We represented a client charged with breaching a Community Protection Notice and using threatening words and behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence. Our client was a vulnerable adult of previous good character with significant cognitive difficulties.
Psychological and psychiatric assessments were arranged. We informed the Court and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that our client was not fit to plead or participate effectively in the proceedings. As a result, the Court scheduled a fact-finding hearing.
Arguing against prosecution in the public interest
Throughout the proceedings, we made repeated representations that prosecuting our client was not in the public interest. We based our argument on our client's vulnerabilities and the unsuitability of a Hospital or Guardianship Order which are the only two disposals following a fact-finding hearing. We supported these submissions with psychological and psychiatric reports. Despite this, the CPS decided to proceed with the prosecution of our client.
Abuse of process
We requested a hearing to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. We argued that a fact-finding hearing would serve no useful purpose in our client's case. The CPS responded, stating that holding a fact-finding hearing served a useful purpose, as it could inform future risk assessments if the court found our client had committed the acts alleged.
The application proceeded and the Court found our client unfit to plead and participate. However, the Court agreed that there was a useful purpose in proceeding with the fact-finding hearing, as submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Later in the proceedings, our client’s circumstances changed significantly. Again, we made the same public interest arguments. The CPS reviewed the case again but still refused to discontinue, citing the same rationale as before.
Final resolution
In light of this decision, we challenged the CPS's decision as irrational and contrary to their own guidance by serving a pre-action protocol letter. Over a year after charging our client, and after reviewing our letter, the CPS finally discontinued the proceedings, on public interest grounds.
Our client was represented by Helen Ricks and Sabrina Neves, solicitors in our Croydon Crime Team.
