The Crown Prosecution Service: Role and Purpose
Ever wondered who decides whether someone actually gets charged with a crime after the police arrest them? That's where the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) comes in. Set up in 1986 under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the CPS took over the charging decisions from police to create a fairer system.
Before the CPS existed, police had complete control over prosecutions, which led to serious problems including institutional racism and biased investigations. Now, the CPS handles serious crimes whilst police can still prosecute minor offences like vandalism or theft.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 gives the CPS its powers and responsibilities. They provide 24-hour support to police, advising what evidence to collect and deciding whether cases should go to court. Most importantly, they must remain fair, objective and independent when making prosecution decisions.
Key Point: The CPS was created to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure prosecutions are based on evidence, not police bias.
The Full Code Test: How Prosecution Decisions Are Made
When deciding whether to prosecute someone, the CPS uses the full code test - a two-stage process that every case must pass. Think of it as a quality control system ensuring only strong cases reach court.
The evidential test comes first. Prosecutors must be confident there's enough valid, admissible evidence to convince a court of guilt. If evidence is weak (like hearsay that can be easily challenged), the case won't proceed no matter how serious the crime appears.
The public interest test considers whether prosecution serves the community's interests. Factors include the crime's seriousness, impact on victims and community, the offender's age and culpability, and whether the crime was impulsive or planned. Previous convictions make prosecution more likely due to patterns of behaviour.
The Caroline Flack case demonstrates these principles in action. Despite initially planning just a caution for allegedly assaulting her boyfriend, the CPS later decided prosecution was in the public interest, showing how complex these decisions can be.
When the full code test isn't met but immediate action is needed, the threshold test applies. This happened in the Abu Hamza case (1999), where terrorism charges were initially rejected due to insufficient evidence, requiring the threshold test approach instead.
