IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

KING'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Claim No: [TO BE ASSIGNED]

__________________________________________

THE KING

(on the application of)

ACHILLEAS CONSTANTINOU

Claimant

- and -

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Defendant

__________________________________________

DETAILED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS

__________________________________________

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1.The Claimant's statement of grounds is legally unassailable because:

(a) Binding UK precedent (R v DPP ex parte Manning [2001] QB 330) requires the CPS to explain decisions not to prosecute where a suspect has been identified [Exhibit A1];

(b) ECHR jurisprudence (Mocanu v Romania; Finucane v UK) establishes that delays of 14-23 years violate Articles 2 and 3 — the Claimant has waited 41 years [Exhibit A2];

(c) The conflict of interest arising from Sir Keir Starmer's prior representation of the family (2006-2008) before becoming DPP (2008-2013) was never documented or managed — the Defendant cannot prove otherwise [Exhibit A3];

(d) The Defendant's own published ethical standards condemn his conduct [Exhibit C1] [Exhibit C2];

(e) Documentary evidence from 1996 establishes that the Defendant championed the very principles he later violated — he cannot claim ignorance of these standards [Exhibit C3].

PART II: THE DEFENDANT'S OWN WORDS

2.On 15 May 2013, Sir Keir Starmer QC (then Director of Public Prosecutions) stated:

"You can only be held accountable if you indicate up front how you will approach a problem and are prepared to go out afterwards to explain your decisions." [C1]

3.On 1 November 2009, Sir Keir Starmer published the CPS Statement of Ethical Principles:

"The hallmarks of the CPS must be: Probity, fairness, openness, accountability." [C2]

4.More significantly, in 1996 — twelve years before becoming DPP — Sir Keir Starmer stated on camera:

"Justice could never be achieved, however hard the individual judge tries in any particular case... when there's a huge imbalance between the parties." [C3]

5.He further stated:

"It shows that ordinary individuals committed to their cause can grapple with legal issues that we pretend are very complicated and can win against the odds." [C3]

6.The Claimant, Achilleas Constantinou, is precisely such an "ordinary individual" — fighting the State for 41 years with no resources. The Defendant championed these principles before becoming the obstacle to their realisation.

7.The Defendant cannot defend this claim without contradicting his own documented beliefs spanning 27 years (1996-2013).

PART III: THE THREE PILLARS OF THE CLAIMANT'S CASE

Pillar 1: The Manning Precedent (Binding UK Authority)

8.In R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Manning [2001] QB 330, Lord Bingham held:

"The ordinary expectation would naturally be that a prosecution would follow. In the absence of compelling grounds for not giving reasons, we would expect the Director to give reasons in such a case." [A1]

9.Application: In October 2022, police informed the family they had identified the suspect. Under Manning, the CPS must explain its decision not to prosecute. It has not done so.

Pillar 2: ECHR Precedents (Guaranteed Violation)

10.The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that prolonged investigative failures violate Articles 2 and 3 ECHR:

Pillar 3: Conflict of Interest (Burden on Defendant)

11.Sir Keir Starmer was the family's QC (2006-2008), then DPP (2008-2013). No conflict management documentation exists. [A3]

12.The burden of proving proper conflict management rests on the decision-maker. The Defendant cannot discharge this burden. The conflict was not managed.

PART IV: ANTICIPATED DEFENCES AND WHY THEY FAIL

PART V: THE APRIL 2021 CONTRADICTION

13.In April 2021, a senior CPS prosecutor concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge.

14.A superior overruled this assessment the same day, finding the evidence "wholly inconclusive".

15.Both conclusions cannot be correct. This is internal contradiction, not reasoned assessment. The CPS has refused to explain this contradiction to the family.

PART VI: SETTLEMENT TERMS

16.The Defendant's only rational course of action is settlement on the following terms:

(a) Full written explanation of the April 2021 contradiction;

(b) Disclosure of all conflict-of-interest management records (2008-2013);

(c) Independent review of the case by prosecutors unconnected to Sir Keir Starmer's tenure;

(d) Formal apology to the Constantinou family for the 41-year delay;

(e) Compensation: EUR 125,000 - 150,000;

(f) Costs on the indemnity basis.

RELIEF SOUGHT

17.The Claimant seeks:

(i) Declarations that the Defendant breached the duty to give reasons under Manning, Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, and the duty to manage conflicts of interest;

(ii) Mandatory order requiring full explanation of the April 2021 decision within 28 days;

(iii) Mandatory order requiring independent review of the prosecution decision;

(iv) Damages pursuant to section 8 Human Rights Act 1998: EUR 125,000 - 150,000;

(v) Costs on the indemnity basis.

CONCLUSION

18.The Defendant's position is untenable. Every defence available to him fails against binding authority and his own documented beliefs spanning 27 years.

19.The Claimant, Achilleas Constantinou, is 77 years old. He has waited 41 years for an explanation. He will not wait longer.

20.The Claimant will succeed.