The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the office or official charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several criminal jurisdictions around the world. The title is used mainly in jurisdictions that are or have been members of the Commonwealth of nations.
Australia
Australia has a Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which was set up by the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and started operations in 1984. The eight States and territories of Australia also have their own DPPs.
Each state and territory has its own DPP. The Office of DPP operates independently of Government. Ultimate authority for authorising prosecutions lies with the Attorney General. However, since that is a political post, and it is desired to have a non-political (public service) post carry out this function in most circumstances, the prosecutorial powers of the AG are normally delegated to the DPP.
It is common for those who hold the office of Commonwealth or State DPP later to be appointed to a high judicial office. Examples include Mark Weinberg, now a justice of the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria; Michael Rozenes, now Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria; Brian Martin, now Chief Justice of the Northern Territory; John McKechnie, now a justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia; and Paul Coghlan, now a justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The Director of Public Prosecutions was created under the Fiji Independence Act of 1970 and came into being that year. In 1990 and subsequently in 1997, the powers of the Office of the DPP were provided for in the Fiji Constitution, an entrenched document and the supreme law of the nation. Hence, the Office of the DPP is independent from the government and the police, and therefore answerable to the public at large due to its constitutional responsibility.
Functions
The function of the Office of the DPP is to advise the police and the other Government Departments on the sufficiency of evidence for prosecutions, to conduct prosecutions of at all levels of Courts and to appear in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for CriminalAppeals. The prosecutors have no investigative function. In Fiji, the police have an investigative function.
In 2014, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions drew up a prosecutors guideline.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Turks and Caicos Islands)
The Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer of the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands whose role is to prosecute criminal offences. The role was newly created by the 2011 Constitution.
Overview
The DPP has the power:
to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any offence against any law in force in the Islands;
to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that have been instituted by any other person or authority; and
to discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by himself or herself or any other person or authority.
The DPP is appointed by the Governor under Section 91 of the 2011 Constitution, in consultation with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Judicial Service Commission. The Governor may remove the DPP only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State in two cases: for inability to discharge the functions of his or her office, or for misbehaviour. The constitution also lists the DPP as one of the "institutions protecting good governance". This has effects on remuneration, audits, and the funding of the Office of the DPP.
[2015] UKSC 49
UKSC 2013/0243
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
On appeal from the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellant is a French national, ordinarily resident in the UK. Her husband is in custody in France in relation to terrorist offences. She arrived in the UK at East Midlands Airport on 4 January 2011 with her three children following a visit to her husband. On arrival she stopped by border officials. She was searched by officers from Leicestershire Constabulary who subsequently conducted an examination of the appellant under Schedule 7. The officers made clear that they would not delay the examination pending the arrival of her lawyer. The appellant did not answer most of the questions put to her. She was subsequently convicted of offences u...
published: 22 Jul 2015
Justice Journeys - Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
published: 30 May 2017
Paula Llewellyn, Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaica
published: 06 Dec 2017
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) v Ziegler and others (Appellants)
UKSC 2019/0106
On appeal from the QBD Administrative Court (England and Wales)
The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway, contrary to section 137 Highways Act 1980. They were acquitted at trial because their actions fell within the “lawful authority or excuse” defence contained in section 137 Highways Act 1980. The Director for Public Prosecutions appealed successfully by way of case stated to the High Court. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
The issues are:
In criminal proceedings arising out of protest activity:
(1) is deliberate physically obstructive conduct by protesters capable of constituting a lawful excuse for the purposes ...
published: 25 Jun 2021
DCJ Mwilu wanted out of Office by Director Of Public Prosecutions
The Judicial Service Commission Is Currently In A Closed Door Meeting To Consider The Petition Against The Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The Petition From The Director Of Public Prosecutions Is Seeking To Remove The DCJ From Office
#Kenya #KTNNews #KTNPrime
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more great videos: https://www.youtube.com/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KTNNews
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KTNNewsKenya
For more great content go to http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews and download our apps:
http://std.co.ke/apps/#android
KTN News is a leading 24-hour TV channel in Eastern Africa with its headquarters located along Mombasa Road, at Standard Group Centre. This is the most authoritative news channel in Kenya and beyond.
published: 16 Dec 2019
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions | 1 All E.R. 833 (2000)
Many statutes that define crimes describe only the acts that constitute the offense. They often don’t speak of a mental element, or what we often call the mens rea. Does that mean that these offenses don’t have a mental element? The British House of Lords considered that question in B versus Director of Public Prosecutions.
