Chief Magistrate Dismisses Private Prosecution as Abuse of Process
Summary
The Chief Magistrate for England and Wales has dismissed a private prosecution application by the International Centre for Justice of Palestinians (ICJP) against an unnamed dual British-Israeli national serving in the Israeli armed forces, under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. Paul Goldspring ruled the application an abuse of process, citing profound breaches of the duty of candour, including failure to disclose six government statements on British nationals serving in foreign armed forces, failure to note CPS guidance on the Act's limited scope, and undisclosed connections between ICJP and Bindmans LLP. The application for a summons was refused.
“'The criminal courts are not a platform for political posturing or the pursuit of ideological greivances.'”
What changed
The Chief Magistrate issued a substantive ruling dismissing a private prosecution application under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, finding it vexatious and an abuse of process. The court identified three categories of serious omission: failure to disclose six government statements spanning 2014-2025 on British nationals serving in foreign armed forces; failure to note CPS guidance limiting the Act's applicability; and undisclosed connections between the applicant organisation and Bindmans LLP, the instructing law firm. The expert witness was described as a campaigner committed to the prosecution's political agenda.
Private prosecutors and campaign groups considering criminal proceedings in England and Wales should note the court's clear statement that criminal courts are not a platform for political posturing. The duty of candour on private prosecutors was characterised as equivalent to that of a minister for justice, requiring disclosure of all material government positions and guidance. Failure to disclose such material constitutes an abuse of process, and undisclosed relationships between applicants and their legal representatives will be scrutinised. This ruling reinforces the high threshold for private prosecutions and signals courts' readiness to refuse summons applications where political objectives are evident.
Archived snapshot
Apr 22, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
- 5 Comments
The use of criminal courts as a platform for political posturing is an abuse of process, the chief magistrate has ruled throwing out a 'vexatious' attempted private prosecution. In International Centre for Justice of Palestinians v A, campaign group ICJP applied for a summons under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 against an unnamed individual of dual British-Israeli nationality serving in the Israeli armed forces.
Source: Michael Cross
Dismissing the application, Paul Goldspring, chief magistrate for England and Wales, said the attempted prosecution was misconceived in law, evidentially hollow and made 'profound breaches of the duty of candour'.
'A private prosecutor must act as a "minister for justice" and owes a high duty of candour to the court,' the judge stated. However, according to the judgment, the would-be prosecutors failed to disclose six separate government statements between 2014 and 2025 on British nationals serviing in Israel's armed forces. 'This is a serious and inexcusable omission', judge ruled.
The ICJP also failed to note CPS guidance that the Foreign Enlistment Act - which has not been enforced in modern times - does not apply to enlistment forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings.
The ICJP also failed to disclose 'deep connections' between itself and Bindmans LLP, the London human rights firm acting in the case. It was also highly critical of the expert witness called by ICJP, describing her as 'a campaigner and activist committed to the political agenda pursued by this prosecution'.
'These omissions are not merely procedural oversights. They are the witholding of material information, which is a critical factor in determining an abuse of process,' the judge ruled. 'The criminal courts are not a platform for political posturing or the pursuit of ideological greivances.' It concluded that 'the vexatious nature of these proceedings is clear'. The application for a summons was refused.
This article is now closed for comment.
- 5 Comments
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Inner Temple Library Current Awareness
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Law Gazette.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Inner Temple Library Current Awareness publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.