Why can&#39;t ordinary people bring criminal charges against someone else?
<h2>Background context</h2>
<p>In Canada and the United States, Individuals do not file criminal charges directly against someone else. A criminal proceeding is initiated by the government.</p>
<p>This could be a problem because, unfortunately, law enforcement and prosecutors are not immune to societal biases against marginalized groups and may not always give their concerns the attention they deserve.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/29/queensland-woman-who-ran-down-and-killed-cyclist-in-sheer-rage-jailed-for-10-years" rel="nofollow noreferrer">For example, in Australia, it took nearly a decade for an intentional vehicular homicide against an Asian man to be prosecuted because the police and attorneys office initially ignored the incident and failed to investigate, even though the perpetrator boasted about it publicly for years.</a></p>
<h2>Question about this</h2>
<p>What are the reasons that lead to people being NOT allowed to directly bring up criminal charges like they do civil litigation?</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="canada-container">canada</a></p>
<p>Your premise is not entirely correct. Canada provides a path for private prosecutions. See <em><a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Criminal Code</a></em>, s. 507.1, the <a href="https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p5/ch09.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Public Prosecution Service of Canada's guidelines on intervening in private prosecutions</a>, and British Columbia's Crown Counsel Policy Manual <a href="https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/prosecution-service/crown-counsel-policy-manual/pri-1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">policy on private prosecutions</a>. Nonetheless, it is rare that a private prosecution is allowed to proceed.</p>
<p>The British Columbia manual says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Generally, BC Prosecution Service policy does not permit a private prosecution to proceed.
Crown Counsel will usually take conduct of the prosecution or direct a stay of proceedings
after making a charge assessment decision.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The PPSC manual says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If it is determined that the charge is well founded, Crown counsel must then decide whether to assume conduct of the prosecution. The issue must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Normally, there is nothing wrong in allowing a private prosecution to run its course through to a verdict. There is no requirement for the DPP to take charge of the prosecution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, it presents <strong>a set of considerations that might answer your question about why private prosecutions are not the norm</strong>, and why the Crown will normally intervene to either control the prosecution itself or to stay the proceedings:</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>the need to strike an appropriate balance between the right of the
private citizen to initiate and conduct a prosecution as a safeguard
in the justice system, and the responsibility of the Attorney General
of Canada for the proper administration of justice;</li>
<li>the relative seriousness of the offence – generally, the more serious, the more likely it is that the DPP should intervene;</li>
<li>there are detailed or complex disclosure issues to resolve;</li>
<li>the prosecution requires the disclosure of highly sensitive material or the conduct of the prosecution involves applications for
special measures or for witness anonymity;</li>
<li>there is a reasonable basis to believe that the private prosecutor lacks the capacity or the funding to effectively carry the case
forward to its completion;</li>
<li>there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision to prosecute was made for improper personal or oblique motives, or that
it otherwise may constitute an abuse of the court's process such that,
even if the prosecution were to proceed, it would not be appropriate
to permit it to remain in the hands of a private prosecutor;</li>
<li>given the nature of the alleged offence or the issues to be determined at trial, it is in the interests of the proper
administration of justice for the prosecution to remain in private
hands.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>The Attorney General or Crown counsel can always direct a stay (termination) of proceedings (<em>Criminal Code</em>, s. 579).</p>
<p>Some provinces have specifically given Crown counsel an obligation to watch over private prosecutions and intervene where necessary. For example, Ontario's legislature has directed that the Crown (<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c49/latest/rso-1990-c-c49.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Crown Counsel Act</em></a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>watch over cases conducted by private prosecutors and, without unnecessarily interfering with private individuals who wish in such cases to prosecute, assume wholly the conduct of the case where justice towards the accused seems to demand his or her interposition</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even in provinces where this has not been elevated to a statutory obligation, all Attorneys General / Crowns retain the capacity and discretion to supervise and intervene in private prosecutions and as a matter of practice, do.</p>

<p>The simple answer is, that's what the law says. The more complex answer looks both at legislative actions and court rulings.</p>
<p>The relevant case for US federal law is <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/454/83/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Leeke v. Timmerman</a>, 454 U.S. 83. The State Solicitor of South Carolina declined to pursue criminal charges against certain prison guards. Petitioner's sued, the Supreme Court then held that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The decision to prosecute is solely within the prosecutor's
discretion. Thus, a private citizen has no judicially cognizable right
to prevent state officials from presenting information, through
intervention of the state solicitor, that will assist a magistrate in
determining whether to issue an arrest warrant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>reaffirming the holding of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/614/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Linda R. S. v. Richard D.</a>, 410 U.S. 614 that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So there is a rule, at least applicable to federal cases.</p>
<p>It may be of interest to look at the court's reasoning that resulted in that rule. The court says (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The threshold inquiry is whether respondents have standing to
challenge the actions of petitioners. As in Linda R. S., there is a
questionable nexus between respondents' injury -- the alleged beatings
-- and the actions of the state officials in which they gave information to a Magistrate prior to issuance of an arrest warrant.
Even without the prosecutor's acts, there is no guarantee that
issuance of the arrest warrant would remedy claimed past misconduct of
guards or prevent future misconduct. Even if a prosecution could
remedy respondents' injury, the issuance of an arrest warrant in this
case is simply a prelude to actual prosecution. <strong>Respondents concede
that the decision to prosecute is solely within the discretion of the
prosecutor</strong>. It is equally clear that issuance of the arrest warrant
in this case would not necessarily lead to a subsequent prosecution.</p>
<p><strong>A private citizen therefore has no judicially cognizable right to prevent state officials from presenting information</strong>, through
intervention of the state solicitor, that will assist the magistrate
in determining whether to issue the arrest warrant. Just as
respondents were able to present arguments as to why an arrest warrant
should issue, a state solicitor must be able to present arguments as
to why an arrest warrant should not issue. This is not a case in which
prison officials interfered with the transmittal of information from
respondents to the magistrate, thereby interfering with respondents'
ability under South Carolina law to seek the arrest of another.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, in Washington state, private prosecution is allowed under <a href="https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/CrRLJ/CLJ_CRRLJ_02_01_00.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CrRLJ 2.1(c)</a>, as <a href="https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/986134.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">affirmed recently</a> by the state's Supreme Court: &quot;Under the citizen complaint rule, '[a]ny person' may initiate
criminal proceedings&quot;. <a href="https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=2457&amp;context=flr" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> discussed some of the arguments and rulings related to the private prosecution rule (arguing against private prosecution), and <a href="https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=2457&amp;context=flr" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> compares the US vs. the UK where private prosecution is more viable. There does not seem to be a compelling constitutional reason to prohibit private prosecution, but each jurisdiction has the power to set its own procedural rules, therefore there can be variation.</p>

united-states criminal-law canada prosecution