IN THE <convenient town/city> CROWN COURT

URN NUMBER

B E T W E E N:

REGINA

.v.

<DEFENDANT (CAPITALS)>

The Information

COUNT 1

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Common Assault contrary to The Common Law

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

On <date> you <DEFENDANT> unlawfully entered the home of <ACCUSER> at

<Accusers full address & Postcode> and threatened unlawful violence against the
occupants. You were on the property as a trespasser and threatened to smash down the
door. You threatened and used a battering ram to support your threat of violence. The
occupants were caused fear for their personal safety by your threats of unlawful
violence.

COUNT 2

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Misconduct in Public office contrary to The Common Law

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

On <date> you <DEFENDANT> wilfully failed to perform your duty to such a

degree that it amounted to an abuse of the public's trust which has been placed with
you. You were tasked to carry out enquires, and were offered by <ACCUSER> a
peaceful, honourable, equitable, and amicable method for assisting you in that respect.
However when lawfully refused actual entry to the home of <ACCUSER> you did
without lawful authority force an entry to this private home.

Once on the property you were informed on numerous occasions that you were a
trespasser and properly asked to leave. You ignored these demands and instead used
the threat of unlawful violence against the occupants of the property.
COUNT 3

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Kidnap contrary to The Common Law

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

On <date> you <DEFENDANT>, at the address known as <Accusers full address &
Postcode>, you <DEFENDANT> did with the assistance of <2ND DEFENDANT>
forcibly removed <ACCUSER> and carry him away, you had no lawful authority to
do so.

There was no consent from the victim and you used unlawful violence to carry out
this kidnap.

COUNT 4

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

False Imprisonment contrary to The Common Law

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

On <date> you <DEFENDANT>, at the address known as <Accusers full address &
Postcode>, you <DEFENDANT> did with the assistance of <2ND DEFENDANT>
forcibly removed <ACCUSER> and did carry him away, in doing so you detained
him without lawful authority, thereby falsely imprisoning him.

A) Overview

The Informant is laying information for the purpose of seeking the

granting of a process for warrant of arrest (or in alternative) a
summons. The Informant for the purpose of this Private Prosecution
is <NAME OF INFORMANT>. The Defendants subject of the
information laid is a/are person(s) known as <NAME(s) OF
DEFENDANT(s)>, hereinafter referred to as the Defendant(s).

The Defendants address is <FULL ADDRESS AND POSTCODE OF

DEFENDANT>. It is requested that any summons be sent to that
address.

B) Legal framework
The Private Prosecution sought by the Informant satisfies the
provisions of section 6(1) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and is
not a restricted prosecution in that:

1. The offence alleged against the Defendant is not one where the
consent of the Attorney General is required
2. The offence is an indictable offence and therefore it is not time
barred by statute
3. The offence alleged against the Defendant is not an offence where
the DPP has a statutory duty over the conduct of the proceedings
4. The allegation constitutes an offence in English law and there is
prima faci grounds that the essential ingredients are present
5. The court has jurisdiction over the allegation subject of the
information
6. The Informant is not statute barred to lay the information 1
7. There is no impending prosecution by the CPS against the
Defendant based on the information subject of this prosecution.
8. The Courts have repeatedly emphasised that the discretion
to refuse to issue a summons must be sparingly exercised,
and only if the prosecution undermines the rule of law or is
an affront to justice: for example, R v Milton Keynes
Magistrates Court, ex p Roberts [1995] Crim LR 224. There is
nothing in this information before the court to suggest that
prosecuting any Defendant will undermine the rule of law or be an
affront to justice.

C) Background

<A sketch of the background behind the request, with sufficient

detail, and in multiple paragraphs. (DO NOT LUMP IT ALL INTO ONE
UNREADABLE PARAGRAPH!>

The presentation of this Indictment is not a frivolous act on my part.

<Give reason for grievance>.

It may be considered that my request for Grant is considered

vexatious. In R v Durham Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Davies
(1993) The Times, May 25, 1993 the judgment was: The fact that
a private prosecutor is motivated by personal hostility and
obsessed with his case is insufficient reason to justify a
decision not to commit a defendant to trial.

Furthermore, there is a House of Lords ruling in Elman v Myers 1940:

An order issued by any Judicial chair occupant who elects to
1
R V West London Justices, ex parte Klahn [1979] 2 ALL ER 221
ignore the evidence or acts in contempt of the evidence
presented to the judicial chair occupant; amounts to a false
instrument, which is abuse of office and leading to the
imposition of costs attached to the false instrument

D) CONCLUSION

<Write why you think the Defendant(s) should be prosecuted. Again

create muliple paragraphs as necessary>

The CPS threshold test2 is not a pre requisite to a Private

Prosecution. However, the fact that there is incontrovertible
evidence in the form of the various Witness Statements, is a clear
indication that there is a realistic prospect of conviction if this
matter proceeds to Trial. In other words, whilst this prosecution is
brought privately, it is submitted that the CPS threshold test is met
in any event.

Information laid by:

<NAME OF INFORMANT>
<DATE>

Judges Signature: ______________________________________________

Dated: ______________________________________

2
Also known as the Full Code Test