The Divisional Court has rejected a challenge to the CPS’s decision to continue a prosecution involving a child defendant, finding that the prosecutor had considered the relevant professional material and applied the public interest test in the context of the applicable youth justice guidance.
What did the High Court decide?
In The King (on the application of LYC by his litigation friend LYM) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] EWHC 2778 (Admin), handed down on 29 October 2026, Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Wall dismissed LYC’s application for judicial review. The hearing took place on 20 October 2026.
LYC, who was 14 at the time of the judgment, challenged the CPS decision of 27 April 2026 to continue proceedings arising from allegations concerning conduct when he was 11. The charges included an allegation of rape under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
The claimant argued that the CPS had failed to make reasonable inquiries and had not properly followed its own guidance on children as suspects and defendants and on rape and sexual offences. The court granted permission to proceed on those two grounds, but rejected them after considering the CPS’s written decision record and the material before the prosecutor.
The court refused permission on a separate reasons ground after the CPS disclosed its contemporaneous written record. It also refused applications to add further grounds challenging the Youth Court’s decision and an incorrect legal citation in the CPS record.
How did the prosecution reach the review stage?
The judgment records that LYC was arrested on 25 April 2024. The CPS decided on 10 October 2025 that he should be charged. A postal requisition charging him with the two offences was registered on 10 November 2025.
Following his first appearance in the Youth Court, the case was adjourned to allow the defence to make representations asking the CPS to discontinue the prosecution. The Youth Justice Service also requested an Assessment, Intervention and Moving on (AIM) report, which is used by professionals to assess children who have displayed harmful sexual behaviour.
On 17 February 2026, LYC’s solicitors sent the CPS detailed representations seeking discontinuance. The material included letters from social workers, a youth justice worker, a psychological professional and LYC’s guardian, as well as a forensic psychology report. An AIM report was also provided. The solicitors’ letter and supporting documents comprised approximately 70 pages.
The representations raised issues including LYC’s age and vulnerability, the influence of another child, his engagement with therapeutic support, the views of youth professionals, the risk of reoffending and the possible long-term consequences of a conviction or caution.
On 21 April 2026, Senior Crown Prosecutor Ravinder Dhillon decided that the prosecution should continue. The decision was subject to confirmation by the Chief Crown Prosecutor, which was given on 27 April following discussions involving other senior CPS officials. The CPS subsequently disclosed the written record of the decision during the judicial review proceedings.
- LYC is arrested following a school safeguarding referral and police investigation.
- The CPS decides that charges should be brought.
- A postal requisition charging LYC is registered.
- The defence submits detailed representations and supporting professional material asking the CPS to discontinue the case.
- A senior prosecutor decides to continue the prosecution; the decision is confirmed by the Chief Crown Prosecutor.
- LYC issues the judicial review claim.
- The Divisional Court hears the rolled-up hearing.
- The High Court hands down its judgment and dismisses the claim.
What CPS guidance applied to prosecuting children?
The court considered the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS guidance on Rape and Sexual Offences, and the guidance on Children as Suspects and Defendants. Under paragraph 2.10 of the Code, prosecutors are expected to comply with relevant CPS policies and guidance unless exceptional circumstances apply. The CPS did not rely on exceptional circumstances in this case.
The guidance requires prosecutors to consider both the evidential and public interest tests. In cases involving children, the public interest assessment must give significant weight to the suspect’s age and maturity, the child’s best interests and welfare, the principal aim of the youth justice system and the possibility of diversion from formal proceedings.
The Children as Suspects and Defendants guidance adopts a “Child First” approach: children who come into contact with the youth justice system should be regarded as children first and offenders second. It emphasises prevention, diversion and avoiding unnecessary criminalisation.
The Rape and Sexual Offences guidance also addresses the particular care required when considering allegations involving young people. It directs prosecutors to consider relevant information from children’s services and youth justice professionals, reports and assessments, the views of victims and families, the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the alleged behaviour.
The court noted that the prosecutor’s written record identified the relevant guidance and approached the public interest stage as a child-specific assessment. It recorded substantial weight against prosecution because of LYC’s young age, his status as a child, the risk of criminalisation, safeguarding considerations and the defence representations.
It also identified factors in favour of prosecution, including the seriousness of the alleged offending, the impact on the complainant, the prosecutor’s assessment that the proposed alternatives were insufficient and the perceived need for structured oversight and intervention through the Youth Court.
