 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article is written entirely about Private Prosecution in England and Wales but the 'Notable private prosecutions' are from the US and Canada. There is a load of material on how the system works in Canada to be found here...
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/fps-sfp/fpd/ch26.html#26_2
but I don't have time to edit the article right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.229 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I am seriously mistaken, private prosecutions are essentially impossible in the United States; the states generally reserve that right for themselves, and since federal crimes are either (a) defined to give federal agencies jurisdiction or (b) intended to cover federal government employees, so nobody tries to pursue those cases anyway. They may also have reserved that right by statute; I can see no constitutional reason why they couldn't. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does it ever happen?
editThis article doesn't address the most obvious questions.
1)How often do PPs happen? 2)How often do they actually result in a conviction?
BillMasen (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC) answer to question 2 ALL UNPAID FINES ARE CONVICTIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.77.18 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What about?
editWhat about shoplifting and parking prosecutions? In the courts I've seen "police prosecutors" (who are a kind public prosecutor, but not lawyers and not from the public prosecutors dept), tax officials, and a barrister representing the local council. I think that limiting the description just to "public" and "private" may be over-simplifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Local Authorities in the UK are considered a special case of a private prosecutor - some legislation limits prosecution to e.g. the Local Weights and Measures Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.229 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Dubious
editAt LEAST in California DAs have nearly total discretion. And what's in the article is SYNTH tenuously tied to a primary source that doesn't reflect reality, as noted in my first sentence. Leaving it in pending efforts to verify.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Can't speak to any other states, but I've fixed California. Peaux (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)