Week 18 Explore - Seminar Essay Task - CPS

The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in 1981 recommended the establishment of

the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Explain the function of the CPS and assess whether it has improved the way in which
prosecutions are managed in England and Wales. [25]
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the body responsible for bringing state-led
prosecutions of criminal offences in both Magistrates and Crown courts in England and
Wales. It is a government department set up for this purpose and it has brought about the
separation of the tasks of apprehending suspects and gathering of evidence, which continues
to be performed by the police services, from the task of preparing cases for and presenting
them in court.
The CPS was set up by statute under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, operating in
1986. Prior to this, the police carried out all the functions it still has as well as bringing and
conducting the prosecutions. The Prosecution of Offences Act created the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS), establishing the Director of Public Prosecutions as the head of a Department
which incorporated the Department of the DPP and existing Police Prosecuting Solicitor’s
Departments.
Before 1986 prosecutions brought by the state were normally conducted by the police. This
led to criticism as it was thought that the investigation of the crime should be separate from
the prosecution of cases. They said this in 1970 where the Justice report was released and
certain problems were outlined with the police making the decision to prosecute such as;
prosecution bias, potential infringement of right to a fair trial and conflict of interests the
same body investigating and prosecuting. The Phillips Commission ran between 1978 and
1981 and recommended there be an independent agency to take charge of prosecution of
suspects.
Such cases which invoked injustice through police prosecutions were the investigations, trials
and punishments of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, where in both
circumstances, the defendants were suspected for terrorism offences as they were Irish
Catholic, with connections to members of Irish Republican Army. With evidence that was
later found to be ‘flimsy’ and showing poor connections between the defendants and the
bombings, both groups were released from prison after two decades. These were clear
miscarriages of justice where the police were unable to make an objective decision when
considering the charges. Therefore the CPS has been deemed advantageous because it is
fairer on suspects and it removes powers from the police where they may have formed a
subjective opinion on the case during the investigation
The accountability of the CPS is highly important. Although the DPP and CPS Board head
the service, they are overseen by the Attorney General, who is a government minister.
Therefore the CPS is accountable to the public through the government. The CPS ensures that
they have local connections across the UK by its geographical structure of 14 Areas. Each
Area is headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor, who works closely with the local police forces
and heads multiple Crown Prosecutors who work directly with police stations. The
availability of the CPS is further available through CPS Direct, which is a telephone service if
a prosecutor is unable to be in a police station. This have improved the situation as
prosecutors can have active conversations with police officers to give them a reality check as
to whether they may charge suspects.
The CPS holds key roles, such as deciding which cases should be prosecuted, determining the
appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advising the police during the
early stages of investigations.
Initially, the CPS will follow the Full Code Test to decide whether to prosecute, as stipulated
by section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The test is based on two points: the
‘evidential test’ and the ‘public interest test’. To satisfy the evidential test, the Crown
Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of
conviction", and will examine the utility, reliability and credibility of the evidence. If a case
fails the evidential test, then the case will proceed no further. For example, the unreliable
witness who the police depended on following the murder of Damilola Taylor was
inadmissible in court, and so the CPS are weary to rely on one piece of witness evidence,
especially where a cash reward may be offered.
If successful, then the ‘Public Interest’ test would be invoked. Crown prosecutors must
balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Some factors may increase
the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better.
An example of the test being used was for Richard Osborn-Brookes in 2018, when he was
arrested for stabbing a burglar (home invader) to death. Because of the media outcry against
the arrest, the CPS found that the public interest test had not been satisfied. Any potential
charge against the late Prince Phillip also fell when he was reported to have caused a car
crash, when the CPS found that the public interest test fell once he had surrendered his
driving licence.
The tests applied by the CPS are carried out in every case in all parts of the jurisdiction. This
means that the same standard is applied in all cases and brings uniformity. Any issues with
particular bias should now have subsided.
The CPS does have a way to go with regard to their efficiency, as highlight by the separate
Glidewell,. Auld and Narey reports.
There have been calls that victims are ignored by the criminal justice system, however the
CPS have looked to remedy this by introducing the Victims’ Right to Review scheme in
June 2011 Victims may request a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute or to terminate
criminal proceedings, and they will receive outcomes as to whether the suspect has been
prosecuted.
There has been a general view that when the police investigates and the CPS decides on
charging, that victims of a crime are left out of the equation, serving ‘injustice’. Therefore,
this scheme aims to dispel this viewpoint, to build confidence in the local justice system, to
believe their interests are fairly represented and justice is seen to be done.