🔗 Share this article

During warm season of 2018, independent detective Simon Davison obtained a phone call from a woman claiming her ex- boyfriend had stolen £10,000 from her. Carol, a transport coordinator at a local council, constituted an unusual client for Davison. As the head of investigative operations at a crisis consultancy in London, Davison typically works for wary companies and affluent individuals. A former police detective, Davison has recovered stolen cryptocurrency, discovered secret properties owned by bankrupt business people and located fraudsters working from Cyprus.

Comprehending Private Prosecutions

Davison's specialty lies in non-state legal actions, a little-known area of law that enables victims to finance their own justice. These cases are processed in the identical courts used by public prosecutors for England and Wales, and they can impose the same prison sentences for defendants. "We basically replicate the procedure between police and public prosecutors," Davison explained. The primary difference is that police officers are representatives of the state, whereas individuals contact Davison when state agencies cannot provide help.

An Example of Monetary Deception

The woman's ex-boyfriend, Jiro Wilson, had convinced her to provide him money to finance a company he was creating. In return, Wilson committed to giving her shares in his new firm. "In retrospect, I could recognize how gullible I was to believe him," Carol later recalled in a witness statement. "He would often call me suspicious, and definitely made me feel this way when I thought he was dating other women."

One evening, while surreptitiously looking through Wilson's phone, she saved the numbers of other women in his contacts, and began messaging them covertly. To Carol's shock, three women told her that Wilson had also "taken" thousands of pounds from them. Carol established a WhatsApp group, and organized to meet the women at one of their homes in Exeter. The four women discovered that each had been deceived in the same manner. "He was a disgusting narcissist," one of them commented. In total, Wilson had stolen £46,000 from them, assuring they would gain the benefits of putting money in his company. He spent the money on escorts, restaurant meals and motorbikes.

In Situations Where Law Enforcement Shows Limited Interest

Carol notified Wilson's financial crime to the police, who referred her to the fraud reporting service, which gave her a reference number and never followed up with her again. The three other women also failed to interest law enforcement in their case. Beyond recovering their money, the women desired justice. One contacted a lawyer in Exeter called Jeremy Asher. "It was extremely clear that this was a significant fraud perpetrated by a very sly, calculating individual," Asher remembered. "But the police weren't interested." Asher recommended the women to initiate a private prosecution. This approach would be costly – potentially tens of thousands of pounds – but their case was so strong that Asher said the court would likely repay their costs. So the women gathered the money, and on Asher's advice, Carol contacted Davison, the private investigator.

Developing the Case

As he investigated the case, Davison found that Wilson also appeared to have falsified his VAT returns. The judge who heard the private prosecution in December 2020 decided Wilson's offences were potentially so serious that public prosecutors should take over the case. Government prosecutors passed the case to the police, who found that Wilson had submitted nearly £250,000 in false VAT returns, and had stolen a further £50,000 from a government loan scheme. On 13 June 2023, Wilson admitted guilt to seven counts of fraud at Exeter crown court. A judge sentenced him to six years in prison and described him as a "deceitful parasite."

Increasing Phenomenon of Private Prosecutions

Had the police taken Carol and the other women's original allegations more seriously, a private prosecution would never have been required. But their situation is not rare. The result is that over the past decade, a parallel criminal justice system has emerged in England and Wales, staffed by lawyers who specialise in privately prosecuting crimes, and ex- police officers who examine them. Official data on private prosecutions are limited, but in 2024 they accounted for a quarter of all cases in magistrates courts in England and Wales. According to one law firm, between 2016 and 2021 the number of private prosecutions more than doubled. "Fifteen years ago, they were extremely uncommon," said a barrister who specialises in white-collar crime. Since then, "it's been like the stock market going up. It's just a vertical line."

Availability and Cost Concerns

Some regard these prosecutions as a answer to shrinking state budgets, and a way to obtain justice when all other options have failed. But the risk is that well-resourced victims can afford something unavailable to others. A defence barrister noted that, in his experience, private prosecutions were typically brought by "people who can afford to spend a million, or a couple of million, if it comes to it." The cost of examining complex cases puts such prosecutions out of reach of most average people. "As it stands, they fill a gap in name only," said a solicitor at a City law firm. "If you really wanted to fill that gap, the best way to do it would be by adequately funding the criminal justice system."

