The inclusion in an enhanced criminal record certificate of details of an individual’s acquittal on a charge of rape was a proportionate interference with that individual’s rights under ECHR art.8. In so deciding, the Supreme Court clarified when an appellate court could make a fresh determination as to proportionality, noted the lack of guidance to potential employers on how to treat ECRCs containing details of acquittals, and indicated that careful thought should be given to the value of disclosing allegations that had been tested in court and resulted in acquittal.
A prosecutor’s decision not to charge a man with the rape of a woman with learning difficulties was not irrational. The circumstances of the man’s acquittal some years earlier on charges of sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice were such that the prosecutor had been right to conclude that the man would be able to establish that a second prosecution was an abuse of process.
The court refused an application under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.76 to quash an individual’s acquittal for murder in light of new DNA evidence. Although the evidence was strong, the individual was detained in a high security psychiatric hospital and only had weeks left to live due to terminal cancer, such that a retrial would not be in the interests of justice.
A prosecution costs order of £2,800 was neither just nor reasonable following an offender’s conviction for voyeurism. Although it represented only a contribution to the prosecution’s costs, it did not properly reflect the fact that the offender had been acquitted of one of two counts, or the fact that he had limited means and ability to pay. A proper order was one of £1,400.
A claimant was granted permission to amend her grounds for judicial review of the secretary of state’s refusal to award her compensation following her acquittal for murder, on the limited basis of the legality of the decision not to make a discretionary ex gratia payment.