When to prosecute children for sexual abuse

15 June 2011 by

R (on the application of E and Ors) v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 1465 (Admin) – Read Judgment

In a case involving rather distressing facts, the High Court has quashed a decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute a 14-year-old girl (identified only as “E”) for the sexual abuse of her younger siblings.

On 26 January 2010 the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre discovered a video on the internet, in which E appeared to be sexually abusing her two younger sisters. The acts portrayed allegedly occurred between January and November 2001, when E was aged 12, and her sisters were aged 2 and 3.

The police were intent on treating E as a perpetrator of offences against her sisters, and seeking a criminal conviction against her, but the multi-agency committee which had been convened by the local authority to respond to the situation, including the NSPCC and the local safeguarding children board, had reservations about that course of action. In particular, there was concern that none of the children involved could be given adequate help and therapeutic support whilst a criminal prosecution was pursued, and that this could lead to harm and the breakdown of the family. It had also been claimed by E that she had been groomed and coerced into making the video by someone she had met on the internet. If that were true, the prosecution of E could send the wrong message to other young people being similarly exploited. A report dated 8 June 2010, which outlined these concerns, was submitted to the CPS.

Ultimately, a specialist Crown Prosecutor decided that there was sufficient evidence to proceed, and that it was in the public interest to charge E. Consequently, she appeared at the Youth Court in October 2010, and was committed to face trial in the Crown Court in respect of six offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Protection of Children Act 1978.

The decision to prosecute was challenged by E, and by her two sisters, in judicial review proceedings. They were all acting with their mother as their litigation friend. There were three main grounds of challenge:

  1. The decision was taken under the auspices of guidance, issued to Crown Prosecutors by the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP), which was inadequate and unlawful. It failed to have sufficient regard to the obligations of the State under international law (such as Articles 3, 39 and 40 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) to give protection to children, including in particular this special situation where there was a child who was both a defendant and a victim (of grooming).
  2. The decision-making process of the CPS had been flawed. It had failed to properly follow the guidance of the DPP, such as it was, and had failed to take relevant considerations into account, such as the impact of a prosecution on the two younger sisters.
  3. The substance of the decision was unlawful. It breached the rights of E and her sisters under e.g. Article 8 and Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the ECHR), and was irrational.

As can be seen, this decision therefore had to canvas a broad range of issues, including provisions of international law, domestic principles of judicial of judicial review, and of course, the scope of various articles of the ECHR.

Unlawful Guidance

This first ground of challenge touched upon interesting and potentially difficult questions of international law, because the Claimants were relying on rights that are contained in international treaties. Usually, such rights need to be incorporated into domestic law in order to have force in national courts (a good example of this is the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the ECHR). This is because international treaties are entered into by the Government rather than Parliament, and it is Parliament’s role to make the law. There is no statute which directly incorporates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into UK law, and so the courts would be limited to interpreting the applicable domestic law in accordance with that treaty so far as possible.

However, the court did not need to engage with these questions at length. Even if it was assumed that the provisions of the UN Convention were directly applicable in domestic law, the court summarily rejected the contention that the numerous pieces of guidance which applied in this case were unlawful.

In making their decisions, Crown Prosecutors need to have regard to The Code for Crown Prosecutors, and legal guidance issued by the DPP on Youth Offenders, on the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and on Children as Victims and Witnesses. These pieces of guidance consistently emphasize the need to give special consideration to the position and welfare of children, both as defendants and victims, and make express reference to the requirement to take into account state obligations under the ECHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This being so, it could be seen that this ground of challenge essentially amounted to an attack on the way the guidance was expressed. This was a matter for the DPP and the courts would not intervene. As Munby LJ said at paragraph 50:

It is vital to bear in mind that it is for the DPP, and not for the court, to determine what policies the CPS should apply. Parliament has conferred upon the DPP alone the responsibility for formulating prosecutorial policy. It is not for the judges to advise the DPP as to what his policy should be or as to how, or in what form and at what level of detail it should be expressed. These are all matters for the DPP.