Financial Crime Instances and Police Response

In recent years, fraud has only grown. In England and Wales, it increased by 31% in 2024 alone. Yet the police have, as a rule, shown little interest in addressing it. Several former police officers noted that it was seen as boring. "There's a real focus towards action. Catching a burglar and chasing them down the street," said a former detective chief inspector. Whereas with fraud cases, "you need someone who is willing to go through a thousand pages of a spreadsheet." Few people join the police to examine Microsoft Excel documents. As one officer put it in a 2019 report, "Fraud doesn't bang, bleed or shout."

Current Systems and Their Current Shortcomings

The main port of call for victims is the national hotline, Action Fraud, which was founded in 2009. When a retired sergeant used to work at a control room logging emergency calls, he would often direct callers to Action Fraud. "We thought, these experts are highly capable. They've got adequate resources, they're informed," he remembered. "You're not talking about some community policeman who has no idea."

In reality, Action Fraud is a call centre whose day-to-day running was, until 2019, outsourced to a private US company that employed call handlers who received just two weeks of training and were paid close to the minimum wage. When an undercover reporter worked at Action Fraud in 2019, they found staff taking calls from victims while scrolling through their phones and engaging in distracting activities. Some of their managers mocked fraud victims as "gullible individuals."

Monetary Considerations of Private Prosecutions

While victims cover the initial costs of private prosecutions, many of their expenses are ultimately funded by taxpayers, whether or not their case is successful. Every time a firm wraps up a private prosecution, they ask the judge to reimburse them from central funds, a source of public funds that covers the costs incurred in criminal prosecutions. The relevant government unit then reviews the firm's application and decides how much money they get back. "It's not a blank cheque," said one legal expert. "But in my experience, you typically get 80% or 90% of your costs reimbursed." Firms specializing in private prosecutions charge a higher hourly rate than public prosecutors, so private prosecutions "almost inevitably cost the state much more," one judge noted in a 2014 ruling. According to available data, the government has paid out significant sums to cover private prosecution fees in recent years.

Potential Improper Use and Exploitation

Private prosecutions can also be useful weapons: some legal experts mentioned having seen cases where wealthy people "try to use private prosecutions just as a way of bullying someone, basically." Rail companies have been particularly adept at criminalising people for minor rule-breaking in recent years, fast-tracking strict prosecutions through streamlined procedures. Defendants receive a letter detailing a charge, to which they must respond within 21 days. If they don't respond (because the letter gets lost in the post, for example), they can be tried and sentenced by a single magistrate, who can criminally convict them without a court hearing, using only minimal evidence.

Coming Changes and Factors

Despite the growing demand for this shadow justice system, some people in the industry worry about its long-term viability. Government proposals currently making their way through parliament contain details that could significantly affect the entire business model. It proposes that lawyers should only be awarded "adequate" costs from central funds. The proposal doesn't state how much would count as "reasonably sufficient," but in theory it could mean that highly paid lawyers would suddenly find themselves earning lower rates.

Earlier this year, government authorities took a negative view of private prosecutors in a consultation paper, alleging that some of them had "acted unlawfully, improperly and well below the standards the public expects." Its main target was an organization that brought numerous successful private prosecutions against its operators between 1991 and 2015, sending innocent employees to prison for theft and fraud. In theory, it should be possible to distinguish between such scandals and justified cases, since public prosecutors can put a stop to any private prosecution. In practice, they are too overstretched to monitor every case.

Ethical Questions and Public Concern

If such prosecutions provoke a basic unease, it can be because they assume a power that many people think should belong to the state. "How do we feel about the state effectively lending the keys to its tanks to a private individual, and saying, you can have fun with these for a little while?" said a defence barrister. Private prosecutors emphasize that they apply the same public interest test as the state does when deciding whether to prosecute. But unlike public prosecutors, who receive a salary regardless of whether they prosecute a case, private firms get paid to bring cases, not turn them down.

"The old thing that used to be said about public prosecutors was that they enjoy no victories and suffer no defeats," noted a former director of public prosecutions. "If you're a private law firm and your whole business model depends on bringing private prosecutions, you want to win. Your business model is: we will get you a conviction."

Conclusion

If the government reduces the fees that private prosecutors can claim back from the state, the industry that has thrived in the wake of austerity will certainly diminish. So long as the government continues to underfund the criminal justice system of adequate funding, however, the demand for such alternatives will persist. During research, multiple legal experts mentioned the health service. They drew a parallel between private prosecutions and the clinics and surgeries that improvise expensive solutions to the problem of a failing public institution. In both instances, the solution only compounds the problem: when some people can buy their own criminal cases or medical treatments, they have fewer reasons to invest in the idea of improving these things for everyone else.