{"id":{"repo_id":"cambridge","oai_identifier":"oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/379723"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cambridge/oai:www.repository.cam.ac.uk:1810/379723","repository":{"repo_id":"cambridge","name":"Cambridge University","base_url":"https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Self-legitimacy of private prosecutors and their legal advisers in England and Wales","abstract":"The right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales, pursuant to section 6 of Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a significant power. When exercising this right, private individuals can carry out an investigation into alleged crimes, decide what crimes should be prosecuted, gain access to the criminal justice system and compel another person to appear before a criminal court. If found guilty, the defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, fine, or both. It is, therefore, crucial that we understand how private prosecutors and their legal advisers justify their actions to themselves and others, which is my primary research question, and concerns the cultivation of self-legitimacy. To answer my research questions, I adopted a mixed-method approach. I conducted 19 semi-structured interviews of private prosecutors and legal advisers, and undertook critical discourse analysis of 42 submissions lodged in response to the House of Commons Justice Committee’s enquiry into private prosecution safeguards. I also analysed English case law on abuse of process to examine how the courts’ judgments influence perceptions of self-legitimacy. I find private prosecutors and their legal advisers employ three main legitimation narratives. These narratives concern access to justice, mimicking State practice and acting with integrity. In sum, participants justified bringing a private prosecution on the basis that it provided access to justice. However, they faced a moral tension, as not everyone could afford the initial outlay of a private prosecution. The participants resolved the tension by reasoning that it was better to have crime prosecuted by those that can afford to than not prosecuted at all, and that private prosecution served a larger collective goal of enhancing access to justice. Participants also employed a raft of legitimation techniques, ranging from mimicking State practice (such as applying the same tests as the public prosecutor) to ensuring the defendant is treated fairly. By doing so participants adopted procedurally just practices that fostered confidence in making investigative and prosecutorial decisions. Acting as a Minister of Justice, which encompasses a duty to act with integrity, also gave participants the necessary confidence to make such decisions, whilst the English case law on abuse of process influenced how private prosecutors and their legal advisers perceive their identities. Accordingly, my research significantly contributes to: (i) the criminological literature, as this group of criminal justice actors are yet to feature in the self- legitimacy research; and (ii) the legal literature by applying the English abuse of process case law to empirical findings. Additionally, my findings advance our understanding of how power-holders cultivate confidence to take action, and what influences self-perceptions of their identity.","abstract_html":"The right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales, pursuant to section 6 of Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a significant power. When exercising this right, private individuals can carry out an investigation into alleged crimes, decide what crimes should be prosecuted, gain access to the criminal justice system and compel another person to appear before a criminal court. If found guilty, the defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, fine, or both. It is, therefore, crucial that we understand how private prosecutors and their legal advisers justify their actions to themselves and others, which is my primary research question, and concerns the cultivation of self-legitimacy. To answer my research questions, I adopted a mixed-method approach. I conducted 19 semi-structured interviews of private prosecutors and legal advisers, and undertook critical discourse analysis of 42 submissions lodged in response to the House of Commons Justice Committee’s enquiry into private prosecution safeguards. I also analysed English case law on abuse of process to examine how the courts’ judgments influence perceptions of self-legitimacy. I find private prosecutors and their legal advisers employ three main legitimation narratives. These narratives concern access to justice, mimicking State practice and acting with integrity. In sum, participants justified bringing a private prosecution on the basis that it provided access to justice. However, they faced a moral tension, as not everyone could afford the initial outlay of a private prosecution. The participants resolved the tension by reasoning that it was better to have crime prosecuted by those that can afford to than not prosecuted at all, and that private prosecution served a larger collective goal of enhancing access to justice. Participants also employed a raft of legitimation techniques, ranging from mimicking State practice (such as applying the same tests as the public prosecutor) to ensuring the defendant is treated fairly. By doing so participants adopted procedurally just practices that fostered confidence in making investigative and prosecutorial decisions. Acting as a Minister of Justice, which encompasses a duty to act with integrity, also gave participants the necessary confidence to make such decisions, whilst the English case law on abuse of process influenced how private prosecutors and their legal advisers perceive their identities. Accordingly, my research significantly contributes to: (i) the criminological literature, as this group of criminal justice actors are yet to feature in the self- legitimacy research; and (ii) the legal literature by applying the English abuse of process case law to empirical findings. Additionally, my findings advance our understanding of how power-holders cultivate confidence to take action, and what influences self-perceptions of their identity.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Trainor, Sara"],"institution":"University of Cambridge","degree_name":null,"degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Tankebe, Justice","Stark, Findlay"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024-06-29","date_published":"2024-06-29","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:25Z","subjects":["private prosecution","self-legitimacy"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4ff525c6-07cc-49b2-82d4-dd64221472d7/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.115697","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.doi"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Tankebe, Justice","Stark, Findlay"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Trainor, Sara"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024-06-29"]},{"key":"dc:publisher.institution","label":"Dc Publisher Institution","values":["University of Cambridge"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby URI","values":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/379723"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["private prosecution","self-legitimacy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4ff525c6-07cc-49b2-82d4-dd64221472d7/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargodate","label":"Dc