“The welfare considerations, while significant, do not outweigh the public interest in a prosecution in this case”.
— CPS decision record, quoted in the judgment
Why did the judicial review challenge fail?
The claimant’s first ground concerned the Tameside duty to make reasonable inquiries. The court explained that this duty is distinct from a duty to consult. The question was not whether further inquiries might have been sensible or desirable, but whether no reasonable prosecutor could have been satisfied that the information already available was sufficient to make the decision.
The court found that the February 2026 representations were detailed and comprehensive. They included information from professionals involved with LYC, and the AIM report was also taken into account. The fact that the information had been supplied by the defence rather than obtained following a CPS request did not alter the assessment. The relevant question was whether, in substance, the CPS had sufficient information.
The court also rejected the argument that later witness statements could establish that the CPS had failed to make reasonable inquiries. The rationality of the decision had to be assessed by reference to the material actually before the decision-maker at the time, not by using later evidence to demonstrate what additional inquiries might have revealed.
The second ground alleged that the CPS had failed to apply its guidance. The claimant relied on passages in the written record referring to immaturity, development and vulnerability as matters relevant to sentencing rather than liability. Read in context, the court said those passages concerned criminal responsibility, not the separate public interest assessment about whether the prosecution should continue.
The written record showed that the prosecutor had given substantial weight to LYC’s age, welfare and vulnerability, and had considered the representations about his circumstances and the impact of criminalisation. The prosecutor nevertheless concluded that the factors favouring prosecution carried greater weight. The court held that the guidance had been applied and rejected ground 2.
The court also emphasised the limited role of judicial review in challenges to prosecutorial decisions. Such decisions are entrusted to independent prosecutors and will be disturbed only in highly exceptional cases, including where there has been a failure to follow relevant policy or an irrational decision. The claimant did not argue that the decision to continue the prosecution was itself irrational.
Two further matters were dealt with briefly. The proposed ground challenging the Youth Court’s refusal to stay the prosecution was found unarguable. The court also accepted that the CPS decision record referred to a non-existent authority, but held that the error did not affect the outcome because the legal propositions criticised did not undermine the decision.
What does the ruling mean for prosecutors and practitioners?
The judgment underlines the importance of a clear, contemporaneous record showing how the CPS has considered the public interest when deciding whether to prosecute a child. The record should demonstrate that the child-specific guidance has been applied and that relevant welfare, safeguarding and professional information has been weighed against the factors supporting prosecution.
For practitioners representing children, the decision highlights the value of providing comprehensive representations and supporting reports to the CPS at the review stage. It also illustrates the demanding threshold for a judicial review challenge: it is not enough to show that further inquiries could have been made or that another prosecutor might have reached a different conclusion.
The court’s distinction between the Tameside duty and consultation is also important. A requirement to make reasonable inquiries does not automatically create a separate obligation to conduct formal consultation. The legal question remains whether the decision-maker acted rationally on the information available.
The judgment does not determine the criminal allegations or the eventual outcome of the Youth Court proceedings. It addresses the lawfulness of the CPS decision to continue the prosecution and the grounds advanced in the judicial review claim.
Frequently asked questions
What was the decision in LYC v Director of Public Prosecutions?
The High Court dismissed LYC’s judicial review challenge to the CPS decision to continue the prosecution. Permission was granted on two grounds, but the court rejected both after considering the material and the CPS decision record.
What is the Tameside duty?
The Tameside duty requires a public decision-maker to take reasonable steps to acquaint itself with relevant information before making a decision. The court said that the test is whether the decision-maker acted rationally on the material available; it is not the same as a duty to consult.
What CPS guidance applies when prosecuting children?
The judgment considered the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS guidance on Children as Suspects and Defendants, and the guidance on Rape and Sexual Offences. These materials require a child-specific public interest assessment that takes account of age, maturity, welfare and relevant professional information.
Did the High Court decide whether LYC was guilty?
No. The judgment concerned the lawfulness of the CPS decision to continue the prosecution. It did not determine the criminal charges or the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
Why were the later witness statements not enough to establish a failure to inquire?
The court held that the rationality of the CPS decision had to be assessed using the information actually before the decision-maker at the time. Later evidence about what further inquiries might have revealed did not, by itself, prove that the original decision was irrational.