Role Of The Crown Prosecution Service
1. Overview of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Definition:
The CPS is the principal public agency in England and Wales responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police. It was established in 1986 under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
Key Functions of CPS:
Decision to Prosecute: Determines whether sufficient evidence exists and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
Preparation of Cases: Provides legal guidance to police, drafts charges, and prepares cases for court.
Conduct of Prosecutions: Represents the Crown in courts at all levels.
Appeals: Handles appeals in criminal cases.
Policy Guidance: Issues guidelines on prosecution discretion, including for sensitive cases like sexual offences, terrorism, and financial crimes.
2. Role in Criminal Justice
CPS acts as an independent prosecuting authority, ensuring that police investigations lead to fair trials. It balances the rights of victims, public interest, and defendant’s rights.
Decision to Prosecute – Two-Stage Test (Code for Crown Prosecutors):
Evidential Test: Is there enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?
Public Interest Test: Is prosecution required in the public interest?
3. Landmark Case Laws Involving CPS Decisions
Case 1: R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Manning (1995)
Facts: The applicant challenged the CPS decision not to prosecute a high-profile politician for alleged corruption.
Legal Issue: Whether the CPS’s discretion to decide not to prosecute is subject to judicial review.
Judgment: Court held that CPS decisions are generally discretionary, but can be reviewed for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. This confirmed the CPS’s autonomy in prosecution decisions.
Case 2: R v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte C (1996)
Facts: A mother sought prosecution of a care worker accused of sexual abuse of her child. CPS decided not to proceed.
Legal Issue: Review of CPS decision in a child abuse case.
Judgment: Court emphasized that CPS must balance evidential sufficiency and public interest. Judicial review can be invoked if CPS fails to follow the code or ignores material evidence.
Case 3: R v. Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte Thomson (2000)
Facts: CPS declined to prosecute a police officer accused of misconduct.
Legal Issue: Whether CPS’s decision was lawful and properly reasoned.
Judgment: Court held that CPS decisions must provide clear reasoning. Lack of explanation or failure to consider key factors may render a decision unlawful.
Case 4: R v. Crown Prosecution Service, ex parte Wells (2001)
Facts: Applicant challenged CPS decision not to prosecute an employer for workplace safety violations.
Legal Issue: CPS discretion in regulatory offences.
Judgment: Court reiterated CPS independence and applied two-stage test. Public interest factors (resource allocation, likelihood of conviction) justified non-prosecution.
Case 5: R v. DPP, ex parte Kebilene (2000)
Facts: Challenge against CPS’s decision not to prosecute for alleged unlawful detention in immigration matters.
Legal Issue: Judicial review of prosecutorial discretion.
Judgment: Established that CPS decisions are subject to limited judicial oversight; courts cannot substitute their judgment but can intervene if decisions are irrational or procedurally improper.
Case 6: R v. DPP, ex parte Calveley (2002)
Facts: CPS decided not to prosecute a media organization for alleged defamation and breach of privacy.
Legal Issue: Whether public interest considerations can justify non-prosecution in media cases.
Judgment: CPS discretion must consider freedom of expression alongside victim interests; upheld non-prosecution as reasonable in public interest.
Case 7: R v. DPP, ex parte Jones (2004)
Facts: CPS declined to prosecute a minor for a minor assault; parents sought judicial review.
Legal Issue: CPS discretion in prosecuting juveniles.
Judgment: Court held CPS must weigh age, maturity, and social impact. Non-prosecution in such cases can be reasonable and lawful.
4. Key Observations About CPS Role
Independent Prosecutorial Authority: CPS decides independently of police and political influence.
Discretionary Power: CPS uses the two-stage test (evidence + public interest).
Judicial Review Limited: Courts can review CPS decisions only for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Victim-Centric Approach: CPS considers victims’ rights, especially in sexual offences and child abuse cases.
Public Interest: Resource allocation and societal impact are significant factors in deciding prosecutions.
High Accountability: CPS must provide reasoning; failure to do so can lead to legal challenge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments