Ajay Kumar: Created a new article

2023-08-12T07:42:24Z

Created a new article

New page

{{short description|Legal term}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2021}}
'''{{lang|la|Nolle prosequi}}''',{{efn|{{IPAc-en|ˌ|n|ɒ|l|i|_|ˈ|p|r|ɒ|s|ᵻ|k|w|aɪ|,_|ˌ|n|oʊ|l|i|-}} {{respell|NOL|ee|_|PROSS|ih|kwy|,_|NOH|lee|_-}}. {{IPAc-en|usalso|-|_|ˈ|p|r|oʊ|s|ᵻ|-|,_|-|k|w|i}} {{respell|-_|PROH|sih|,_-|kwee}}.<ref>{{citation |contribution=nolle prosequi, ''n''. |title=Oxford English Dictionary |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press }}.</ref><ref>{{citation |contribution=nolle prosequi |title=Merriam-Webster Dictionary |publisher=Merriam-Webster |location=[[Springfield, Massachusetts|Springfield]] }}.</ref>}} abbreviated {{lang|la|nol}} or {{lang|la|nolle pros}}, is [[legal Latin]] meaning "to be unwilling to pursue".<ref name="refdotcom">"[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Nolle+prosequi Nolle prosequi]". reference.com. Accessed 2012-03-02.</ref><ref name="perseus.tufts.edu">"[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dprosequor Nolle prosequi]". Lewis & Short. Accessed 2017-02-17.</ref> It is a type of [[prosecutorial discretion]] in [[common law]], used for [[prosecutor]]s' declarations that they are voluntarily ending a [[criminal law|criminal case]] before [[trial (law)|trial]] or before a [[verdict]] is rendered;<ref>A ''nolle prosequi'' can be entered at any time after the indictment or information has been signed and before verdict:''R v Dunn'' [http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/EngR/1843/60.pdf <nowiki>[1843]</nowiki> {{abbr|EngR|English Reports}} 60]; R v Colling (1847) 2 [[Cox's Criminal Cases|Cox CC]] [https://books.google.com/books?id=tGk0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA184 184]; R v Sneesby (1951) [[State Reports Queensland|St R Qd]] 26; {{cite AustLII|SASC|1670|1989|litigants=R v Economou |paralleicte=(1989) 51 [[South Australian State Reports|SASR]] 421}}; {{cite AustLII|TASRp|16|1979|litigants=R v Heald |parallecite=[1979] [[Tasmanian Reports|Tas R]] 185}} source: {{cite AustLII|SASC|5679|1996|litigants=R v Michael Charles Baenisch |date=28 June 1996 |pinpoint=para. 12}}.</ref> it is a kind of [[Motion (legal)#To dismiss|motion to dismiss]] and contrasts with an [[involuntary dismissal]]. This has been used frequently in the state of Virginia.

==Application in United States law==
''Nolle prosequi'' as a declaration is most often used in criminal cases, but in jurisdictions making use of ''nolle prosequi'' in civil lawsuits, it is used by a plaintiff that voluntarily drops its claims. In civil cases, a retraxit<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/retraxit|title = Legal Definition of RETRAXIT}}</ref> or a motion for [[voluntary dismissal]] may be made by a plaintiff instead of a declaration of ''nolle prosequi'', depending upon the custom and rules of a given jurisdiction.

=== Decision-maker ===
''Nolle prosequi'' as a declaration can be made by a prosecutor in a criminal case either before or during trial, resulting in the prosecutor declining to further pursue the case against the defendant. Courts seldom challenge applications for ''nolle prosequi''. In the [[United States]], judges will usually sign a dismissal order prepared by the prosecution or make a docket entry indicating the disposition of the case to be ''nolle prosse'' after a declaration or motion by the prosecution.

In criminal cases in the United States, it has been held improper for a court to enter an order of ''nolle prosequi'' on its own, without a motion by the prosecutor,<ref name="cox">[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4202544690014107094&hl=en ''United States v. Cox''], 342 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.) (''en banc''), cert denied, 381 U.S. 935 (1965). Involved a federal grand jury indictment against civil rights workers and the refusal by a US attorney to sign the indictment. The Fifth Circuit held that the US attorney's signing or withholding of his signature was within prosecutorial discretion and could not be coerced by the courts. See also the dicta in ''US v. Nixon'', 418 U.S. 683 at 693, 1974, "[The] Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case." (citing ''Cox'').</ref> but as to sentencing discrepancies involved in a sentence recommendation, a trial judge is authorized to reject an underlying guilty plea based upon concerns of fairness and justice or because it is presented after the plea cutoff date.<ref name="grove">[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4529448885415177681&hl=en ''People v. Grove''], 566 N.W.2d 547 at 556, Mich. Sup. Ct. 1997, and cited by Casenote: Criminal Law – Plea Bargaining, 75 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 741, Summer, 1998.</ref> The notes to Rule 48 of the US [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]] (FRCRP) draw attention to the effect of the rule as contrasting with common law. Rule 48 now mandates that prosecutors seek leave of the court before they dismiss a case via filing a ''nolle prosequi''.<ref name="frcpNote">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48 FRCRP 48 notes], cornell.edu. Retrieved 2011-11-8.</ref>

=== Reason ===
The declaration may be made because the charges cannot be proved because vital witnesses have become unavailable or uncooperative, the evidence is too weak to carry the burden of proof, the evidence is fatally flawed in light of the claims that are brought,<ref name="snead">Snead v. Jones, 169 Ala. 143, 53 So. 188; MacLaughlin v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 93 N. J. L. 263, 108 Atl. 309; Dickerson v. Atlantic Refining Co., 201 N. C. 90, 159 S.E. 446; Hobbs v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 182 Iowa 316, 165 N.W. 912.</ref> the prosecutor becomes doubtful that the defendant is guilty, the defendant's innocence is proven, or the defendant has died. It has also been used when a federal criminal charge is brought up against a defendant when the prosecutor on a state charge for the same offense no longer wishes to pursue the case. Usually, that happens when the state prosecutor is content with the sentence on the federal charge and has no need to go any further with the original case.

=== Timing ===
In criminal cases, ''nolle prosequi'' declarations are made generally after an indictment as long as adjudication on the merits has not occurred or, in some jurisdictions, as long as a trial has not commenced. In civil cases, ''nolle prosequi'' declarations are made either before the trial begins or before a judgment on the merits is rendered, depending on the rules of the jurisdiction.

=== Legal effect ===
The entry of a ''nolle prosequi'' is not an acquittal. Since the principle of [[double jeopardy]] therefore does not apply, the defendant may later be indicted on the same charge again.<ref name="klopfer">[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4221560055012353994&hl=en Klopfer v. North Carolina], 386 US 213 at 214, 87 S. Ct. 988, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1, Sup. Ct., 1967.</ref><ref name="swick">[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17187521144565403858&hl=en Swick v. Liautaud], 662 NE 2d 1238, 169 Ill. 2d 504, Ill Sup. Ct., 1996.</ref><ref>Klopfer at 215 et seq.</ref><ref name="wynne">[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1665611583418567020&hl=en Wynne v. Rosen], 464 NE 2d 1348, Mass Sup. J. Ct., 1984.</ref>

=== Application in civil cases ===
In civil cases, a ''nolle prosequi'' or voluntary dismissal may be entered as to one of several counts or claims, or as to one of several defendants, or both. In any jurisdiction, whether a motion for voluntary dismissal or a declaration of ''nolle prosequi'' is used, federal and state rules of [[civil procedure]] generally govern when, how, and why claims may be voluntarily dismissed and apply different rules to different types of claims and to whether a court may give leave to dismiss a matter with or without [[prejudice (legal procedure)|prejudice]].<ref name="frcp">See [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure|FRCP]] Rule 41, for example.</ref>

=== Similarity to a declination of prosecution ===
''Nolle prosequi'' is similar to a declination of prosecution, which is an agreement not to prosecute made before any charges are brought or suit has been filed. A declination of prosecution may be made by an attorney or may be made as an agreement between the aggrieved party and the claimant.

In contrast, ''nolle prosequi'' is usually made after a decision to prosecute has already been made. A declination of prosecution may be made for many reasons, such as weak evidence or a conflict of interest.<ref name="greenblum">Greenblum, [http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/documents/greenblum.pdf What Happens to a Prosecution Deferred-Judicial Oversight of Corporate Deferred Prosecution Agreements] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119054112/http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/documents/greenblum.pdf |date=19 January 2012 }}, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1863 at 1868, 2005.</ref>

== Application and legal effect in English law ==
The power of entering a ''nolle prosequi'' is now rarely used, mostly in cases where a defendant is permanently physically or mentally unfit to appear in court, or when an ordinary member of the public has brought private criminal proceedings which the Attorney General considers it is not in the public interest to continue.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/219140/Crime/A+Summary+Of+The+Supreme+Court+Judgment|title = The CPS Duty to Pull the plug: Gujra Analysed - Criminal Law - UK}}</ref> In practice, where a prosecution is not to be taken forward due to flaws identified in the evidence or the prosecution no longer being in the public interest, the prosecutor will generally offer no evidence and the court will acquit the defendant.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/termination-proceedings-including-discontinuance#c23|title=Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | the Crown Prosecution Service}}</ref>

In the past, a ''nolle prosequi'' was also used to protect a person who was given [[immunity from prosecution]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/termination-proceedings-including-discontinuance|title = Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | the Crown Prosecution Service}}</ref> A ''nolle prosequi'' acts as an indefinite adjournment to the case, not an acquittal. While terminating the proceedings, it does not bar the defendant from being indicted again, but there is no known case of this happening in the century before 1957,<ref>Lord MacDermot (1957), ''The Protection from Power under English Law''</ref> or since.

However, in the [[Al-Yamamah arms deal]], the Director of the Serious Fraud Office was pressured by the Attorney General to terminate an investigation into a claim that [[BAE Systems]] had bribed
influential persons in [[Saudi Arabia]] to secure a profitable defence contract. Although initial pressure from BAE on the grounds of economic damage and the disruption of friendly relations with Saudi Arabia was resisted both by the Director and the Attorney General, further pressure from the Prime Minister, under pressure from the Saudi government which threatened to end co-operation against terrorism, resulted in the Director agreeing to halt the investigation.<ref>J. R. Spencer (2008), "Fiat Justitia, Ruatque Concordia cum Arabe?". ''The Cambridge Law Journal'', Vol. 67, No. 3, p. 456</ref> The Director's decision was challenged by several [[public interest]] organisations, and their challenge succeeded in the [[Divisional Court (England and Wales)|Divisional Court]] but failed in the [[House of Lords]] on the basis that the Director would have known that the Attorney General could stop any prosecution agreed to by the Director by entering a ''nolle prosequi'', and so his decision not to prosecute was reasonable and lawful.<ref>J. R. Spencer (2008), "Fiat Justitia, Ruatque Concordia cum Arabe?" pp. 457-8</ref>

=== Decision-maker and timing ===
Only the [[attorney general]] can enter a ''nolle prosequi'', acting in the public interest. The attorney general is not answerable to the courts but to Parliament for how this power is exercised.<ref>{{cite book |last=Barnett |first=Hilaire |year=2002 |title=Constitutional and Administrative Law |edition=4th |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O5pE0eaboeoC |location=London |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis|Taylor & Francis Group]] |page=160 |isbn=9781843144755 |quote=On proceedings of indictment, the Attorney General, in the name of the Crown, can enter a ''nolle prosequi'', the effect of which stops the legal proceedings. The power is not subject to the control of the courts: ''R v Comptroller of Patents (1899)''.}}</ref> It can be entered at any stage after an [[indictment]] has been signed and before a [[Crown Court]] judgment is made. A ''nolle prosequi'' will usually be requested from the attorney general by the defence but an application can also be made by the prosecution.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/termination-proceedings-including-discontinuance|title = Termination of Proceedings (Including Discontinuance) | the Crown Prosecution Service}}</ref>

==''Nolle prosequi'' in other jurisdictions==

===Canada===
The equivalent power in Canada is a [[Crown Attorney|Crown]]-directed stay of charges. This causes the prosecution to be suspended for a period of one year before an outright dismissal; in practice stayed prosecutions are almost never recommenced.

=== Ireland ===
The power of entering a ''nolle prosequi'' in the Republic of Ireland rests with the [[Director of Public Prosecutions (Ireland)|Director of Public Prosecutions]], and its use is normally in cases where there are problems with the evidence that would make it difficult for the case to proceed. The director may in theory pursue the prosecution later, but this rarely, if ever, happens. As the accused enjoys the [[presumption of innocence]] that all accused people enjoy until they are convicted, an entry of a ''nolle prosequi'' is equated with innocence.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/nolle-prosequi-what-it-means-1.1043034|title = Nolle prosequi: What it means |work=Irish Times |first=Carol |last=Coulter |date=25 April 2006 |access-date=30 July 2022}}</ref> This power is quite widely used: 376 cases of rape, about one-quarter of the total of indictments for this offence, were ended by an entry of a ''nolle prosequi'' in 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/25-of-sex-cases-dropped-without-reason-276810.html|title = 25% of sex cases dropped without reason |work=Irish Examiner |date = 26 July 2014 |first1=Cormac |last1=O'Keeffe |first2=Ann |last2=Cahill |access-date=30 July 2022}}</ref>

=== Australia===
Although there are differences in practice between the different states and territories, the attorney-general, solicitor-general or designated law officer in each may enter a ''nolle prosequi'', with the effects that the indictment is not proceeded with and the accused person is discharged. Although the general practice is not to revive the proceedings, this may be done if important new evidence comes to light or where it is in the interests of justice to do so. It is not uncommon for a ''nolle prosequi'' to be entered because the evidence available to the prosecution is often not reviewed by senior prosecuting counsel, and found to be inadequate a few days before the trial date, or a witness refuses to testify.<ref>Payne, Jason (2007). "Criminal trial delays in Australia". Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Policy Paper 74</ref>

Attempts by the prosecution to enter a ''nolle prosequi'' in order to avoid a trial which has started from reaching its conclusion, for example, where a jury may have signalled their likely verdict, where the case has gone badly for the prosecution or where the prosecutor has proceeded without an unavailable witness, have been regarded by the Australian courts as an abuse of process, as the prosecution may hope to reinstate the charges before a different jury or with the missing witness. This rule applies even if entering the ''nolle prosequi'' was not challenged when it was done.<ref>Lawrence, Stephen (2007). "Abuse of Judicial Process in Criminal Proceedings". Suva: Law Society of Fiji Conference September 2015. pp. 42–43</ref> A number of other cases have been brought before the Australian courts, claiming that the reinstatement of charges after entry of a ''nolle prosequi'' is an abuse of process in other circumstances. None has succeeded, as the relevant circumstances did not constitute abuse, but the appellate court stated that there could be case where making a charge following the entering of a ''nolle'' could be oppressive and so an abuse of the court process.<ref>Lawrence, Stephen (2007). "Abuse of Judicial Process in Criminal Proceedings". Suva: Law Society of Fiji Conference September 2015. pp. 43–44</ref>

===India===
In India this power is guided by Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code which enables the public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried. For doing so, consent of the court is necessary.

===Nigeria===
An attorney-general is the chief law officer both of the Federation of Nigeria and of each Nigerian state, and is also a government minister there. Under the 1999 [[Constitution of Nigeria]], the federal attorney-general has powers to institute or to take over and continue any criminal proceedings, and to discontinue them at any stage before a final judgement is delivered.<ref>[[Constitution of Nigeria|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria]], 1999 (as amended)</ref> The last power gives statutory authority to the practice of ''nolle prosequi'', which has existed in Nigeria since the colonial era. It is not necessary for the attorney-general to ask for the consent of the court hearing the case, as was confirmed by the Federal Appeal Court in 1981. During the [[Second Nigerian Republic]] of 1979–1983, the state attorneys-general also had the power to issue a ''nolle prosequi'', and abused this power in a few notorious cases, but this power is now only available to the federal attorney-general.<ref>B. O. Jemilohun. [https://www.academia.edu/9078283/THE_ATTORNEY_GENERAL_AND_THE_NOLLE_PROSEQUI_POWERS_WITHOUT_LIMITATIONS ''The Attorney-General and the Nolle Prosequi: Powers without Limitations?''] Retrieved 15 May 2020.</ref>

===Ghana===
The Attorney-General of Ghana has statutory power to issue a ''nolle prosequi'' under the Ghanaian Criminal Procedure Code of 1960, which acts to discontinue any criminal proceedings before a final judgement is made. A ''nolle prosequi'' was issued in several cases in 2001, when criminal libel cases brought against several journalists by one political party when in power were discontinued after a change of government.<ref>K. Boateng Mensah (2006). "Discretion, Nolle Prosequi and the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution". ''Journal of African Law'', Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 47–49.</ref> A number of cases have been brought on whether there are any restrictions on the attorney-general's discretion when issuing a ''nolle prosequi''. These have concluded that ''nolle prosequi'' terminates a case in favour of the accused, without preventing new proceedings being issued later, and that the attorney general is answerable neither to the court in which the case was discontinued nor to any [[appellate court]].<ref>K. Boateng Mensah (2006). "Discretion, Nolle Prosequi and the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution". pp. 52–53.</ref> However, these cases predate the 1992 [[Constitution of Ghana]], which gives the Supreme Court oversight of any discretionary power vested in any person, although no case has been brought against any Attorney-General of Ghana for failure to use his discretion fairly, despite claims of political bias in the use of ''nolle prosequi''.<ref>K. Boateng Mensah (2006). "Discretion, Nolle Prosequi and the 1992 Ghanaian Constitution". pp. 56–57.</ref>

=== South Africa ===
In South Africa, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is responsible for bringing criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state. In cases where the NPA decides not to proceed with a prosecution, a private individual with a direct interest may in terms of Section 7 of the [[Criminal_Procedure_Act,_1977|Criminal Procedure Act]] bring a [[Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa#Private_prosecution|private criminal prosecution]] against an individual. The private prosecutor must first apply for a ''nolle prosequi'' from the Director of Public Prosecutions (to confirm that the State does not intend to proceed with a trial), and bring the private prosecution within three months.

