Middleton v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2006
• Date: 10 November 2006
• Docket Number: Civil Jurisdiction 2006 No. 327
• Court: Supreme Court (Bermuda)

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

Ground, CJ

Civil Jurisdiction 2006 No. 327

BETWEEN:

David Middleton

Applicant

and

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Mr K Hastings-Smith for the Applicant

The following cases were referred to in the judgment:

Mohit v DPPUNK [2006] UKPC 20

R v DPP ex parte ManningWLR [2000] 3 WLR 462

O'Reilly v MackmanELR [1983] 2 AC 237

Leave to apply for judicial review — Sexual assault and murder — Purpose of application for leave

RULING of Ground, CJ

1. This matter comes before me ex parte on the applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”), dated 30^th March 2006, not to institute a prosecution for the offence of sexual assault against two named individuals. The matter has a long history, and arises out of the brutal murder of the applicant's 17 year old daughter in July 1996.

2. The leave, or permission, of the Court is required by the Supreme Court Rules1 in all such cases. The judge considering the application for leave can do so with or without a hearing. If there is a hearing at this preliminary stage it is conducted ex parte (i.e. in the absence of the proposed respondent) in Chambers. In this case I directed that there be such a hearing, which was held on 7^th November 2006 and conducted formally on the record in the normal way.

3. The purpose of requiring the leave of the Court is:

(a) to eliminate frivolous, vexatious or hopeless applications for judicial review without the need for a substantive inter partes judicial review hearing; and

(b) to ensure that the applicant is only allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing if the court is satisfied that there is a case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing.2

4. Decisions of the DPP are amenable to judicial review in certain circumstances3. Whether or not any of those circumstances apply in this case is a question for the main hearing, and not for this preliminary stage.

5. The requirement for leave is a filter and the threshold for granting leave is not a high one: leave should be granted if on the material then available the court considers, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief sought by the applicant.4

6. The decision which it is sought to review largely turns upon the true application of various legal rules designed to stop the state harassing individuals by bringing...