Taxpayer’s belief that settlement agreement with Revenue to preclude prosecution was unfounded

Birmingham P: legitimate expectation – prosecution on indictment – revenue offences – judicial review to halt prosecution – unsuccessful judicial review application – appeal to the Court of Appeal – appellant argues that terms of settlement agreement entered with the Revenue Commissioners prevents his prosecution on quite separate matters – claim for a refund of VAT – appellant’s response to criminal summons was to issue judicial review proceedings – before judicial review proceedings came on for hearing, appellant put a proposal to the Revenue Commissioners – prosecutions did not relate to the income tax which was the subject of the proposal – revenue solicitors made clear that if an agreement was entered into, it was without prejudice to any other enforcement action or prosecution action in being or yet to be initiated – letter setting out terms of written settlement did not contain explicit “without prejudice to prosecution clause” – appellant did not inform High Court that judicial review proceedings had become moot because he had signed the letter – judicial review application subsequently dismissed – High Court held that settlement agreement should be read objectively – settlement agreement could not be construed as precluding the DPP from pursuing criminal proceedings – at the time of settlement, criminal proceedings were already in being – Director was not a party to the settlement agreement – appellant’s case was one grounded on legitimate expectation – draft agreement was silent on the issue of without prejudice – prosecution related to a matter that was entirely separate and distinct – if appellant had believed that he had achieved in bringing to an end the prosecutions against him, he would have moved to have the judicial review proceedings struct out – trial judge properly assessed the case presented to him and was fully entitled to reject claim – appeal dismissed.