Nolle prosequi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Investigating and charging crimes |
| Criminal investigation |
| Arrest warrant · Search warrant |
| Probable cause · Knock and announce |
| Exigent circumstance |
| Search and seizure · Arrest |
| Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.) |
| Grand jury |
| Criminal prosecution |
| Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi |
| Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law |
| Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition |
| Habeas corpus · Bail |
| Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system |
| Charges and pleas |
| Arraignment · Indictment |
| Plea · Peremptory plea |
| Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain |
| Presentence Investigation |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal defenses |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
Nolle prosequi is a Latin legal phrase meaning "unwilling to pursue." It is the term used in many common law criminal jurisdictions to describe a prosecutor's application to discontinue criminal charges before trial, or up until, but before verdict.[1]
[edit] Explanation
Generally, the application to "nolle" or "nol pros" a case is made after the filing of an information or indictment, when the prosecutor representing the state's interest is of the opinion that an adjudication of the charges is not in the interest of the public and/or that the available and admissible evidence is not sufficient to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt. In most circumstances, the court with jurisdiction to hear the case must adjudicate on the application for nolle prosequi to determine where the public interest lies.
The frequency with which this arises depends on the nature of the administrative system in place for vetting allegations of crime before charges are laid. In some states, there is a highly centralised system. Thus, in England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service is the principal prosecuting authority, and is responsible for advising the police on cases for possible prosecution and reviewing all cases submitted by the police. The CPS makes the decision whether to prosecute, and determines the charge in all but minor cases. In other states, charges may be laid by the police or junior prosecutors. The ability of a senior prosecutor to seek a nolle prosequi is therefore most important because it provides a "roadblock" to vexatious prosecutions and protects civil liberties.
Further, in many states, citizens have the right to prefer criminal charges as a private prosecution. In such cases, the state has the right to review the evidence in advance of the trial and to determine whether the case should be allowed to go forward. Apart from the issue of vexatiousness, one key factor may be the issue of double jeopardy. Once acquitted, a defendant cannot be tried a second time on the same charges. Private citizens do not have access to the police and other specialised investigation services. The evidence collected may therefore be inadequate to secure a conviction. So long as a jury trial has not commenced, the judgment on an application for nolle prosequi is not an adjudication on the merits of the prosecution, and so the charges may be brought again when more evidence has been collected.
In some common law states, the ultimate right of supervision over the prosecutorial system lies with the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions). He or she will decide if the evidence is sufficient to justify a prosecution and provides an automatic check and balance to prevent cases of little merit proceeding.
Even though the power of prosecution is given to independent prosecutors such as the DPP or the CPS, the ultimate authority to prosecute or not to prosecute lies with a government minister (e.g. the Attorney-General). The government may choose at any time to discontinue a prosecution, if in its view the prosecution is against the public interest.
[edit] Notable cases
In 1957 suspected serial killer John Bodkin Adams, who worked in Eastbourne, Great Britain, was tried for the murders of two elderly widows, Edith Alice Morrell and Gertrude Hullett. When he was found not guilty of killing the former, Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller controversially entered a nolle prosequi regarding the latter charge. Not only was there seemingly little reason to enter it (Adams wasn't suffering from ill health), the Hullett charge was deemed to be the stronger of the two cases. Lord Justice Patrick Devlin, the presiding judge, in his post-trial book termed this "an abuse of power".[2] Detective Superintendent Herbert Hannam of Scotland Yard, the chief investigator, suspected political interference,[3] and Home Office pathologist Francis Camps suspected Adams of killing 163 patients.[4]
[edit] Notes
- ^ A nolle prosequi can be entered at any time after the indictment or information has been signed and before verdict: R v Dunn (supra); R v Colling (1847) 2 Cox CC 184; R v Sneesby (1951) St R Qd 26; R v Economou (1989) 51 SASR 421; R v Heald (1979) Tas R 185 source: R v Michael Charles Baenisch SASC 5679 (28 June 1996) para. 12
- ^ Devlin, 1985
- ^ Cullen, 2006
- ^ Cullen, 2006
- Cullen, Pamela V., "A Stranger in Blood: The Case Files on Dr John Bodkin Adams", London, Elliott & Thompson, 2006, ISBN 1-904027-19-9
- Devlin, Patrick; "Easing the Passing", London, The Bodley Head, 1985
Courts seldom adjudicate on the apllication for nolle prosequi. Instead, courts typically sign an order prepared by the prosecution or make a docket entry reflecting the case has been "nolle pros'ed."
