Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Private Prosecution Indictment
Private Prosecution Indictment
Private Prosecution Indictment
URN NUMBER
B E T W E E N:
REGINA
.v.
<DEFENDANT (CAPITALS)>
The Information
COUNT 1
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
COUNT 2
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Once on the property you were informed on numerous occasions that you were a
trespasser and properly asked to leave. You ignored these demands and instead used
the threat of unlawful violence against the occupants of the property.
COUNT 3
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On <date> you <DEFENDANT>, at the address known as <Accusers full address &
Postcode>, you <DEFENDANT> did with the assistance of <2ND DEFENDANT>
forcibly removed <ACCUSER> and carry him away, you had no lawful authority to
do so.
There was no consent from the victim and you used unlawful violence to carry out
this kidnap.
COUNT 4
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
On <date> you <DEFENDANT>, at the address known as <Accusers full address &
Postcode>, you <DEFENDANT> did with the assistance of <2ND DEFENDANT>
forcibly removed <ACCUSER> and did carry him away, in doing so you detained
him without lawful authority, thereby falsely imprisoning him.
A) Overview
B) Legal framework
The Private Prosecution sought by the Informant satisfies the
provisions of section 6(1) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and is
not a restricted prosecution in that:
1. The offence alleged against the Defendant is not one where the
consent of the Attorney General is required
2. The offence is an indictable offence and therefore it is not time
barred by statute
3. The offence alleged against the Defendant is not an offence where
the DPP has a statutory duty over the conduct of the proceedings
4. The allegation constitutes an offence in English law and there is
prima faci grounds that the essential ingredients are present
5. The court has jurisdiction over the allegation subject of the
information
6. The Informant is not statute barred to lay the information 1
7. There is no impending prosecution by the CPS against the
Defendant based on the information subject of this prosecution.
8. The Courts have repeatedly emphasised that the discretion
to refuse to issue a summons must be sparingly exercised,
and only if the prosecution undermines the rule of law or is
an affront to justice: for example, R v Milton Keynes
Magistrates Court, ex p Roberts [1995] Crim LR 224. There is
nothing in this information before the court to suggest that
prosecuting any Defendant will undermine the rule of law or be an
affront to justice.
C) Background
D) CONCLUSION
<NAME OF INFORMANT>
<DATE>
Dated: ______________________________________
2
Also known as the Full Code Test