Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 12-2-2013 12:00 AM Victims’ Opportunities to Review a Decision not to Prosecute made by the Crown Prosecutor Li Tian The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Christopher Sherrin The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Law A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Master of Laws © Li Tian 2013 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Tian, Li, "Victims’ Opportunities to Review a Decision not to Prosecute made by the Crown Prosecutor" (2013). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 1779. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1779 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Victims‘ Opportunities to Review a Decision not to Prosecute made by the Crown Prosecutor by Li, Tian Graduate Program in Law A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Law The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © Tian Li 2014 Abstract In Canada, Crown prosecutors and the Attorney General are not always as fair as we expect when making charging decisions, and therefore victims could be personally aggrieved by unfair and unjust decisions not to prosecute. When this happens, victims have limited remedy to redress the unfairness and unjustness in order to uphold their interests in a criminal proceeding. Conversely, the European Union, United Kingdom, and the United State have taken steps to let victims challenge decisions not to prosecute to some extent. Drawing on experiences of the abovementioned jurisdictions, I propose a two-level process of review for decisions not to prosecute----Internal Review and Judicial Review----in Canada in order to provide victims a way to have problematic decisions reversed. This proposal can provide a direction or framework for future reform in this area in Canada. Keywords Victims Participation, Prosecutorial Discretion, Standards of Review, Decision not to Prosecute ii Acknowledgments It would not have been possible to write this thesis without the help and support of the kind people around me, to only some of whom it is possible to give particular mention here. Above all, I would like to thank my parents for their financial support. I would have not studied in Canada without their support. This thesis would not have been possible without the help, support and patience of my supervisor, Professor Sherrin, not to mention his advice and unsurpassed knowledge of Canadian legal system. With regards to my thesis editing, I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the writing centre of the University of Western Ontario. I also thank my colleagues, David Seccareccia and Conrad Robinson, for they editing parts of my thesis. Above all, I would like to thank my landlord Veronica for her personal support. It was very kind of her to help me locate potential editors. The help from her son-in-law was invaluable to me. I am grateful to John Sadler for providing me with help in research. He helped my find many cases that I could not find by myself. I would like to thank Mary Morris for her kindness and support concerning the administrative process of the programme in Law faculty. For any errors or inadequacies that may remain in this work, of course, the responsibility is entirely my own. iii Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. III TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... IV CHAPTER I ...................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 USE OF THE TERM ―VICTIM‖ .................................................................................. 8 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS .................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................... 13 2 PROBLEMS IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM ........................................................ 13 2.1 CHARGING PROCESS AND CHARGING DECISION .................................................. 13 2.1.1 Discontinuance of the prosecution ................................................................. 16 2.2 CHARGING DECISION-MAKING IS SOMETIMES PROBLEMATIC ............................. 19 2.3 INSUFFICIENT REMEDIES AND RIGHTS .................................................................. 29 2.3.1 Information Receiver ...................................................................................... 29 2.3.2 Civil Proceedings............................................................................................ 33 2.3.3 Informal Complaint ........................................................................................ 37 2.3.4 Difficulties of Access to Current Judicial Review .......................................... 38 2.3.4.1 Judicial Reluctance to Interfere ............................................................... 40 2.3.4.2 High Standard of Review ........................................................................ 43 2.3.4.3 Lack of Supporting Documents and Jurisprudence ................................. 48 iv 2.3.4.4 Limited Ground to Review ...................................................................... 51 CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................. 54 3 VICTIMS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE A DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE ............................................................................. 54 3.1 VICTIMS‘ INTERESTS IN CRIMINAL PROCESS ARE AT STAKE ............................... 54 3.2 THE STATE SHOULD NOT IGNORE VICTIMS‘ INTERESTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 58 3.2.1 The Attorney General, Crown Prosecutors and Charging Guidelines .......... 62 3.2.1.1 Role of the Attorney General and the Crown prosecutors ...................... 62 3.2.1.2 Charging Guideline ................................................................................. 64 3.3 VICTIMS HAVE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION ..................................................... 69 3.4 VICTIMS CAN OBTAIN SATISFACTION AND CLOSURE ............................................ 71 3.4.1 Satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 71 3.4.2 Closure ............................................................................................................ 73 CHAPTER IV .................................................................................................................. 77 4 PRIVATE CHALLENGE OF THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ............................................................................................ 77 4.1 EUROPEAN PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 77 4.2 REGIONAL PROTECTION ...................................................................................... 77 4.2.1 Practice in Civil Law Countries ..................................................................... 81 4.3 UNITED KINGDOM (UK) ...................................................................................... 83 4.3.1 Internal Review ............................................................................................... 84 v 4.3.2 Judicial Review ............................................................................................... 87 4.3.2.1 Standard of Review ................................................................................. 88 4.3.2.1.1 Error in Law ......................................................................................... 92 4.3.2.1.2 Evidential Insufficiency ....................................................................... 95 4.3.2.1.3 Procedural Fairness .............................................................................. 99 4.3.2.2 Relief sought ......................................................................................... 100 4.4 AMERICAN EXPERIENCE .................................................................................... 103 4.4.1 Compelling a prosecution ............................................................................. 106 4.4.2 Disapproval of private prosecution .............................................................. 111 4.4.2.1 Legal Considerations ............................................................................. 111 4.4.2.1.1 Evidential Insufficiency ..................................................................... 111 4.4.2.1.2 Decision made based on error of law ................................................ 114 4.4.2.2 Public policy .........................................................................................