Section 205:

205. Review of decision of Director of Public Prosecutions – Public Officers’ Protection Act—The plaintiff claimed damages against the Director of Public Prosecutions for malicious prosecution. The case was referred to the Court of Civil Appeal for decision on a number of preliminary objections made by the defendant. The issues were (i) whether it is open to sue the Director of Public Prosecutions; (ii) whether a plaintiff can ask the Court to determine whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has acted in breach of the Constitution or any other law; and (iii) whether the Public Officers’ Protection Act violates section 3 of the Constitution. HELD (i) section 119 of the Constitution must be interpreted to mean that the word “person” where it first and last occurs includes the Director of Public Prosecutions so that it must be possible for any person to direct an action against the defendant in order to vindicate any of his or her constitutional rights; (ii) the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision is an administrative decision and can be reviewed by the Courts. It falls broadly into 2 categories:- (a) the Courts will not interfere with the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to file a nolle prosequi; (b) where the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to prosecute, the matter automatically falls under the control of the Courts by virtue of sections 10, 76 and 82 of the Constitution; (iii) the Public Officers’ Protection Act merely prescribes a limitation period and cannot be struck down on the ground that it infringes the citizen’s fundamental right to the protection of the law. Lagesse v DPP (1990).