R v Killick
Victims have a right to seek a review of a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute, which led to the Victims' Right to Review scheme.
Facts
Three complainants alleged that Mr Killick, who had cerebral palsy, had sexually assaulted them. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute, and then, after the complainants complained, reconsidered the case and decided to prosecute. Mr Killick was convicted. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution was an abuse of process, because the CPS had reversed its earlier decision not to prosecute without any new evidence, and had taken too long.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that there was no abuse of process. Thomas LJ said that a decision not to prosecute is a decision which a victim has a right to seek to have reviewed, as recognised in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the proposed EU directive on victims' rights, and that it should not be necessary for a victim to bring proceedings for judicial review to obtain such a review. The CPS had been entitled to reconsider its decision. The CPS introduced the Victims' Right to Review scheme in 2013, in response to the judgment.
Related cases on prosecution decisions, abuse of process and pre-trial matters
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, [2010] 1 AC 345
- R v Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, [2007] QB 659
- R v Gleeson [2003] EWCA Crim 3357
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