Fifteen-year-old B sat down next to a thirteen-year-old girl on a bus and asked her several times to perform oral sex on him. The girl refused. B was charged in Great Britain’s version of juvenile court with inciting a child under fo...
[2015] UKSC 49
UKSC 2013/0243
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
On appeal from the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellan...
[2015] UKSC 49
UKSC 2013/0243
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
On appeal from the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellant is a French national, ordinarily resident in the UK. Her husband is in custody in France in relation to terrorist offences. She arrived in the UK at East Midlands Airport on 4 January 2011 with her three children following a visit to her husband. On arrival she stopped by border officials. She was searched by officers from Leicestershire Constabulary who subsequently conducted an examination of the appellant under Schedule 7. The officers made clear that they would not delay the examination pending the arrival of her lawyer. The appellant did not answer most of the questions put to her. She was subsequently convicted of offences under Schedule 7, namely failing to answer questions. She now appeals against her conviction. The issue in this case is whether the examination or detention of an individual under Schedule 7 engages Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 6 (privilege against self-incrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR. Additionally the appeal considers whether s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 represents a sufficient safeguard against any interference with Art.6 and the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by a majority of 4-1.
[2015] UKSC 49
UKSC 2013/0243
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
On appeal from the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellant is a French national, ordinarily resident in the UK. Her husband is in custody in France in relation to terrorist offences. She arrived in the UK at East Midlands Airport on 4 January 2011 with her three children following a visit to her husband. On arrival she stopped by border officials. She was searched by officers from Leicestershire Constabulary who subsequently conducted an examination of the appellant under Schedule 7. The officers made clear that they would not delay the examination pending the arrival of her lawyer. The appellant did not answer most of the questions put to her. She was subsequently convicted of offences under Schedule 7, namely failing to answer questions. She now appeals against her conviction. The issue in this case is whether the examination or detention of an individual under Schedule 7 engages Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 6 (privilege against self-incrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR. Additionally the appeal considers whether s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 represents a sufficient safeguard against any interference with Art.6 and the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by a majority of 4-1.
UKSC 2019/0106
On appeal from the QBD Administrative Court (England and Wales)
The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security...
UKSC 2019/0106
On appeal from the QBD Administrative Court (England and Wales)
The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway, contrary to section 137 Highways Act 1980. They were acquitted at trial because their actions fell within the “lawful authority or excuse” defence contained in section 137 Highways Act 1980. The Director for Public Prosecutions appealed successfully by way of case stated to the High Court. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
The issues are:
In criminal proceedings arising out of protest activity:
(1) is deliberate physically obstructive conduct by protesters capable of constituting a lawful excuse for the purposes of s.137 of the Highways Act 1980?; and
(2) what is the test to be applied by an appellate court to an assessment of the decision of the trial court in respect of a statutory defence of ‘lawful excuse’ when Convention rights are engaged in a criminal matter?
The Supreme Court allows the appeal by a majority.
More information is available on our website.
UKSC 2019/0106
On appeal from the QBD Administrative Court (England and Wales)
The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway, contrary to section 137 Highways Act 1980. They were acquitted at trial because their actions fell within the “lawful authority or excuse” defence contained in section 137 Highways Act 1980. The Director for Public Prosecutions appealed successfully by way of case stated to the High Court. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
The issues are:
In criminal proceedings arising out of protest activity:
(1) is deliberate physically obstructive conduct by protesters capable of constituting a lawful excuse for the purposes of s.137 of the Highways Act 1980?; and
(2) what is the test to be applied by an appellate court to an assessment of the decision of the trial court in respect of a statutory defence of ‘lawful excuse’ when Convention rights are engaged in a criminal matter?
The Supreme Court allows the appeal by a majority.
More information is available on our website.
The Judicial Service Commission Is Currently In A Closed Door Meeting To Consider The Petition Against The Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The Petition Fr...
