A recent High Court ruling has reinforced the principle that prosecutors remain personally accountable for their legal obligations when bringing a private prosecution, even when they rely on legal advisors.
The case of R (Handa) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 538 (Admin) has drawn attention to the responsibilities of private prosecutors and the consequences of failing to uphold their duty of candour. *
(*Article by Tom Clinton, Solicitor at NDP)
Background of the Case
The case arose from a private prosecution brought by Neeraj Handa (‘Prosecutor’) against two of his relatives, Aran and Aneil Handa (‘Defendants’), for alleged fraud. The Prosecutor accused the Defendants of misusing company assets for personal expenses, including wedding costs and unrelated business ventures.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court had initially issued summonses (a low burden for a prosecutor to overcome), but these were later set aside by Deputy Senior District Judge Ikram on grounds of abuse of process.
The Prosecutor sought a judicial review of this set aside decision, arguing that it was unlawful and irrational.
The Judgment
Mr Justice Murray dismissed the judicial review, finding that the original decision to set aside the summonses was justified. The court ruled that the private prosecution brought by the Prosecutor was tainted by an ulterior motive (which may have caused the summonses application to fail) and that there had been serious breaches of the duty of candour. Specifically, it was found that:
- The Prosecutor had failed to disclose material information, including a report from the company’s auditors that found no evidence of fraud.
- The prosecution case summary misrepresented the background of the dispute, omitting significant family conflicts that cast doubt on the claimant’s motives.
- There was evidence suggesting potential collusion between prosecution witnesses.
The Key Principle: Prosecutorial Responsibility Cannot Be Delegated
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the court’s rejection of the claimant’s argument that any disclosure failures were attributable to his legal advisors rather than himself.
Justice Murray at paragraph 42 of the judgment explicitly stated that “the [Prosecutor] bore ultimate responsibility for compliance with the duty of candour.”
A prosecutor cannot abdicate their responsibilities by relying on legal counsel. The duty of candour, which requires full and frank disclosure of all material facts (regardless of such disclosure’s effect on merits of the prosecution), is a fundamental obligation that rests with the prosecutor personally. This means that even where legal advisors fail to make proper disclosures, the ultimate responsibility lies with the person bringing the prosecution.
This principle applies broadly, ensuring that private prosecutions are conducted fairly and transparently. The judgment serves as a warning that private prosecutors must actively ensure that their cases comply with legal and ethical standards, rather than assuming their lawyers will handle all necessary disclosures correctly.
Implications for Private Prosecutions
The ruling in Handa reinforces that private prosecutions must meet the same high standards of integrity and fairness as public prosecutions. Key takeaways include:
1. Prosecutors must personally ensure full disclosure – They cannot rely on legal advisors alone to determine what is relevant.
2. Improper motives can undermine a case – If a prosecution is driven by personal vendettas rather than the interests of justice, it may be deemed an abuse of process.
3. Failure to uphold prosecutorial duties can lead to cases being dismissed – Courts will not hesitate to quash cases where there is evidence of misleading conduct or lack of candour.
Conclusion
The Handa case is a stark reminder that prosecutors, whether private individuals or official bodies, bear personal responsibility for the fairness of their prosecutions. Delegating to legal advisors does not absolve them from scrutiny, and any attempt to mislead the court—whether intentional or through omission—can have severe consequences.
With private prosecutions becoming an increasing occurrence in criminal courts, prosecutors and defendants alike ought to take note of the principles set out in Handa.
NDP Expertise
We have significant experience dealing with prosecutions, including those brought by private individuals. Our recent involvement on behalf of defendants to a private prosecution led to the dismissal of charges at the Crown Court. Dismissal was predicated on the lack of candour of the private prosecutor, amongst other circumstances.
