Authored By: Mohaman Ahmad
BPP
I. Introduction and Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive summary and analysis of legal developments concerning the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2024. The user query requested a case summary for Allardice v The Crown Prosecution Service (2024). A review of available legal documents, however, indicates that there is no singular, major reported judgment under this specific case name that fully aligns with the details provided in the research material. Instead, the provided information references two distinct and significant legal matters from 2024 involving the CPS, which collectively illustrate fundamental principles of UK criminal law and procedure.
To produce a detailed and expert-level report as requested, this document synthesizes the analysis of these two key judgments. The first case, Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service EWHC 231 (Admin), addresses the interpretation of the statutory definition of an offensive weapon, specifically a “zombie knife.” The second case, an unnamed appeal by way of Case Stated, concerns the procedural admissibility of evidence and the legal requirements for consent to a blood sample in a drug-driving prosecution.
By examining these cases in detail, this report goes beyond a simple summary. It delves into the legal reasoning of the courts, explores the broader implications of the rulings on prosecutorial discretion and judicial deference, and integrates scholarly and parliamentary commentary on the challenges facing the UK criminal justice system.
II. Case Title & Citation
The central subject of this report is a synthesis of two distinct legal matters from 2024. The primary cases analysed are:
- Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service EWHC 231 (Admin).
- An unnamed appeal by way of Case Stated concerning drug-driving offences.
The following table provides a quick reference to the key details of the cases.
Case Name | Citation | Court & Jurisdiction | Date of Judgment |
Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service | EWHC 231 (Admin) | England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) | February 7, 2024 |
Unnamed Drug-Driving Appeal | N/A | England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) | N/A |
III. Court Name & Bench
Both judgments were delivered by the England and Wales High Court, specifically the Administrative Court, which hears challenges to the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. This court’s jurisdiction includes appeals by way of Case Stated from the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court, and judicial review applications.
IV. Facts of the Cases
This section provides a summary of the background and relevant facts for each of the legal matters under review.
Offensive Weapons Case: Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service
On December 21, 2021, the Appellant, identified as Thompson, was charged with possession in private of a “zombie knife” under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the weapons charge, accepting possession of the knife but disputing that it met the statutory definition. The knife had a nine-inch blade, a cutting edge, a serrated edge, and was inscribed with the words “Rambo First Blood Part 1.” Based on these characteristics, the District Judge concluded that the knife fell within the statutory definition, and the Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty. He then appealed the conviction on a point of law.
Drug-Driving Case: Unnamed Appeal by Case Stated
The second case involved an Appellant charged with driving with controlled drugs in their blood exceeding statutory limits. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and challenged the prosecution’s evidence on procedural grounds, specifically questioning the consent given for the blood sample and the admissibility of police documentation known as MGDD Forms. The Magistrates’ Court ultimately convicted the Appellant, finding that the consent and procedural safeguards were satisfied. The Appellant then appealed the conviction by way of Case Stated.
V. Legal Issues Raised
Issues in the Offensive Weapons Case
The central legal questions in Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service were:
- Whether the words “Rambo First Blood Part 1” objectively suggested the knife was to be used for violence, thereby satisfying the statutory definition of a “zombie knife.”
- Whether the District Judge was legally entitled to take judicial notice of the notorious nature of the “Rambo” character and the violent association of the film without requiring the prosecution to present formal evidence.
Issues in the Drug-Driving Case
The appeal in the drug-driving matter focused on two distinct procedural and evidentiary issues:
- Whether the Magistrates’ Court was correct in admitting the contents of the MGDD Forms as evidence, despite the Appellant’s objection that they were hearsay.
- Whether the consent given by the Appellant to the police officer was sufficient for a lawfully taken blood sample, or if a strict two-stage process was necessary, requiring separate and explicit consent to the medical professional who drew the blood.
VI. Arguments of the Parties
Case | Appellant’s Contentions | Respondent’s Contentions |
Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service | The District Judge erred by focusing on the word “Rambo” in isolation, and the association with violence was not sufficiently notorious to be subject to judicial notice without further inquiry. | The District Judge’s conclusion was legally correct, and the “Rambo” character is widely and notoriously recognized for violence, a fact appropriate for judicial notice without further evidence. |
Unnamed Drug-Driving Appeal | The MGDD Forms were inadmissible hearsay and should have been supported by evidence from the officers who completed them. Consent for a blood sample must be a two-stage process, with separate consent explicitly given to the medical professional. | The MGDD Forms were admissible by agreement under section 114(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as the Appellant agreed to their inclusion at the case management hearing. Consent is a single, continuing process and does not require separate consent to the medical professional. |
VII. Judgment / Final Decision
In both cases, the High Court sided with the Crown Prosecution Service and dismissed the appellants’ appeals.
Offensive Weapons Case
The High Court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the District Judge’s finding that the knife possessed by the Appellant met the statutory definition of a “zombie knife” under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. The Appellant’s conviction stands.
Drug-Driving Case
The High Court DISMISSED the appeal, upholding the Magistrates’ decision that the MGDD Forms were properly admitted and that the finding regarding the sufficiency of consent given to the police officer was legally sound. The Appellant’s convictions stand.
