Hello Paul my name is ***** ***** I will help you with this.
Was this after a trial or was there a submission for no case to answer?
It is of no consequence whether it was after trial or it fell at half time.
There is case law that is pretty widely known to the effect that the Crown, in all it's manifestations, is not liable for it's prosecutorial decisions.
The only claim that could be brought would arise if you could show bad faith – malicious prosecution. That is different to showing incompetence.
There is a wealth of case law on this point and it has been considered by Europe and held to be compliant with the HRA.
There was an attempt to extend out malicious prosecution so that there was no need for bad faith but it failed.
Largely that was a policy decision I'm afraid. A view was taken that it was not in the public interest that the Crown spend time defending prosecutorial decisions. I am not actually sure that is right. They would be a good deal more careful with these stupid historical sexual abuse cases if they thought there might be liability.
You can always judicially review the decision to prosecute but there is very little practical point as the verdict was in their favour.
It is also expensive and JR is a high test.
I'm very sorry but that is the reality. Challenging a prosecutor for their decision to prosecute is almost impossible in the UK.
It might change as a result of the celebrity witch hunt as they do at least have the funds to bring actions.
It has not yet.
Can I clarify anything for you?