== Notable cases and other references ==

* The prosecution of [[Jefferson Davis]] for treason was dropped in 1868 after a declaration of general amnesty by President [[Andrew Johnson]].
* The trial of the prime suspect for the 1902 [[Peasenhall murder]] in Suffolk in England was stopped by the Attorney General after two juries failed to reach a verdict.
* In 1924, Connecticut prosecutor [[Homer Stille Cummings]] dismissed charges against [[Harold Israel]], a vagrant accused of murdering a popular priest in [[Bridgeport, Connecticut]]. Cummings destroyed the evidence his own office had compiled against Israel in a 90-minute courtroom presentation. The case became the basis of the 1947 film ''[[Boomerang (1947 film)|Boomerang!]]''<ref name="War">{{cite book |last=Mckenna |first=Marian C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oPBjQegx8ZIC&dq=harold+israel+cummings&pg=PA8 |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the great constitutional war |publisher=Fordham University Press |year=2002 |pages=8–9 |isbn=0-8232-2154-7}}</ref>
* In 1925, prosecutors elected to dismiss [[murder]] charges against the remaining ten defendants in the case of ''People vs. [[Ossian Sweet]]''. It involved a [[black people|black]] family that had defended its home against a [[white people|white]] mob. They were defended by attorney [[Clarence Darrow]], who was retained by the [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]. The trial was presided over by Detroit [[Recorder's Court]] Judge [[Frank Murphy]], who went on to become an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. After an initial [[mistrial (law)|mistrial]], Henry Sweet (Ossian's brother, who admitted he fired the shot) was [[acquittal|acquitted]] by a [[jury]] on grounds of [[Right of self-defense|self-defense]]; the dismissals of the charges against the ten remaining defendants followed.<ref>{{cite book |author-link=Kevin Boyle (historian) |last=Boyle |first=Kevin |title=[[Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights and Murder in the Jazz Age]] |publisher=Henry Holt & Company |location=New York |year=2004 |isbn=0-8050-7933-5}}</ref>
* In 1957, [[John Bodkin Adams]], who worked in [[Eastbourne]], [[England]], was tried for the murder of an elderly widow, [[Edith Alice Morrell]] and [[indicted]], but not tried for the murder of another widow, [[Gertrude Hullett]]. When he was found not guilty of killing the former, Attorney-General Sir [[Reginald Manningham-Buller]] controversially entered a ''nolle prosequi'' regarding the latter charge. The trial judge, [[Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin|Mr Justice Devlin]], in his post-trial book commented: "The use of ''nolle prosequi'' to conceal the deficiencies of the prosecution was an abuse of process, which left an innocent man under the suspicion that there might have been something in the talk of mass murder after all."<ref name="devlin">{{cite book |last=Devlin |first=Patrick |title=Easing the Passing: the trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams |location=London |publisher=The Bodley Head |year=1985 |page=181 |isbn=0-370-30627-9}}</ref>
* The [[Bertie Wooster]] character in the [[Jeeves]] novels by [[P. G. Wodehouse]] frequently enters a ''nolle prosequi'' when refusing to do something another character is asking him to do.{{cn|reason=Blog source removed. Blogs are generally not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]|date=July 2022}}
* In 1982, a prosecution concerning the play ''[[The Romans in Britain]]'' by [[Howard Brenton]] collapsed after it was demonstrated that what a witness had thought was an erect penis shown on stage during a [[male rape]] scene was in fact an actor's thumb. The case had been brought at the urging of the morality campaigner [[Mary Whitehouse]], who had not seen the play; it was ended with a ''nolle prosequi''.
* In 2004, [[rape]] charges against [[basketball]] player [[Kobe Bryant]] were dropped after the [[complainant]] refused to testify.
* In 2011, as a result of [[Death of Osama Bin Laden|his death]], charges against [[Osama bin Laden]] were dropped with the filing of a ''nolle prosequi'' in a Manhattan federal court by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]].<ref name="nydaily">{{cite news | title=Federal judge drops embassy blast charges against Osama bin Laden | work=[[New York Daily News]] | url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/17/2011-06-17_federal_judge_drops_embassy_blast_charges_against_osama_bin_laden_.html?r=news/ny_crime | date=2011-06-17 | access-date=2011-06-19 | last=Shifrel
| first=Scott}}</ref>
* In 2019, subsequent to the [[Boston]] [[straight pride]] parade, a justice of the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] held that a notice of ''nolle prosequi'' could not be denied by a judge. Notice of ''nolle prosequi'' was found to be within the prosecutor's right to exercise judgment and manage limited resources. "[The trial court judge's] effort to do so violated the Commonwealth's constitutional rights."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://whdh.com/news/sjc-justice-sides-with-rollins-in-dispute-over-straight-pride-parade-protesters/|title=SJC justice sides with Rollins in dispute over 'Straight Pride Parade' protesters |work=[[WHDH (TV)|WHDH]] |first1=Owen |last1=Boss |first2=Juliana |last2=Mazza |date=9 September 2019 |access-date=30 July 2022}}</ref>
* While on trial for corruption in September 2022, former South African president Jacob Zuma brought a private prosecution against the state prosecutor in his corruption trial, Billy Downer, and a journalist covering the case, Karyn Maughan.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cpj.org/2022/09/south-african-journalist-karyn-maughan-criminally-charged-over-report-on-former-president-zuma/|title=South African journalist Karyn Maughan criminally charged over report on former President Zuma}}</ref> Zuma accused Downer of leaking private information to Maughan, a charge which both denied as they said the information was in the public domain. Zuma received a ''nolle prosequi'' as the Director of Public Prosecutions did not believe an offence had been committed. Both Downer and Maughan applied to High Court for the case to be dismissed before trial. In December 2022, Zuma relied on the same ''nolle prosequi'' to bring a private prosecution against his successor Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing him of being an accessory after the fact to Downer and Maughan's alleged actions. The status of this ''nolle prosequi'' was contested as there was a dispute whether a ''nolle prosqui'' obtained in one case could be applied to another. In January 2023, the Johannesburg High Court stayed the prosecution of Ramaphosa until a later date when a court could consider the validity of the ''nolle prosequi'' and other issues raised by Ramaphosa.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2023/11.html&query=ramaphosa"|title=President of the Republic of South Africa vs Zuma and Others (062027/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 11}}</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Confession of error]]: When used by the [[Solicitor General of the United States]], it has the same effect as a ''nolle prosequi'', but may be used in civil suits as well.
*[[Deferred prosecution]]
*[[Diversion program]]
*[[Opportunity principle]]: in Dutch law, this is a generalized (principalized) form of ''nolle prosequi''.
*[[Plea bargain]]

==Notes==
{{noteslist}}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External resources ==
{{Portal|Law}}

* U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48 Rule 48].

{{Criminal procedure}}
{{italic title}}

[[Category:Latin legal terminology]]
[[Category:Criminal procedure]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 14 August 2023
Line 93:		Line 93:

	== External resources ==		== External resources ==
	~~{{Portal\|Law}}~~

	* U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48 Rule 48].		* U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48 Rule 48].

Nolle prosequi - Revision history

CleanupBot II: Removed empty portal template using script

Ajay Kumar: Created a new article