CPS
- BEFORE 1985
It was the responsibility of the police to bring about all prosecutions before the courts
Miscarriages of justice were common- Birmingham 6
- THE PROSECUTIONS OF OFFENCES ACT 1985
Another criticism of the old system was made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure 1981 which recommended that it was undesirable for the police to be responsible for both investigating and prosecuting crime
To remedy these problems The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 created the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
- KEY ROLES OF THE CPS
- Advises the police on cases for possible prosecution
- Reviews cases submitted by the police for public prosecution
- Prepares cases for courts
Presents cases at courts
- Makes the decision to charge in all but minor cases AND decide what charge should be brought
- CPS
They decide whether to charge the suspect and, with the police, agree what the appropriate charge will be
They are made up of Crown Prosecutors who must have a general advocacy qualification under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
They are appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
- DPP
They are the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales
They are the head of the CPS
They are appointed by the Attorney General
- DECIDING WHEN TO PROSECUTE
Code for Crown Prosecutors
The code issued by the DPP and revised in 2013 lays down the guidelines by whihc the decision to prosecute should be taken. This is called the FULL CODE TEST: if there is a realistic prospect of a conviction and it's in the public interest to bring a prosecution
Evidential Test
Strength of evidence
A realistic prosepct of conviction often hangs on the strength of the prosecution evidence
When deciding, the Crown Prosecutor should address 2 main issues:
- Can the evidence be used in court?
- Is it Reliable evidence?
Previous convictions can be strong evidence against the accused, but a judge may not allow the evidence to be used if it would prejudice a jury
Examples of evidence
Unreliable
Damilola Taylor- unreliable witnesses and inadmissible evidence made the case the question of an investigation
Blurred CCTV, confession obtained by oppression, hearsay
Reliable
DNA, voluntary confession and eyewitness from the scene of the crime
Plea Bargaining
Where the CPS do proceed with a charge there will sometimes be an attempt to obtain a guilty plea through this, whereby the accused pleas guilty to a lesser offence in return for the inducement of a lighter sentence.
Public Interest Test
PROBLEMS AND REFORMS (FULL CODE TEST)
Revised Code
There are 7 factors that must be reviewed. This test includes the proportionality test which asks Crown Prosecutors to weigh up the costs of a prosecution against the other public interest factors
- How serious is the offence?
- What is the harm to the V?
- What is the level of culpability of the offender?
It is likely to be determined by the suspect's level of involvement, they will also consider the suspect's age, and if they're physically or mentally ill
Prosecutors will also need to consider how serious the offence was, whether it's likely to be repeated and the need to safeguard the public
The circumstances of the V, the vulnerability, if the offence was motivated by a form of discrimination
- THRESHOLD TEST
There are times where the CPS decide the Full Code Test has failed and that there isn't enough evidence to charge
The suspect will be charged if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed the offence in question and there is a realistic prospect of conviction
PROBLEMS
How can a prosecutor reliably predict the future reactions of the magistrates/juries
Credibility of witnesses
UNDER FUNDING
The CPS have sufficient government funds, they are short of lawyers
ADMINISTRATIVE CHAOS
Cases have often been delayed, files have been lost
OVER CENTRALISED
The CPS is was too centralised with power concentrated in their London Headquaters
DROPPING PROSECUTIONS
The Runciman Royal Commission of 1993 recommended that more efforts be made to drop cases earlier, so that the D, V and witness don't have to attend court
REFORMS
1997 Narey Review (X- Lack of preparation and a delay in bringing cases to court)
Caseworkers were trained to review files and present straightforward guilty pleas in court, which freed up CPS lawyers to deal with more complex cases
1998 Glidewell Report
Reforms
the 13 areas were divided into 42 areas and each one now corresponds with the police.
The CPS is now based in police stations
Criticisms
Charges were downgraded
Long delays were reported between arrest and sentence
1999 MacPherson Report (X- Institutional Racism)
Every police force is now under a legal obligation to publish a Racial Equality Policy to protect V's and D's
2000 Casework Quality Standards
The role of the CPS Inspectorate established under the CPS Inspectorate Act 2000. There are standards expeccted of the CPS
- V's, witnesses and communities
- Legal decision making
- Casework preparation
- Presentation
2001 Auld Review
It recommended the introduction of statutory charging and the CPS now determines the charges that will be brought in cases. This ensures that the correct charge is brought, this will reduce the number of cases which are discontinued. This was later implemented in the Criminal Justice Act 2003
2006 Abu Hamza
This case involved a Muslim cleric who was jailed for inciting murder and racial hatred. The police complained on several occasions, they put in evidence before the CPS and they had continually refused to prosecute. The relationship between the police and the CPS is still hostile
2009 The Public Prosecution Service- Setting the standard
A report published by the former DPP set out 3 aims:
Protect the public, support V's and witnesses and deliver justice
2013 V's Right To Review
This allows V's of crime or their families to challenge any decision by the CPS not to pursue a case.
2021 V's Code
This code outlines the min standards that the V can expect from the justice system. To understand and be understood and to be able to make a V Personal Statement