Rights Embargodate","values":["2026-02-06"]},{"key":"dc:rights.embargotype","label":"Dc Rights Embargotype","values":["embargo"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.115697"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/38da0b7d-0f5d-4bbd-abaa-81fbe3675c2a/download"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales, pursuant to section 6 of Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a significant power. When exercising this right, private individuals can carry out an investigation into alleged crimes, decide what crimes should be prosecuted, gain access to the criminal justice system and compel another person to appear before a criminal court. If found guilty, the defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, fine, or both. It is, therefore, crucial that we understand how private prosecutors and their legal advisers justify their actions to themselves and others, which is my primary research question, and concerns the cultivation of self-legitimacy. To answer my research questions, I adopted a mixed-method approach. I conducted 19 semi-structured interviews of private prosecutors and legal advisers, and undertook critical discourse analysis of 42 submissions lodged in response to the House of Commons Justice Committee’s enquiry into private prosecution safeguards. I also analysed English case law on abuse of process to examine how the courts’ judgments influence perceptions of self-legitimacy. I find private prosecutors and their legal advisers employ three main legitimation narratives. These narratives concern access to justice, mimicking State practice and acting with integrity. In sum, participants justified bringing a private prosecution on the basis that it provided access to justice. However, they faced a moral tension, as not everyone could afford the initial outlay of a private prosecution. The participants resolved the tension by reasoning that it was better to have crime prosecuted by those that can afford to than not prosecuted at all, and that private prosecution served a larger collective goal of enhancing access to justice. Participants also employed a raft of legitimation techniques, ranging from mimicking State practice (such as applying the same tests as the public prosecutor) to ensuring the defendant is treated fairly. By doing so participants adopted procedurally just practices that fostered confidence in making investigative and prosecutorial decisions. Acting as a Minister of Justice, which encompasses a duty to act with integrity, also gave participants the necessary confidence to make such decisions, whilst the English case law on abuse of process influenced how private prosecutors and their legal advisers perceive their identities. Accordingly, my research significantly contributes to: (i) the criminological literature, as this group of criminal justice actors are yet to feature in the self- legitimacy research; and (ii) the legal literature by applying the English abuse of process case law to empirical findings. Additionally, my findings advance our understanding of how power-holders cultivate confidence to take action, and what influences self-perceptions of their identity."]},{"key":"dc:format.checksum.md5","label":"Dc Format Checksum Md5","values":["0f91c5e7434bba19de79242c444066fa","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Self-legitimacy of private prosecutors and their legal advisers in England and Wales"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Tankebe, Justice","Stark, Findlay"],"dc:creator":["Trainor, Sara"],"dc:date.issued":["2024-06-29"],"dc:description.abstract":["The right to bring a private prosecution in England and Wales, pursuant to section 6 of Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is a significant power. When exercising this right, private individuals can carry out an investigation into alleged crimes, decide what crimes should be prosecuted, gain access to the criminal justice system and compel another person to appear before a criminal court. If found guilty, the defendant may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, fine, or both. It is, therefore, crucial that we understand how private prosecutors and their legal advisers justify their actions to themselves and others, which is my primary research question, and concerns the cultivation of self-legitimacy. To answer my research questions, I adopted a mixed-method approach. I conducted 19 semi-structured interviews of private prosecutors and legal advisers, and undertook critical discourse analysis of 42 submissions lodged in response to the House of Commons Justice Committee’s enquiry into private prosecution safeguards. I also analysed English case law on abuse of process to examine how the courts’ judgments influence perceptions of self-legitimacy. I find private prosecutors and their legal advisers employ three main legitimation narratives. These narratives concern access to justice, mimicking State practice and acting with integrity. In sum, participants justified bringing a private prosecution on the basis that it provided access to justice. However, they faced a moral tension, as not everyone could afford the initial outlay of a private prosecution. The participants resolved the tension by reasoning that it was better to have crime prosecuted by those that can afford to than not prosecuted at all, and that private prosecution served a larger collective goal of enhancing access to justice. Participants also employed a raft of legitimation techniques, ranging from mimicking State practice (such as applying the same tests as the public prosecutor) to ensuring the defendant is treated fairly. By doing so participants adopted procedurally just practices that fostered confidence in making investigative and prosecutorial decisions. Acting as a Minister of Justice, which encompasses a duty to act with integrity, also gave participants the necessary confidence to make such decisions, whilst the English case law on abuse of process influenced how private prosecutors and their legal advisers perceive their identities. Accordingly, my research significantly contributes to: (i) the criminological literature, as this group of criminal justice actors are yet to feature in the self- legitimacy research; and (ii) the legal literature by applying the English abuse of process case law to empirical findings. Additionally, my findings advance our understanding of how power-holders cultivate confidence to take action, and what influences self-perceptions of their identity."],"dc:format.checksum.md5":["0f91c5e7434bba19de79242c444066fa","87eda9de84448d1f82354d60eee3eb5f"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.115697"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/38da0b7d-0f5d-4bbd-abaa-81fbe3675c2a/download"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher.institution":["University of Cambridge"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby.uri":["https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/379723"],"dc:rights":["https://apollo8-f-pro.lib.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/4ff525c6-07cc-49b2-82d4-dd64221472d7/download","http://purl.org/NET/rdflicense/allrightsreserved"],"dc:rights.embargodate":["2026-02-06"],"dc:rights.embargotype":["embargo"],"dc:subject":["private prosecution","self-legitimacy"],"dc:title":["Self-legitimacy of private prosecutors and their legal advisers in England and Wales"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:25Z"}