Failure in Decision-Making Process

As swiftly as the court rejected the first ground of challenge, it upheld the second. Read as a whole, Munby LJ said that the guidance to Crown Prosecutors required them to take into account the interests and welfare of the Defendant, the interests and welfare of the victim(s), the impact of a prosecution on the mental, physical and emotional health of the victim, the views of the victim or the victim’s family on these matters, and the views of social services. He then made reference to the report of the multi-agency committee dated 8 June 2010, which expressed the view that any delay in therapeutic treatment pursuant to a criminal prosecution could harm all the children, that the parents would view the prosecution as hostile, and that the prosecution could undermine the ability of the family to remain intact.

In light of this, he said that the decision of the Crown Prosecutor was clearly defective. There was no indication that the interests and welfare of E’s two younger sisters had been taken into account, and no reference was made to the concern that delays in therapy would be harmful to the children. In short, he said that the decision did not take into account or engage with the views expressed in the multi-agency committee report.

The decision letter of the Crown Prosecutor did actually expressly say that the report had been considered, but Munby LJ found this to be insufficient.

…there is simply no explanation of how the report has been considered or as to why, given what had been said in the report, the decision was nonetheless to prosecute.

On this basis, it could be said that the real problem with the Crown Prosecutor’s decision was simply that it was not accompanied by sufficiently detailed reasons, and that this provided the court with a convenient hook on which to hang a decision which was essentially based on the view that the decision to prosecute was wrong. However, Munby LJ preempted this criticism. At paragraph 62 he said:

I accept of course that a decision such as this is to be read in a broad and common sense way, applying a fair and sensible view to what the decision maker has said. I readily acknowledge that, as Lord Hoffmann pointed out in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, 1372, reasons should be read on the assumption that, unless she has demonstrated the contrary, the decision maker knew how she should perform her functions and which matters she should take into account. And I have very much in mind his warning that an appellate court – and the same must also go for this court – must “resist the temptation to subvert the principle that they should not substitute their own discretion for that of the [decision maker] by a narrow textual analysis which enables them to claim that he misdirected himself.” But the fact, in my judgment, is that the errors here – and we are not of course concerned with only a single error – are patent on the face of the decision letter.

Decision wrong in substance

The third ground of challenge posed the important question of whether or not a decision to prosecute could be capable of engaging and breaching someone’s human rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. This was a matter which had divided the House of Lords, and consequently been left open, in R v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2008] UKHL 37, in which a decision to prosecute a 15 year old for sexual intercourse with a 12 year old was challenged.

Predictably, as the claimants had already succeeded on other grounds, the Court declined to directly decide this point. However, Munby LJ did rather explicitly hint at his view that such decisions were not capable of engaging Convention rights. At paragraph 78 he said:

…there are, I think, four points which I can and should make. First, there is, as I have noted, no precedent for a claim such as this succeeding; indeed much authority pointing in the other direction. Second, and giving all appropriate weight to what was said in R (C (A Minor)) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882, [2009] QB 657, and E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and another (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and others intervening) [2008] UKHL 66, [2009] 1 AC 536, the circumstances as they are here presented to us seem to me to fall far short of anything that could possibly engage Article 3, even in relation to a child. Third, the decision and reasoning in R v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2008] UKHL 37, [2009] 1 AC 92, seem to me to present formidable obstacles to the success of any claim based on Article 8. Fourth, and in a sense encapsulating the previous points, in the context of criminal proceedings Articles 3 and 8 are more likely to be engaged, and potentially breached, in matters of sentence rather than prosecution.

It is perhaps not surprising that he took the view that an Article 3 challenge would fail, given the severity of treatment and impact required in order to engage that provision. However, the Article 8 question is more open to debate. Although Munby LJ expressed the view that the reasoning in R v G suggested that an Article 8 claim would not succeed, that case was very different to the facts in this case.

In R v G, the Article 8 challenge was essentially advanced on the basis that there were two offences with which the Defendant could have been charged in respect of his alleged conduct, and that the decision to prosecute him for the more serious offence meant that his Article 8 rights to a private life were unnecessarily and disproportionately infringed. It was not argued that he should not have been charged at all. Lord Hoffman and Baroness Hale considered that where prosecution was justified, Article 8 was not engaged in relation to the label given to the prosecuted conduct.