VIII. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
Reasoning in the Offensive Weapons Case
The court’s reasoning centered on the interpretation of the statutory definition of a “zombie knife.” The definition requires a knife to have a cutting edge, a serrated edge, and images or words “suggesting” that it is to be used for violence. The court determined that the term “suggest” should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the “association of ideas” that an image or word brings to mind, including fictional references. The court’s validation of the use of judicial notice for the “Rambo” character, a figure “widely recognised as a violent character,” streamlined the evidentiary process, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to pop-culture references in legal proceedings.
Reasoning in the Drug-Driving Case
The court’s legal reasoning in the drug-driving appeal addressed two distinct procedural points. First, regarding the admissibility of the MGDD Forms, the court held that they were correctly admitted as exhibits to an agreed written statement and as admissible hearsay evidence by agreement, given that the Appellant did not challenge them at trial. Second, on the issue of consent, the court rejected the Appellant’s argument for a strict “two-stage consent process,” clarifying that a single, continuing consent given to the police officer is sufficient to satisfy statutory requirements, as long as it is not withdrawn.
IX. Broader Legal Impact & Scholarly Commentary
These two judgments collectively illustrate fundamental principles and tensions within the UK criminal justice system, particularly concerning the role of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Deference
Both cases are a testament to the high legal bar for challenging a decision made by a public body like the CPS. The court will only intervene if a decision is based on a misapplication of the law, an irrational judgment, or an unlawful policy. This standard of judicial review gives prosecutors a “significant margin of discretion.”
This deference stands in a curious relationship with broader public and parliamentary concerns about the justice system. Parliamentary debates from April 2024 highlight that the outcomes of CPS decision-making “differ by ethnicity.” Raw data suggests that ethnic minority suspects may be “charged more aggressively” than their white counterparts. The Ministry of Justice and CPS have commissioned further research to understand the underlying factors, as they acknowledge the existence of “disproportionality.”
Evolving Role of Evidence
The court’s ruling in the Thompson case on judicial notice is a microcosm of a broader trend: the legal system’s pragmatic adaptation to modern culture and technology. By accepting a fictional character’s violent nature as a fact that does not require formal evidentiary proof, the court streamlines the prosecution of cases involving contemporary cultural references. This principle aligns with other CPS legal guidance that grapples with modern technology, such as the prosecution of high-quality computer-generated images of child abuse as “pseudo-photographs” under existing statutes.
Accountability, Public Trust, and the Victims’ Right to Review
While judicial review provides a formal legal challenge mechanism, the Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme was introduced to provide a more accessible avenue for victims to challenge decisions not to prosecute. This scheme was intended to enhance public trust in the criminal justice system.
However, the VRR scheme is not without its limitations. Critiques point to the short timelines for requesting a review (10 working days, with a three-month discretionary period) and the “local resolution” process where a review is often conducted by a prosecutor known to the original decision-maker. A new pilot scheme for rape victims aims to address some of these issues by allowing a review before a case is formally shut down , but the current structural and procedural limitations of the VRR scheme could lead to what might be perceived as a form of “token accountability.”
X. Conclusion
The analysis of these two 2024 High Court judgments reveals a criminal justice system that is both stable in its foundational principles and adaptive in its application. The rulings in Thompson v The Crown Prosecution Service and the unnamed drug-driving appeal reinforce the judiciary’s deference to prosecutorial discretion, validating standard CPS practices concerning the admissibility of evidence and the legal sufficiency of consent. Simultaneously, the legal reasoning in the Thompson case, particularly regarding judicial notice of cultural references, signals a necessary and pragmatic evolution of evidentiary standards in a digital and pop-culture-driven society.
Ultimately, these cases provide a crucial window into the ongoing dialogue between legal doctrine, prosecutorial practice, and the public’s demand for accountability and fairness within the UK criminal justice system.
Bibliography:
Thompson v Crown Prosecution Service. Casemine. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/65eeedbdb4f4b863af179052
Unnamed Drug-Driving Appeal. Casemine. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/66031451cffb2e2dbb9112fc
Judicial Review of CPS Prosecuting Decisions. Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/judicial-review-cps-prosecuting-decisions-appeals
CPS Data Summary Quarter 2 2024-2025. Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-2-2024-2025
Crown Prosecution Service: Racial Bias. UK Parliament, Hansard (Lords).(https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-04-25/debates/D3DB8398-195C-4C26-9740-951141E79D7E/CrownProsecutionServiceRacialBias)
Disproportionality Summary Research Report 2024. Crown Prosecution Service.(https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/Disproportionality-Summary-Research-Report-2024.pdf)
Legal Guidance on Indecent and Prohibited Images of Children. Crown Prosecution Service. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) scheme. Lighthouse Victim Care. https://www.lighthousevictimcare.org/what-to-expect/cps-victim-right-to-review/
Victims’ Right to Review (VRR). West Midlands Police.(https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/west-midlands/our_policies_and_procedures/victims-right-to-review-v2.0.pdf)
Reviewing Crown Prosecution Service Decisions not to Prosecute. ResearchGate.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27247294_Reviewing_Crown_Prosecution_Service_Decisions_not_to_Prosecute)
Government pilot gives rape victims right to challenge CPS decisions before cases are shut down. The Justice Gap. https://www.thejusticegap.com/government-pilot-gives-rape-victims-right-to-challenge-cps-decisions-before-cases-are-shut-down/
