In my last blog post, we looked at the benefits of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and how it keeps the justice system moving and fair. However, there are some criticisms of the CPS as well, which we will look at in this blog post. First of all, we will look at the role of the CPS and how it works.
The CPS prosecutes cases in England and Wales, which may have been investigated by the police or other investigative organisations. The CPS is an independent organisation and makes decisions on whether to prosecute without influence from the government. The CPS should act without bias and ensure prosecutions are fair. They explain the reasoning behind their decisions so that the prosecution process is transparent.
In addition, the CPS is responsible for deciding what the appropriate charges are in more complex cases they do decide to take to court. They also advise the police during the early stages of an investigation.
The CPS will prepare the case that they are prosecuting and present this in court. In addition, they provide assistance, information and support to victims and prosecution witnesses that might be called upon in court.
Prosecutors of the CPS are also required to follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. They should be fair, objective and independent in reaching their decision on whether to prosecute. To decide whether to charge a suspect, the prosecutors will use the Full Code Test from the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This helps to ensure that decisions are made consistently, regardless of the case, suspect and individual prosecutor.
The Full Code Test has two stages, evidential and public interest. The evidential stage looks at whether the evidence is sufficient to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This is an objective test that asks whether a jury would be more likely than not to convict based on the evidence available.
Next, the public interest stage asks whether the prosecution is necessary in the public interest. They will weigh up the factors for and against prosecution and act accordingly. However, unless the public interest factors against prosecution significantly outweigh the ones for, the CPS will usually decide to prosecute.
Heavy Reliance on the Police
One disadvantage of the CPS is that it relies on the police when deciding whether to prosecute. Although the CPS is free to examine the potential case without having to take the police’s views into account or discuss it with them, they might still be influenced by them. The vast majority of cases brought to the CPS for consideration are from the police, with only a few coming from other investigative bodies.
As there are so many cases for the CPS to evaluate, they do not have the time and resources to investigate each one’s police files thoroughly. Instead, they are reliant on the police to accurately report the contents of each file and the important facts of a proposed case. This has brought criticisms that the CPS is not fully independent from the police, as it should be, and is actually predisposed to prosecute in the cases brought to them by the police.
This overreliance on the case notes also makes them more likely to be swayed by the police’s point of view. The police will often know the people who might be prosecuted from their day-to-day work and be biased against them before the case has even reached the CPS. They can then pass on this bias to the prosecutor, leading to more prosecutions where it is not always necessary. The CPS only hear the police’s side of the story, not the potential defendant’s.
Not Enough Time for Preparation
Another limitation of the CPS is that they often don’t receive the case details until too late in the process to reasonably have time to examine them. If they don’t receive the files until just before a decision is needed, they will not have sufficient time to go through them carefully. This can then lead back to relying on the police’s case notes and deciding to prosecute without fully considering the facts of the case.
This can also be the situation where there are not enough prosecutors to handle the volume of cases that need a decision. They will have to rush through some, which can lead to snap decisions rather than thorough evaluations. This works both ways – some cases might escape prosecution where it probably would be appropriate.
Inadmissible Evidence
Another criticism of the CPS is that it doesn’t always challenge evidence that would be inadmissible in a court. This can mean that some cases are prosecuted where the evidence is not usable, which then wastes court time and resources. Alternatively, there is a chance the error will never be spotted and the defendant is prosecuted, despite the evidence being inadmissible.
Wrapping Up
I hope that these two blog posts help you understand some of the benefits and criticisms of the CPS. In my next blog post, we will be looking at the advantages of the UK constitution, so come back in two weeks for that!
Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.
Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed
Carmine Proofreading 