The Judicial Service Commission Is Currently In A Closed Door Meeting To Consider The Petition Against The Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The Petition From The Director Of Public Prosecutions Is Seeking To Remove The DCJ From Office
#Kenya #KTNNews #KTNPrime
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more great videos: https://www.youtube.com/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KTNNews
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KTNNewsKenya
For more great content go to http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews and download our apps:
http://std.co.ke/apps/#android
KTN News is a leading 24-hour TV channel in Eastern Africa with its headquarters located along Mombasa Road, at Standard Group Centre. This is the most authoritative news channel in Kenya and beyond.
The Judicial Service Commission Is Currently In A Closed Door Meeting To Consider The Petition Against The Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The Petition From The Director Of Public Prosecutions Is Seeking To Remove The DCJ From Office
#Kenya #KTNNews #KTNPrime
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more great videos: https://www.youtube.com/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KTNNews
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KTNNewsKenya
For more great content go to http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews and download our apps:
http://std.co.ke/apps/#android
KTN News is a leading 24-hour TV channel in Eastern Africa with its headquarters located along Mombasa Road, at Standard Group Centre. This is the most authoritative news channel in Kenya and beyond.
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions | 1 All E.R. 833 (2000)
Many statutes that define crimes describe only the acts that constitute the offense. They often don’t speak of a mental element, or what we often call the mens rea. Does that mean that these offenses don’t have a mental element? The British House of Lords considered that question in B versus Director of Public Prosecutions.
Fifteen-year-old B sat down next to a thirteen-year-old girl on a bus and asked her several times to perform oral sex on him. The girl refused. B was charged in Great Britain’s version of juvenile court with inciting a child under fourteen years old to commit an act of gross indecency, in violation of section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
B pleaded not guilty. At trial, he offered evidence that he honestly believed the girl to be over fourteen. Had she been fourteen or older, B wouldn’t have been guilty of the charged offense. The trial court ruled that B’s state of mind didn’t constitute a defense to the charge. B then changed his plea to guilty and was duly convicted. B appealed to the Divisional Court, which affirmed. B then appealed to the House of Lords.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions | 1 All E.R. 833 (2000)
Many statutes that define crimes describe only the acts that constitute the offense. They often don’t speak of a mental element, or what we often call the mens rea. Does that mean that these offenses don’t have a mental element? The British House of Lords considered that question in B versus Director of Public Prosecutions.
Fifteen-year-old B sat down next to a thirteen-year-old girl on a bus and asked her several times to perform oral sex on him. The girl refused. B was charged in Great Britain’s version of juvenile court with inciting a child under fourteen years old to commit an act of gross indecency, in violation of section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
B pleaded not guilty. At trial, he offered evidence that he honestly believed the girl to be over fourteen. Had she been fourteen or older, B wouldn’t have been guilty of the charged offense. The trial court ruled that B’s state of mind didn’t constitute a defense to the charge. B then changed his plea to guilty and was duly convicted. B appealed to the Divisional Court, which affirmed. B then appealed to the House of Lords.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
[2015] UKSC 49
UKSC 2013/0243
Beghal (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
On appeal from the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellant is a French national, ordinarily resident in the UK. Her husband is in custody in France in relation to terrorist offences. She arrived in the UK at East Midlands Airport on 4 January 2011 with her three children following a visit to her husband. On arrival she stopped by border officials. She was searched by officers from Leicestershire Constabulary who subsequently conducted an examination of the appellant under Schedule 7. The officers made clear that they would not delay the examination pending the arrival of her lawyer. The appellant did not answer most of the questions put to her. She was subsequently convicted of offences under Schedule 7, namely failing to answer questions. She now appeals against her conviction. The issue in this case is whether the examination or detention of an individual under Schedule 7 engages Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 6 (privilege against self-incrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR. Additionally the appeal considers whether s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 represents a sufficient safeguard against any interference with Art.6 and the appellant's privilege against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by a majority of 4-1.
