Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
CPS - Coggle Diagram
CPS
functions
charging: CPS role starts with decision as to what offence or offences should be charged - used to be done in all cases by police - but sometimes innapropriate charges were brought. police now make decision on what offence to charge in less serious offences where as in serious cases it is made by CPS
when making decision on charging the code for crown prosecutors must be complied with - sets out general principles to be followed - two main tests are:
- evidential test - is there enough evidence against the defendant
- public interest test - is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring case to court
two tests are applied when CPS reviews cases in which charge was made by police - aim of tests are to ensuer that weak cases are not taken to court and that there is no prosecution cases where it isnt in public interest
evidential test - this is concerned with whether there is sufficient evidence to provide realisic prospect of conviction in the case - under this CPS has to consider strength of evidence and wether magistrates or jury are more likely than not to convict - points such as whether evidence is admissible or whether it has been obtained through breaching PACE
public interest test: second test whether it is in public interest to continue with case - is more controversial as it involves very wide ranging considerations - code of practice sets out a series of points which should be considered.
- how serious is the offence committed - more serious, more likely prosecution needed
- what is level of culpability of suspect - greater level, more likely prosecution needed
- what are circumstance of and harm caused to victim - greater vulnerability of victim, more likely prosecution is needed - prosecution also more likely if offence was committed against victime who was at the time serving public or motivated by form of discrimination
- was suspect under age of 18 at time of offence - best interests and welfare of a person under 18 must be considered - younger the suspect, less likely prosecution needed
- what was impact on community - greater impact, more need for prosecution
- prosecution a proportionate response - considers all aspects of cases include cost
- do sources of info need protecting - care should be taken when proceeding with prosecution where details may neeed to be made public that could harm info, international relations or national security
-
prosecuting in court - employed members of CPS are usually used to prosecute cases in magistrates court. this may be done by lawyers working in CPS as crown prosecutors for associate prosecutors who are specially trained lay people working in CPS
in crown court - cases are presented by crown prosecutor with appropriate advocacy qualification or by an agent - an independent lawyer who acts as prosecuting counsel at the crown court
Roles
Deciding how to charge an offender:
power transferred CPS from police in Criminal Justice Act 2003
CPS layers - place into police stations - decide what to charge an offender with
Threshold test...
- requires there to be a reasonable suspicion that the supect has committed an offend & that it is in the public interest to charge
- applied where its not reasonable to release on bail after charge but evidence to apply full code test isnt available
- decision to charge must be kept under review
deciding whether or not to prosecute:
decide whether the defendant should face trial
decision to prosecute lies with crown prosecutor who will apply the full code test contained in code for crown prosecutors
powers given in s10 prosecution of offences act 1985
full code test:
- evidential test: can evidence be used in court & is it reliable? must pass evidential test or case will not proceed
- public interest test: public interest factors for and against prosecution. ask questions e.g. how serious, level of culpability, impact on community, is prosecution a proportionate response?
prosecuting in court:
CPS lawyers present cases in court for prosecution
call and question witnesses, examination in chief, cross examine defence, closing speech
power given in prosecution of offences act 1985
magistrates - CPS layers known as crown prosecutors
crown - CPS lawyers known as crown advocates (or can instruct an independent lawyer with relevant right of audience)
Reforms
Glidewell Report 1998 - at the time 12% of cases were discontinued
found tension between police and CPS, failure to cooperate and communicate
high number of judge ordered acquittals
CPS was reogranised into 42 areas (one for each police force) however since 2011 there are 14 areas - 13 geographical, 1 virtual
CPS work directly and more collaboratively in police stations in criminal justice units
Narey report 1997 -
looked at delays
CPS representatives placed into police stations
some criticised this at reducing the independence of CPS
narey reforms considered successful
narey introduced lay caseworkers to deal with straightforwrd guilty pleas and non-concientious cases in magistrates - frees up qualified lawyers
organisation
head of CPS is director of public prosecutions who must have been qualified for at least 10 years - DPP is appointed by the attorney general.
there are four central case work divisions which handle the most complex prosecutions...
- specialist fraud
- special crime and counter terrorism
- organised crime
- proceeds of crime
advantages
- Try to help out victims as much as possible.
- High number of pre-trial trials, saves courts time.
- Must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors – quite strict about how they deal with cases.
- Specialists that deal with complex cases, building up expertise. E.g. Specialist Fraud, Special Crown and Counter Terrorism, Organised Crime.
- Narey report – complaints about delay. Reform ensured caseworkers were employed, and solicitors could continue with complex work.
- Macpherson Report – every Police force must publish a racial equality policy to protect victims and defendants with regular inspections.
- Glidewell report improved discontinuation rate – before it was 12% now 10% but still high. Ensured greater co-operation with police.
- 2001 to 2015 discontinuation rate went from 16.2% to 10.5%.
- Auld Review 2019 – gives CPS responsibility of determining charge for suspect rather than Police except in minor cases.
- 14 areas across UK – wide range.
disadvantages
- Despite the Glidewell Report 1999, still a high number of cases dropped – about 10%. - Ineffectiveness and failure to prosecute
- Not very independent from Police, despite Glidewell Report.
- Still high number of ineffective trials – when the trial doesn’t go ahead on planned day because of lack of evidence. Costs government.
- Reliance on independent lawyers – lawyers might not have advocacy qualifications to speak in court. - Don’t investigate a case – just decide whether evidence is enough.
- Police still responsible for 72% of charging decisions – CPS 28%. Could lead to Police bias.
- Might downgrade charge against defendant.
background:
decision to prosecute used to lie with police
royal commission on criminal procedure 1981
- police investigating and deciding to prosecute was deemed inappropriate
- also found no uniform system of prosecuting (inconsistent)
CPS was established uner prosecution of offences act 1985 as an independent and expert body
processes of prosecution and investigation were seperated