Lessons to be drawn from the judgment issued by the High Court will be learned by both private prosecutors and the judiciary:
1. The District Judge erred in law by not considering fully the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
2. The bar for establishing whether the essential ingredients of the offence such that there is prima facie evidence of an offence being committed is a high one.
3. The High Court found that the prosecution was vexatious.
4. The private prosecutor did not refer the case to "relevant authorities" to consider whether a prosecution should be brought.
This reasoning was not unexpected. It remains to be seen whether the private prosecutor will face an application for costs and whether he wishes to take this decision further.
That level of analysis is particularly important now that indictable offences are sent direct to the Crown Court. In the present case the attempt to bring a private prosecution did not even await referral of the matter to relevant authorities for consideration as to whether to prosecute or to institute other legal proceedings.