Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. It is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Crown Prosecution Service
Welsh: Gwasanaeth Erlyn y Goron
Agency overview
Formed1986 (1986)
TypeNon-ministerial government department
JurisdictionEngland and Wales
HeadquartersPetty France
London, SW1H
Employees6,000 approx.
Annual budget£592 million (2012–13)[1]
Minister responsible
Agency executives
  • Max Hill, Director of Public Prosecutions
  • Rebecca Lawrence, Chief Executive
Websitewww.cps.gov.uk
This article is part of the series: Courts of England and Wales
Law of England and Wales

The main responsibilities of the CPS are to provide legal advice to the police and other investigative agencies during the course of criminal investigations, to decide whether a suspect should face criminal charges following an investigation, and to conduct prosecutions both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court.

The Attorney General for England and Wales superintends the CPS's work and answers for it in Parliament, although the Attorney General has no influence over the conduct of prosecutions, except when national security is an issue or for a small number of offences that require the Attorney General's permission to prosecute.

History

Historically in England, with no police forces and no prosecution service, the only route to prosecution was through private prosecutions brought by victims at their own expense or lawyers acting on their behalf. From 1829 onwards, as the police forces were formed, they began to take on the burden of bringing prosecutions against suspected criminals.[2]

Sir John Maule was appointed to be the first Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales in 1880, operating under the Home Office; his jurisdiction was only for decisions as to whether to prosecute in a very small number of difficult or important cases; once prosecution had been authorised, the matter was turned over to the Treasury Solicitor. Police forces continued to be responsible for the bulk of cases, sometimes referring difficult ones to the Director.[2]

In 1962 a Royal Commission recommended that police forces set up independent prosecution teams so as to avoid having the same officers investigate and prosecute a case. Already technical barriers were in place that those prosecuting did so as private citizens, rendering them open to the range of evidential offences imposable by the court. This Royal Commission's recommendation was not implemented by all police forces, however, and so in 1978, another was set up, this time headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It reported in 1981, recommending that a single unified team, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) responsible for all public prosecutions in England and Wales. A White Paper was released in 1983, becoming the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which established the CPS under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, consisting of a merger of his old department with the police prosecution departments. It started operating in 1986.

In 1997, the Home Office tasked Sir Iain Glidewell to inquire into performance of and make recommendations for the CPS. The Glidewell Report of June 1998 found that 12% of charges by police were discontinued by the CPS and that there were failures to communicate between the two. It recommended the CPS:

  • focus resources more on serious crimes at the Crown Court level
  • co-operate more with the police in each case
  • concurring with an existing government plan, restructure the organisation into 42 regional branches, each with own Chief Crown Prosecutor.[3][4][5][6]

Organisation

The CPS undertook more than 800,000 prosecutions in 2012–13, approximately 700,000 of which were in the magistrates’ courts and 100,000 in the Crown Court. The conviction rate was 86% in the magistrates' courts and 80% in the Crown Courts.[1]

The Spending Review undertaken by HM Treasury in 2010 (and revised in 2013) has led to a budget decrease of almost 30% between 2010 and 2014, resulting in a restructure of the organisation and a large number of voluntary redundancies. The CPS has implemented measures such as the Core Quality Standards with the intention of maintaining and raising standards.

People

The CPS employs about 9000 staff. These primarily prepare cases for internal and external advocates and liaise with police and third parties. Its approved external advocates number 2,900 solicitors and barristers, among which are specialists. Both sets of advocates include Queen's Counsel—concentrated externally.[1]

Grades of staff
  • Crown Advocates present cases in the Crown Court
  • Crown Prosecutors (also known as reviewing lawyers) provide advice to investigators, make charging decisions and present prosecution cases in the Magistrates Court.
  • Associate Prosecutors represent the CPS in cases with guilty pleas in the magistrates' courts
  • Paralegals/casework assistants provide clerical support and help with progressing cases.[1]

Structure

Headquartered in London and York the senior management team sets policies and handles corporate matters (such as finance and communications). The Director of Public Prosecutions is assisted by the CPS Chief Executive in running the organisation.

CPS Areas

Most of its casework is dealt with by the thirteen CPS Areas, which are responsible for conducting prosecutions in specific parts of England and Wales; each area is led by a Chief Crown Prosecutor.[7] The areas (with their respective police forces) are:

  • Cymru/Wales (Dyfed Powys, Gwent, North Wales, South Wales)
  • East Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire)
  • Eastern (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk)
  • London (City of London, Metropolitan)
  • Mersey Cheshire (Cheshire, Merseyside)
  • North East (Cleveland, Durham, Northumbria)
  • North West (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire)
  • South East (Kent, Surrey, Sussex)
  • South West (Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucestershire)
  • Thames and Chiltern (Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Thames Valley)
  • Wessex (Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Wiltshire)
  • West Midlands (Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands)
  • Yorkshire and Humberside (West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Humberside)

Before a review, these numbered 42 to mirror the police forces (save that CPS London dealt with both of London's territorial police forces).

CPS Direct

CPS Direct provides charging advice/authorisation by phone and electronically to police forces at all hours.[7] Prosecutors assigned to CPS Direct work from home to provide support outside of normal business hours.[8] Most charging decisions by the CPS are now made by CPS Direct, which then passes the prosecution to the appropriate CPS Area.[9]

Casework Divisions

The Casework Divisions deal with prosecutions requiring specialist knowledge and experience:[7]

  • Specialist Fraud Division – Complex frauds and cases investigated by HMRC and other agencies
  • International Justice and Organised Crime Division – Serious organised crime and cases investigated by the National Crime Agency, and Extradition (formerly part of Special Crime)
  • Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division – Appeals, counter-terrorism, and special crime, which includes deaths in custody, public corruption, and medical manslaughter.
  • Proceeds of Crime Unit – since 2014 this discrete casework division has been responsible for pre-charge restraint and post-conviction enforcement of orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and in the year 2016/17 recovered over £80 million.

Oversight

The Attorney General oversees the work of the CPS, meeting regularly with the DPP and requesting briefings on matters of public or Parliamentary concern. The Attorney General (or their deputy, the Solicitor General) answer for the CPS's performance and conduct in Parliament.

However, the Attorney has no role in the day-to-day running of the organisation or in deciding whether a suspect should be prosecuted. The CPS is an independent prosecuting authority and government ministers have no influence over its decision making.

The only exceptions to this rule are when a case involves matters of national security or the Attorney must personally consent to a prosecution (e.g. all Official Secrets Act prosecutions require the Attorney General's permission to proceed). Due to the Attorney General's limited role in the CPS's casework, the use of nolle prosequi (halting of proceedings on indictment; a prerogative of the Attorney General) is now rare. Questionable incidents, such as the dropping of the case against John Bodkin Adams for what was believed to be purely political reasons, have not been repeated in modern times.

Inspection

Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is responsible for inspecting the work of the CPS.[10] The current Chief Inspector of the CPS is Kevin McGinty.[11]

Roles and responsibilities

Pre-charge advice

The CPS will often provide confidential advice to investigators on the viability of a prosecution in complex or unusual cases. This includes clarifying the intent needed to commit an offence or addressing shortcomings in the available evidence.

Unlike in many other jurisdictions, the CPS has no power to order investigations or direct investigators to take action. Whether the CPS is asked for advice or a charging decision is entirely at the discretion of investigators (see History for background on this division of responsibilities in England & Wales).

Charging decisions

Police forces have the authority to charge suspects with less serious offences, such as common assault or criminal damage with a low value. The CPS is responsible for taking all other charging decisions – including for serious offences such as murder and rape – and the police cannot charge suspects with these offences without authorisation from a crown prosecutor (except in emergency situations where police can charge without a prosecutor's authority in certain circumstances).[12]

The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to answer two questions in the 'Full Code Test': Is there sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? (in other words, is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge). The code outlines this means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. The second question asked is: Is a prosecution required in the public interest?[13] These questions must be answered in this order; if there is insufficient evidence, the public interest in prosecuting is irrelevant.

According to the code, if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, no further action will be taken against the suspect or the prosecutor will ask the police to carry out further inquiries to gather more evidence. When there is sufficient evidence but a prosecution is not required in the public interest, prosecutors can decide that no further action should be taken or that a caution or reprimand is a suitable alternative to prosecution.

In limited circumstances, where the Full Code Test is not met the Threshold Test may be applied to charge a suspect. The seriousness or circumstances of the case must justify the making of an immediate charging decision, and there must be substantial grounds to object to bail. There must be a rigorous examination of the five conditions of the Threshold Test, to ensure that it is only applied when necessary and that cases are not charged prematurely. All five conditions must be met before the Threshold Test can be applied. Where any of the conditions are not met, there is no need to consider any of the other conditions, as the Threshold Test cannot be applied and the suspect cannot be charged.[13] The five conditions that must be met before a Threshold Test can be applied are as follows:

  1. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person to be charged has committed the offence
  2. Further evidence can be obtained to provide a realistic prospect of conviction
  3. The seriousness of the circumstances of the case justifies the making of an immediate charging decision
  4. There are continuing substantial grounds to object to bail in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 and in all the circumstances of the case it is proper to do so
  5. It is in the public interest to charge the suspect[13]

A decision to charge under the Threshold Test must be kept under review. The prosecutor should be proactive to secure from the police the identified outstanding evidence or other material in accordance with an agreed timetable. The evidence must be regularly assessed to ensure that the charge is still appropriate and that continued objection to bail is justified. The Full Code Test must be applied as soon as the anticipated further evidence or material is received and, in any event, in Crown Court cases, usually before the formal service of the prosecution case.[13]

Conducting prosecutions

Whether a decision to charge is taken by police or prosecutors, the CPS will conduct the case, which includes preparing the case for court hearings, disclosing material to the defence and presenting the case in court. The CPS will be represented in court from the first hearing through to conviction/sentencing and in some cases appeal.

All prosecutions must be kept under continuous review and stopped if the Full Code Test (see above) is no longer satisfied or was never satisfied (i.e. the decision to charge was wrong). Mishandling of a case, such as failing to disclose evidence, can result in the courts either acquitting a defendant or quashing the conviction on appeal.

Appeals

When an appeal against conviction or sentence is lodged by a defendant, the CPS will decide whether or not to oppose the appeal after considering the grounds of appeal. If it decides to oppose, it will present relevant evidence and material to assist the appellate court.

Exceptionally, the CPS has invited defendants to appeal when it has concluded that the safety of a conviction was questionable, for example in the case of an undercover police officer Mark Kennedy.

Extradition

The Extradition Act 2003 tasks the CPS with representing foreign states in extradition proceedings, normally heard at Westminster Magistrates' Court. While it acts on the foreign prosecutor's instructions, the CPS retains a discretion on how the case should be prosecuted.

The Extradition Unit at CPS Headquarters deals with all cases in which the extradition of a person within England and Wales is sought by another state and all cases in which the CPS is seeking the extradition of an individual outside the European Union. The CPS Areas prepare and manage their own extradition requests under the European Arrest Warrant framework.

Controversy

Julian Assange

The CPS faced embarrassment after it destroyed key emails relating to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Email exchanges between the CPS and the Swedish Prosecution Authority were deleted after CPS lawyer Paul Close retired from the CPS in 2014. The CPS "unaccountably advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff." The CPS data destruction was disclosed in a freedom of information case pursued by Italian investigative journalist Stephania Maurizi. Maurizi took her case against the CPS to an information tribunal in London on 13 and 14 November 2017.[14]

Heads

These individuals have served as the Director of Public Prosecutions since the CPS was established in 1986:

  • Rough Justice – about the circumstances leading to the formation of the CPS
  • Crown Prosecutor – first television series to feature the CPS
  • Law & Order: UK – the British remake of Law & Order, features Metropolitan Police detectives working with CPS prosecutors
gollark: osmarkscalculator™ suffers from this somewhat.
gollark: Anyway, I've found that Rust makes some scenarios substantially more annoying. Mostly when dealing with weird trees and such a GC would handle nicely.
gollark: How bad.
gollark: Also, ew.
gollark: And that has a GPU, yes.

See also

References
  1. Crown Prosecution Service Annual Report 2012–2013 (PDF), Crown Prosecution Service, archived from the original (PDF) on 29 August 2013, retrieved 14 February 2014
  2. The Crown Prosecution Service: History, The National Archives, archived from the original on 5 February 2007, retrieved 9 June 2014
  3. "The Review of the Crown Prosecution Service" (PDF). GOV.UK. 1998.
  4. "Prosecution service shake-up". BBC News. 1 June 1998.
  5. Rebecca Huxley-Binns; Jacqueline Martin (10 February 2014). Unlocking the English Legal System. Routledge. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-4441-7424-3.
  6. Timothy Brain (18 March 2010). A History of Policing in England and Wales from 1974: A Turbulent Journey. OUP Oxford. p. 283. ISBN 978-0-19-921866-0.
  7. "The CPS Areas, CPS Direct, CPS Central Casework Divisions and CPS Proceeds of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service". www.cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  8. Great Britain: Attorney General's Office; Great Britain, H.M. Treasury (22 May 2007). The Law Officers' departments departmental report 2007. The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-10-171142-5.
  9. "Charging and CPS Direct | The Crown Prosecution Service". www.cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  10. "About HMCPSI". HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  11. "Chief Inspector biography". HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. Retrieved 12 September 2015.
  12. "The CPS : Prosecution Policy and Guidance". www.cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 19 November 2017.
  13. "The Code for Crown Prosecutors". Crown Prosecution Service. 26 October 2018. Retrieved 28 May 2019. This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v2.0. © Crown copyright.
  14. MacAskill, Ewen and, and Bowcott, Owen (10 November 2017). "UK prosecutors admit destroying key emails in Julian Assange case". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 November 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.