KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)

I conclude, having read the judicial review papers, that the Defendant is correct to say that the Claimant’s challenge to the decision of the police not to prosecute, is a common issue between both the judicial review proceedings and this claim. The Claimant seeks to mount a collateral attack on previous decisions of the Court which have concluded that a lawful process was followed in respect of these issues. This is therefore an abuse of process as defined in the CPR and case authority.

Furthermore, however unsatisfactory the result of the judicial review proceedings is considered to be by the Claimant, this Court does not conduct appeals relating to matters that have occurred in the Administrative Court, and it would most certainly be an abuse of process to allow those aspects of the claim to continue that seek to challenge those findings.

Under the two-stage test referred to at [32] above, having found that part of the claim is an abuse of process, I have to consider the appropriate and proportionate sanction. Referring back to Asturion, I cannot identify any other solution to the problem of the abuse which has been identified, than to strike-out of those parts of the claim which are based on the failure to prosecute. Those claims raised in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Particulars are bound to fail. For the avoidance of doubt, the Administrative Court has also considered whether the discretion of the police in charging decisions is fettered in any way where there is domestic violence, hate crime or grievous bodily harm. They concluded it was not.