Criminology unit 3 AC2.

1
The cps
- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the main public
prosecutor in England and Wales It was set up in 1986 under
the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
- The CPS took over the prosecuting role from the police
because there was a risk of bias in allowing them to both
investigate and prosecute cases
- The police do continue to prosecute some very minor
offences, but the CPS prosecutes all serious or complex cases
- The CPS advises the police in their investigations about lines
of inquiry and about what evidence might be required to build
a case
Case prosecutions
- The CPS independently assesses the evidence submitted by
the police, decides whether to prosecute and if so, what
charges should be brought
- The CPS then prepares and presents the prosecution case in
court
- To decide about whether to prosecute, the CPS applies tests
that are laid down in the Code for Crown Prosecutors

Full code test

 For the CPS to prosecute a case it must usually first pass the Full
Code Test

 The test is applied once the police have completed all reasonable
lines of inquiry

 The test has 2 stages

1. The Evidential Test

2. The Public Interest Test

Evidential test
What it is

The evidential test is an objective assessment of the evidence to

determine if there is a "realistic prospect of conviction".

How its conducted

Prosecutors consider the evidence's reliability and credibility, as well as

what the defence may be and how it could affect the prosecution.
What it means
A "realistic prospect of conviction" means that a jury or magistrates' court
would be more likely than not to convict the defendant.

What happens if it's not met

If the evidential test is not met, the case cannot proceed, no matter how
serious or sensitive it may be.

Prosecutors should consider …

Is the Evidence Admissible in court? - Admissible means allowable

Prosecutors must assess whether the evidence is likely to be rejected

as inadmissible by the court

For example – could it be ruled out as hearsay evidence (mere rumour

than fact)

Is the Evidence Reliable? - Prosecutors must decide whether there are

any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence including:

Accuracy of the evidence

Integrity of the evidence

For example, are the witnesses reliable and likely to tell the truth/of
good character

Is the Evidence Credible? – Credible evidence is evidence where the

available facts, when viewed considering the circumstances of the
case, would cause a reasonable person to believe it to be true

The ‘reasonable person’ would usually mean the jurors, judge or

magistrates

Prosecutors must decide that the evidence is admissible, reliable

and credible … if not the prosecution will not go ahead

Public interest test

- Where there is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of
convicting the suspect, prosecutors must then decide whether
a prosecution is required in the public interest
- In doing so they will consider the set of questions on the next
slide
 - Not all questions may be relevant in every case, and the
weight attached to each one will also vary according to the
facts of the individual case

How serious is the offence? The most serious the crime the more
likely the suspect is to be prosecuted

What is the suspect’s level of culpability? (blame or

responsibility) - The greater the culpability the more likely they are
to be prosecuted

What was their level of involvement? Was the offence planned? Did
they benefit?

Do they have previous convictions? Are they likely to re-offend?

A suspect who has bene compelled or exploited will usually have a

lower level of culpability -

What harm has the victim suffered? - The more vulnerable the
victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required, for
example

The suspect holds a position of trust of authority

The suspect targeted/exploited the victim

The offence was motivated by prejudice against the victim

Prosecutors should always take the victims views into account about
the impact the offence has had on them

The suspect’s age and maturity - The younger the suspect the
less likely they are to be prosecuted

Prosecutors must consider the best interests and welfare of those

under 18 – they aim to keep young people out of the criminal justice
system where possible

However, prosecution may still be in the public interest for example

if the offence is serious or the suspects past record

What is the impact of the offending on the community? - The

greater the impact the more likely a prosecution
 The community can mean both a neighbourhood and a group of
people who share the same characteristics e.g. Gender / Ethnicity /
Sexuality

Is prosecution a proportionate response? (e.g. is the cost

excessive when weighed against the likely penalty?) For
example: The cost of prosecuting excessive when weighed against
the likely penalty

In cases with many suspects, it may be better to prosecute only the

ringleaders to avoid long, complex trials

Do sources of information require protecting? (e.g. is it risky

to make it public?) Prosecution may not be appropriate where
details need to be made public that could harm sources of
information or other investigations

Threshold test
- In some cases, a suspect may still be charged even if
the evidence requirements of the Full Code Test
cannot be met
- In these cases, the Threshold Test must be applied
- The Threshold test has 5 conditions, all of which
must be met before a suspect can be charged
- Any decision to charge under the Threshold Test
must be kept under review and the prosecutor
should obtain the additional evidence from the police
- The Full Code Test must be applied as soon as the
evidence is received
Conditions of threshold test
- There must be reasonable grounds to believe the
person has committed the offence.
- There must be reasonable grounds to believe further
evidence can be obtained that will provide a realistic
prospect of conviction.
- The crime is serious enough to justify charging the
suspect immediately.
- There must be substantial grounds to object to bail-
e.g. a suspect who is likely to interfere with
witnesses.
 - It must be in public interest to charge the subject.
Case studies
Abu Hamza

 Abu Hamza, a radical Muslim Cleric, was convicted in 2006 of

several offences including Soliciting Murder and Inciting Racial
Hatred

 The case threw controversy at the CPS and its application of the Full
Code Test

 The police had twice (1990 and 2000) formally asked prosecutors to
consider terror charges against Hamza but the CPS decided there
was insufficient evidence

 In 2006 the CPS finally decided to prosecute

Joan Francisco

 Joan Francisco murder in 1994 saw the CPS refuse to prosecute due
to lack of evidence

 However, four years later her family sued her former boyfriend in a
civil court and won

 This was the first time someone has been sued for a murder for
which they had never been charged

 Again, the CPS refused to prosecute citing a lack of evidence

 However, a review of evidence was ordered and evidence that was

originally missed came to light that tied the former boyfriend to the
murder

 If it wasn’t for the civil case the CPS may never have prosecuted

Damilola Taylor
 On 27
th November Damilola Taylor was discovered bleeding to
death in the stairwell of a block of flats in Peckham, south-east
London. The artery in Damilola’s left thigh had been severed by a
shard of glass
 A key prosecution witness, a 14-year-old girl known as Bromley, was
discredited during cross-examination and her testimony struck out
due to evidence of her lying being put before the court
 The CPS were criticised as they should have known they would be
exposed as Bromley’s lies were extremely obvious
 Criticism was made on the time spent cross-checking her evidence
against known facts and videotaped interviews with her