Judgments Regina v Durham Constabulary and another (Appellants) ex parte R (FC) (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice) Regina v Durham Constabulary (Appellants) and another ex..

In Regina v Durham Constabulary and another (Appellants) ex parte R (FC) (Respondent) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice), the House of Lords considered the legality of a warning given to a young offender under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The appellants, the Chief Constable of the Durham Constabulary and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, challenged the decision of the Queen's Bench Divisional Court, which had quashed the decision to warn the respondent, a young offender, on the grounds that the procedure was, without consent, incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The House of Lords allowed the appeals and quashed the Divisional Court's order, holding that the warning procedure did not involve the determination of a criminal charge against the respondent and therefore did not engage the respondent's right to a fair trial under Article 6.

The House of Lords found that the warning procedure under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was not a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that the primary focus of the right to a fair trial is the trial itself, and once a decision had been made not to prosecute, the criminal charge ceased to exist. The court further held that the giving and recording of a warning did not involve the determination of a criminal charge, as the warning was not a conviction and did not constitute a criminal record. The court also held that the warning did not result in a public declaration of guilt by an administrative process, as access to the information recorded on the Police National Computer was limited to authorised personnel for the prevention of crime.

The House of Lords also considered the compatibility of the warning procedure with the respondent's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. While the court found that the warning procedure may be inconsistent with the child's rights under some international instruments, it held that the procedure was compatible with the child's Convention rights and that these appeals should be allowed.

In summary, the House of Lords held that the warning procedure under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was not a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore did not engage the respondent's right to a fair trial. The court also found that the warning procedure was compatible with the respondent's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. The House of Lords allowed the appeals and quashed the Divisional Court's order.