Yet this case involved the slightly different question as to whether or not to proceed with a prosecution at all, and as Lords Hope and Carswell pointed out, Prosecutors, as public authorities, are obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights where choices are open to them. Furthermore, in making such a choice, they would have to take into account another important difference in this case: it was not simply E’s right to respect for her private life that was in issue. It was also her right, and that of her sisters, to respect for their family life, in a context where there was concern that a prosecution could destroy the family.


As a whole, the decision of the court underscored the general and accepted principle that in decisions and actions involving children, the welfare of all of the children involved must be given careful consideration. However, there are several other key points to take from this decision that apply more generally:

First, although not necessary to the outcome of the case, the decision is a salutary reminder that the rights which citizens of the UK may invoke are not always necessarily limited to those contained in the ECHR. Any international instrument to which the UK is a party may confer rights upon the populace, and they may be relied upon in national courts if they have been incorporated, of if they can be relied upon as supporting a favourable interpretation of another domestic law.

Secondly, for all decision-makers, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is important for decisions to be accompanied by quite detailed reasons which address the main points of evidence and contention in the decision-making process. This is true in human rights cases, and in judicial review more generally. If not a ground of challenge in itself, a lack of reasons allows a court to reach a conclusion that other more fundamental errors of approach of have been made.

Thirdly, it has not yet been finally decided whether or not a decision to prosecute without more can engage human rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The attitude of the court in this case was that these rights are probably not engaged, but the point is still up for debate.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:


  1. JusticeFreak says:

    My god we need to raise the age of criminal responsibiltiy – and as a matter of great urgency. One of the problems with pursuing a prosecution through adult criminal channels is that the gap between charge and trial is usually months (often up to a year) during which time, psychiatric and social intervention cannot happen in case it prejudices court proceedings. This is clearly counter the welfare interests both of the alleged perpetrator and her alleged victims. Moreover, the fact that the child appears to have been herself a victim is given no consideration.

    I can’t understand some of Keir Starmer’s thinking. He is perfectly happy to pull a traumatised 13 year old girl into a crown court, put two ten year olds in the dock for rape (last year) yet in the face of pretty strong evidence, unwilling to subject Simon Harwood to a criminal trial until an inquest jury found for unlawful death.

    Am I missing something here?

  2. mandy says:

    She is a child ! and children are corrupted by adults for pity’s sake… Why was prosecution even considered? what the hell is up with people !!

  3. Tara Davison says:

    This is another insane decision by the CPS.

    This poor little girl who claims to have been the victim of a pedophile groomer has been persecuted instead of helped.

    Can we prosecute the CPS for child abuse?

  4. The facts make horrific reading – not least when you appreciate that as a consequence of the CPS decision there was presumably have a delay – of at least 8 months – in therapeutic support, exactly as the strategy group foresaw (para 11). It would surely have been better, in view of the circumstances, for a hearing to have been expedited; the issues may be legally complex, but not, it would appear from the judgement, evidentially so.

    I find the lack of any substantive discussion as to whether there was evidence to support E’s explanation of the events striking. While that may not have provided a defence, it should surely have weighed heavily on the prosecutor? The decision maker’s letter apparently disposes of this point (para 24) with the statement “Although there may have been some internet grooming by a third party, E on the footage looks relaxed and is seen to smile and laugh at various points.” It seems odd to rely on such an assessment, and it doesn’t suggest the decision maker had access to evidence as to E’s underlying state of mind, or the degree to which the allegations of grooming were true. Furthermore, the Strategy Group – which was in communication with CEOP – noted two months before the decision to prosecute that the video was “…widely published across the Internet with a large pool of potential suspects spread throughout the world. Police advice to the strategy group was that the opportunity to identify these suspects is limited.

    All in all, I can well understand the Court’s desire to strike down the decision.

    @ObiterJ: I’d also be interested to know why the matter was transferred from the Youth Court. Hopefully it wasn’t just that the Crown, having decided to prosecute, wanted to seek a detention order of more than 24 months.

  5. ObiterJ says:

    The case raises – yet again – the whole question of the age of criminal responsibility. In other jurisdictions, prosecution would have been completely out of the question on these facts.

    Also, could this case not have been retained in the Youth Court and tried by an appropriately qualified judge? There is a protocol to this effect.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: