Home / Sources / Select Committees / Justice Committee / Private prosecutions: safeguards
Select committee: Justice Committee

Private prosecutions: safeguards

Closed Opened 23 Jun 2020 Closed 31 Oct 2022 8 recommendations 1 conclusion

Justice Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
This inquiry examined the safeguards that exist for private prosecutions brought by organisations who act as the investigator, prosecutor but are also the victim of the alleged offence. It looked at: Whether existing safeguards are enough to limit the potential for private prosecutions by large organisations to cause miscarriages of justice The merits of additional safeguards that could be used. Read the call for evidence to find out more about the inquiry .

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 23 June 2020.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards on 2 October 2020.

The government's response

Published 4 March 2021. The deadline was 5 December 2020.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government welcomes the report and agrees with several recommendations, including on funding and a central register, but is "not persuaded" that a binding code of standards would be proportionate and does not adopt the notification proposals.

  • On funding, it agrees that costs recoverable from central funds by a private prosecutor should be capped at legal aid rates, which "will require an amendment of the existing legislation".
  • It is "minded to agree" that costs recoverable from a convicted defendant should be limited, but "wish[es] to consult further on this".
  • On a central register, it says establishment is "in hand and will be completed by the end of this year".
  • It is "not persuaded" that a binding code or inspection regime would be proportionate, and says it "shall continue to consider" other action to improve accountability and transparency.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions

All 9 recommendations and conclusions

Reports

All reports

Evidence

  • 2 oral evidence sessionsLatest 25 May 2021
  • 15 witnesses
All evidence

Recent activity

Recommendations and conclusions 9 shown

Recommendation 1

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
The startling figures on the scale of the Post Office’s prosecutions, together with concerns raised by the Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in relation to the RSPCA in 2016 and reports that the number of private prosecutions is rising, justify a proactive approach to examining the effectiveness of the regulation of this area of the criminal justice system.

Link to this item · Read this item

Conclusion 2

Conclusion · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Concluded (the committee's words)
It is a strength of the current system that it enables corporate victims of crime to pursue justice when public authorities decline to intervene. The lack of a prosecution can represent injustice just as much as a prosecution wrongly brought. However, in a modern criminal justice system whether an offence is prosecuted or not should not depend on whether the victim has the financial resources to conduct a prosecution.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 3

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Committee agrees with the CPS that the Government should urgently review funding arrangements for private prosecutions in order to address the inequality of access to the right; to ensure a fair balance between the prosecutor and the defendant; and to ensure the most cost-effective use of public funds. We acknowledge the proposal made by the Centre for Women’s Justice that private prosecutors’ recoverable costs should be capped at legal aid rates. We think there should be no disparity between the claims that can be made from central funds by prosecutors and defendants. We also support the proposal made by the CLRNN that defendants prosecuted by private prosecutors should pay no more than would be paid had they been prosecuted by the CPS.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 4

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should strengthen the safeguards that regulate private prosecutions to ensure that any organisation that conducts a substantial number of prosecutions is subject to the same regulatory standards and expectations of accountability and transparency as public prosecutors. We recommend that the Government should consider enacting a binding code of standards, enforced by a regulator, that applies to all private prosecutors and investigators.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 5

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that HMCTS establish a central register of all private prosecutions in England and Wales.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 6

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Committee recommends that HMCTS should ensure that the CPS is notified when a private prosecution is initiated. The notification process should be integrated into the structure of the central register of private prosecutions.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 7

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
We agree that every defendant who is privately prosecuted should be informed of his or her right to seek a review from the CPS. We recommend that this change be implemented by a change to the Criminal Procedure Rules. In situations where the police are involved in a private prosecution and the role of the magistrate is circumvented (which was drawn to our attention by the Criminal Law Reform Now Network) it will be especially important that the defendant is notified of his or her right to request a review of the prosecution. We recommend that in such a scenario there should be a duty upon the police to inform the defendant that they are to be prosecuted by a body other than the CPS and that they have a right to request a review.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 8

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
There is a strong case that organisations which bring significant numbers of private prosecutions should be subject to inspections. If an organisation is found to be misusing the power to bring private prosecutions, then the body responsible for inspecting all prosecutors and enforcing the code, be it the CPS, HMCPSI or another public body, should be able to remove the right of an organisation to bring a prosecution, or to require them to obtain consent from the Attorney General or the DPP before they can initiate a prosecution.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 9

Recommendation · 9th Report: Private prosecutions: safeguards · Addressed to Ministry of Justice

Recommended (the committee's words)
It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the rise in the number of private prosecutions does not result in the development of a parallel system where the public interest, accountability and transparency are secondary to private interests.

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

2 sessions

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
25 May 2021
Oral evidence session
Andrew Marshall · Edmonds Marshall McMahon, Helen Pitcher · Criminal Cases Review Commission, Karen Kneller · Criminal Cases Review Commission, Miles Trent · Criminal Cases Review Commission, Paul Jarvis · Criminal Law Reform Now Network, Stephen Wooler CB · Criminal Law Reform Now Network 		View ↗
7 Jul 2020
Private prosecutions
Alison Levitt QC · Private Prosecutors' Association, Dr Jesse Elvin · City University of London, Dr Jonathan Rogers · University of Cambridge, Gareth Minty · Private Prosecutors' Association, Ian Henderson · Second Sight Support Services Ltd, Mr Ron Warmington · Second Sight Support Services Ltd, Professor Claire de Than, University of London and Jersey Law Commission, Professor Peter Hungerford-Welch · City University of London, Sandip Patel QC · Aliant Law 		View ↗

Who gave evidence

15 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
Alison Levitt QC · Barrister, 2 Hare Court, Private Prosecutors' Association 1
Andrew Marshall · Partner Edmonds Marshall McMahon 1
Dr Jesse Elvin · Senior Lecturer, City Law School City University of London 1
Dr Jonathan Rogers · University Lecturer in Criminal Justice, Faculty of Law University of Cambridge 1
Gareth Minty · Legal Director (Barrister), Mishcon de Reya LLP Private Prosecutors' Association 1
Helen Pitcher · Chair Criminal Cases Review Commission 1
Ian Henderson · Director Second Sight Support Services Ltd 1
Karen Kneller · Chief Executive Criminal Cases Review Commission 1
Miles Trent · Case Review Manager Criminal Cases Review Commission 1
Mr Ron Warmington · Managing Director Second Sight Support Services Ltd 1
Paul Jarvis · Committee Member Criminal Law Reform Now Network 1
Professor Claire de Than, University of London and Jersey Law Commission Not recorded 1
Professor Peter Hungerford-Welch · City Law School City University of London 1
Sandip Patel QC · Managing Partner Aliant Law 1
Stephen Wooler CB · Committee Member Criminal Law Reform Now Network 1