Defence of Private Prosecution for Fraud
31 January 2025
Kathryn Arnot Drummond represents client who faced private prosecution for fraud.
Issues: private prosecutions, duty of candour and s.19 POA 1985 costs
The case had a substantial history of civil proceedings in the High Court, which had resulted in the imposition of an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the private prosecutor. To circumvent the order, he obtained summonses against several defendants without informing the magistrates’ court or defendants of the ECRO, in breach of his duty of candour.
After a letter of representations on the merits, which also argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process, the CPS were due to take over and discontinue proceedings. At the request of the defence (and to ensure finality to the proceedings), the prosecutor agreed to offer no evidence.
Application was made for costs under section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The prosecutor argued that the bringing of a private prosecution could not itself amount to an improper act where a District Judge had issued a summons. Kathryn relied on a line of authorities including the leading case of R (Holloway) v Harrow Crown Court [2019] EWHC 1731 (Admin). After argument and a further hearing on quantum, the District Judge found that the bringing of this private prosecution was itself an improper act and costs were awarded to the defendant in full.
Kathryn was instructed by @PeterCzemiczky at @Hickman&Rose.
