specific individual. 

This principle rests on the fundamental doctrine of police operational independence and the statutory separation of roles between police investigations and public prosecutions.

KEY LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1.         Police Operational Independence

Under common law, police officers hold an independent public office under the Crown. When deciding whether to investigate a crime or institute charges against a particular person, police officers exercise independent operational discretion. They are answerable to the law alone, not to the executive branch, politicians, or prosecutorial authorities.

2.         The Role of the DPP and CPS

Under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985) and the Director’s Guidance on Charging:

1. Division of Functions:

The police investigate and decide whether to initiate charges in minor matters, while referring serious cases to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision.

1. Prosecution vs. Direction:

While the DPP/CPS determines whether there are sufficient evidence and a public interest to charge (the Full Code Test) when a file is referred to them, the DPP cannot order or force the police to lay a charge if the police refuse to institute proceedings or conduct an investigation.

1. Independent Prosecution Power:

If the police refuse to charge, the DPP (under s. 6(1) POA 1985) or a private citizen (s. 6(2)) may institute a prosecution independently, but this involves the prosecutor bringing the charge directly, it is not an order compelling the police to do so.

3.         Limitations on the Courts

While the High Court can review police or prosecutorial policies for lawfulness via Judicial Review, English courts adhere strictly to the principle that they will not issue an order (mandatory order) instructing the police to arrest, charge, or prosecute a specific individual.

SUPPORTING CASE LAWS

R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118 (CA)

• Principle: Established the constitutional doctrine of police operational independence.
• Ruling: Lord Denning MR famously affirmed that a Chief Constable is independent of the executive: "I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land... He is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can the Police Authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law alone."

R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte International Trader's Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418 (HL)

• Principle: Reaffirmed judicial non-interference in police operational discretion.
• Ruling: The House of Lords held that decisions regarding how to deploy resources, investigate offences, and enforce the law are matters within the discretion of the Chief Constable, provided the decision is not completely irrational or unlawful.

R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60

• Principle: Prosecutorial and investigative discretion must remain free from political or administrative coercion.
• Ruling: The House of Lords highlighted that independent investigative and prosecutorial decisions—including whether to pursue or discontinue proceedings—are constitutional powers entrusted solely to the statutory authority (the SFO / DPP / Police) and cannot be dictated by government ministers or outside bodies.

R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Duckenfield [2000] 1 WLR 55

• Principle: Clarified the boundaries of CPS intervention in private prosecutions and police charges.
• Ruling: The High Court confirmed that while the DPP has statutory power to take over and discontinue prosecutions under s. 6(2) of the POA 1985 to prevent vexatious claims, the statute does not grant the DPP supervisory authority to dictate to the police how they exercise their initial charging functions.

SUMMARY MATRIX