Chief Magistrate Rejects ‘Vexatious’ Private Prosecution as Abuse of Process

The Chief Magistrate for England and Wales, Paul Goldspring, has dismissed an attempted private prosecution brought by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), ruling that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and describing the application as “vexatious.” The decision underscores the duty of private prosecutors to act fairly and candidly, while cautioning against the use of criminal proceedings to advance political or ideological objectives.

The application, filed before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, sought the issuance of a summons under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 against an unnamed individual holding dual British-Israeli nationality who was alleged to be serving in the Israeli armed forces. The ICJP argued that the individual’s service contravened the provisions of the 1870 Act.

Rejecting the application, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring held that the proposed prosecution was legally misconceived, unsupported by sufficient evidence, and marked by “profound breaches of the duty of candour.” He emphasised that a private prosecutor assumes the role of a “minister for justice” and therefore owes a high duty of fairness and full disclosure to the court when seeking criminal process.

A central reason for dismissing the application was the ICJP’s failure to disclose six separate statements issued by the UK Government between 2014 and 2025 concerning British nationals serving in the Israeli military. According to the judgment, the omission of these official statements constituted a “serious and inexcusable” failure to place relevant material before the court, thereby undermining the integrity of the application.

The Court also noted that the applicants failed to draw attention to existing Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance indicating that the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 - a statute that has not been enforced in modern times—does not apply where armed forces are engaged in civil wars, counter-terrorism operations, or internal uprisings. The omission of this guidance was regarded as another significant failure to present the legal framework accurately.

In addition, Chief Magistrate Goldspring criticised the ICJP for failing to disclose what he described as “deep connections” between the organisation and Bindmans LLP, the London-based human rights law firm representing it in the proceedings. The Court was equally critical of the expert witness relied upon by the applicants, describing her as “a campaigner and activist committed to the political agenda pursued by this prosecution,” rather than an independent expert.

The judgment stressed that these omissions were not merely procedural defects but amounted to the withholding of material information central to the Court’s assessment of whether criminal proceedings should be permitted. Chief Magistrate Goldspring concluded that the criminal justice system cannot be used as “a platform for political posturing or the pursuit of ideological grievances,” holding that the abuse of process was clear and refusing to issue the requested summons.

The ruling reinforces the principle that private prosecutions, while recognised within the criminal justice system, must be conducted with complete candour, legal merit, and procedural fairness. It also serves as a reminder that courts will intervene where criminal proceedings are perceived to pursue political objectives rather than the proper administration of justice.