UKSC 2019/0106
On appeal from the QBD Administrative Court (England and Wales)
The Appellants took part in a demonstration protesting the Defence and Security International weapons fair at the Excel Centre. They were charged with obstructing the highway, contrary to section 137 Highways Act 1980. They were acquitted at trial because their actions fell within the “lawful authority or excuse” defence contained in section 137 Highways Act 1980. The Director for Public Prosecutions appealed successfully by way of case stated to the High Court. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
The issues are:
In criminal proceedings arising out of protest activity:
(1) is deliberate physically obstructive conduct by protesters capable of constituting a lawful excuse for the purposes of s.137 of the Highways Act 1980?; and
(2) what is the test to be applied by an appellate court to an assessment of the decision of the trial court in respect of a statutory defence of ‘lawful excuse’ when Convention rights are engaged in a criminal matter?
The Supreme Court allows the appeal by a majority.
More information is available on our website.
The Judicial Service Commission Is Currently In A Closed Door Meeting To Consider The Petition Against The Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu. The Petition From The Director Of Public Prosecutions Is Seeking To Remove The DCJ From Office
#Kenya #KTNNews #KTNPrime
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more great videos: https://www.youtube.com/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KTNNews
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KTNNewsKenya
For more great content go to http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews and download our apps:
http://std.co.ke/apps/#android
KTN News is a leading 24-hour TV channel in Eastern Africa with its headquarters located along Mombasa Road, at Standard Group Centre. This is the most authoritative news channel in Kenya and beyond.
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions | 1 All E.R. 833 (2000)
Many statutes that define crimes describe only the acts that constitute the offense. They often don’t speak of a mental element, or what we often call the mens rea. Does that mean that these offenses don’t have a mental element? The British House of Lords considered that question in B versus Director of Public Prosecutions.
Fifteen-year-old B sat down next to a thirteen-year-old girl on a bus and asked her several times to perform oral sex on him. The girl refused. B was charged in Great Britain’s version of juvenile court with inciting a child under fourteen years old to commit an act of gross indecency, in violation of section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
B pleaded not guilty. At trial, he offered evidence that he honestly believed the girl to be over fourteen. Had she been fourteen or older, B wouldn’t have been guilty of the charged offense. The trial court ruled that B’s state of mind didn’t constitute a defense to the charge. B then changed his plea to guilty and was duly convicted. B appealed to the Divisional Court, which affirmed. B then appealed to the House of Lords.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/b-a-minor-v-director-of-public-prosecutions
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the office or official charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several criminal jurisdictions around the world. The title is used mainly in jurisdictions that are or have been members of the Commonwealth of nations.
Australia
Australia has a Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which was set up by the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and started operations in 1984. The eight States and territories of Australia also have their own DPPs.
Each state and territory has its own DPP. The Office of DPP operates independently of Government. Ultimate authority for authorising prosecutions lies with the Attorney General. However, since that is a political post, and it is desired to have a non-political (public service) post carry out this function in most circumstances, the prosecutorial powers of the AG are normally delegated to the DPP.
It is common for those who hold the office of Commonwealth or State DPP later to be appointed to a high judicial office. Examples include Mark Weinberg, now a justice of the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria; Michael Rozenes, now Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria; Brian Martin, now Chief Justice of the Northern Territory; John McKechnie, now a justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia; and Paul Coghlan, now a justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
National director of Public Prosecutions, Adv Batohi ... The only way that we can truly honor Rodney's legacy is by ensuring that the work of building a fair and effective national prosecuting authority continues uninterrupted.
The Garda is due to send a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) following its investigation into the fatal stabbing of a 34-year-old man in Finglas last June, an inquest has heard.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, said ... "The decisions we make as prosecutors have a profound impact on the lives of victims and defendants ... "As Director of Public Prosecutions, I am doing just that.
Taoiseach Simon Harris has today announced record investment was secured in Budget 2025 for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) ... "Budget 2025 saw a step change in the funding of the justice system.
CDPP - CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions published this content on October 29, 2024, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein.
As Australia's Federal Prosecution Service, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (CDPP) has a significant role and responsibility for ensuring that all CDPP staff treat victims with ...
377 of 447 ...I believe strongly in the purpose and objectives of ... innovative ways of working ... CDPP - CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions published this content on October 29, 2024, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein.
Managing a huge increase in the number of trial dates for murder and rape cases since the appointment of extra judges is a key challenge facing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), according to her annual report for last year.
