POL00114557 - Criminal Law Vision- Extract from Code for Crown Prosecutors
POL00114557
POL00114557
$a
GRIMINAL LAW DIVISION — ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
NAME ‘TELEPHONE NUMBER Office Number
Rob Wilson
Debbie Helszajn
Jamail Singh
Phil Taylor
Jenee Andrews
Marilyn Benjamin
Monica Thompson
lan Pocknell
c:\documents and settings\vob.g.wilson\my documents\criminal law division - address and tel nos..doc
POLO0114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
The Decision Whether to Prosecute
3.1 In more serious or complex cases, prosecutors decide whether a
person should be charged with a criminal offence, and, if so,
what that offence should be. They make their decisions in
accordance with this Code and the DPP’s Guidance on Charging.
The police apply the same principles in deciding whether to
charge or summons a person in those cases for which they are
responsible.
3.2 The police and other investigators are responsible for conducting
enquiries into an allegation that a crime may have been
committed. Every case that prosecutors receive from the police
or other investigators is reviewed. Prosecutors must ensure that
they have all the information they need to make an informed
decision about how best to deal with the case. This will often
involve prosecutors providing guidance and advice to the police
and other investigators about lines of inquiry, evidential
requirements, and assistance in any pre-charge procedures
throughout the investigative and prosecuting process. However,
prosecutors cannot direct the police or other investigators.
3.3 Prosecutors should identify and, where possible, seek to rectify
evidential weaknesses, but, subject to the Threshold Test (see
section 5), they should swiftly stop cases which do not meet the
evidential stage of the Full Code Test (see section 4) and which
cannot be strengthened by further investigation, or where the
public interest clearly does not require a prosecution (see section
4). Although the’ prosecutor primarily considers the evidence and
information supplied by the police and other investigators, the
suspect or those acting on his or her behalf may also submit
evidence or information to the prosecutor via the police or other
investigators, prior to charge, to help to inform the prosecutor's
decision.
POLO00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
3.4 Prosecutors must only start or continue a prosecution when the
case has passed both stages of the Full Code Test (see section 4).
The exception is when the Threshold Test (see section 5) may be
applied where it is proposed to apply to the court to keep the
suspect in custody after charge, and the evidence required to
apply the Full Code Test is not yet available.
3.5 Prosecutors must make sure that they do not allow a prosecution
to start or continue where to do so would be seen by the courts
as oppressive or unfair so as to amount to an abuse of the
process of the court.
3.6 Review is a continuing process and prosecutors must take
account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case
develops. Wherever possible, they should talk to the investigator
first if they are thinking about changing the charges or stopping
the case. Prosecutors and investigators work closely together,
but the final responsibility for the decision whether or not a case
should go ahead rests with the prosecution service.
3.7 Parliament has decided that a limited number of very serious or
sensitive offences should only be taken to court with the
agreement of the DPP. These are called “consent” cases. In such
cases, the DPP or prosecutors acting on his behalf
apply the Code in deciding whether to give consent to
a prosecution.
POLO0114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
nr I
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
The. Full Code Test
4.1 The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage;
followed by (ii) the public interest stage.
4.2 In the vast majority of cases, prosecutors should only decide
whether to prosecute after the investigation has been completed
and after all the available evidence has been reviewed. However,
! there will be cases where it is clear, prior to the collection and
consideration of all the likely evidence, that the public interest
does not require a prosecution. In these rare instances,
prosecutors may decide that the case should not proceed further.
4.3 Prosecutors should only take such a decision when they are
satisfied that the broad extent of the criminality has been
determined and that they are able to make a fully informed
assessment of the public interest. If prosecutors do not have
sufficient information to take such a decision, the investigation
should proceed and a decision taken later in accordance with
the Full Code Test set out in this section.
4.4 Prosecutors must follow any guidance issued by the DPP to
ensure that decisions in these cases are appropriate and correct.
The Evidential Stage
4.5 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to
provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect
on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may
be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A
case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed,
no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
4.6 — Arealistic prospect of conviction is an objective test based solely
upon the prosecutor's assessment of the evidence and any
information that he or she has about the defence that might be
7
POLO0114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
put forward by the suspect. It 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. This is a different test from the one that the
criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict
if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
4.7 When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute,
prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used
and whether it is reliable. There will be many cases in which the
evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also
be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first
appears. In particular, prosecutors will need to consider the
following issues.
Can the evidence be used in court?
a) Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court?
There are legal rules that might mean that evidence which
seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it
likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way
in which it was obtained?
b)
Is the evidence hearsay? If so, is the court likely to allow it to
be presented under any of the exceptions which permit such
evidence to be given in court?
©) Does the evidence relate to the bad character of the suspect?
If so, is the court likely to allow it to be presented?
Is the evidence reliable?
d) What explanation has the suspect given? Is a court likely to
find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does
the evidence support an innocent explanation?
POLO00114557
POL00114557
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
48
49
e)
i)
hy
D)
k)
Is there evidence which might support or detract from the
reliability of a confession? Is its reliability affected by factors
such as the suspect's level of understanding?
Is the identification of the suspect likely to be questioned? Is
the evidence of his or her identity strong enough? Have the
appropriate identification procedures been carried out?
If not, why not? Will any failure to hold the appropriate
identification procedures lead to the evidence of
identification being excluded?
Are there concerns over the accuracy, reliability or credibility
of the evidence of any witness?
Is there further evidence which the police or other
investigators should reasonably be asked to find which may
support or undermine the account of the witness?
Does any witness have any motive that may affect his or her
attitude to the case?
Does any witness have a relevant previous conviction or out-
of-court disposal which may affect his or her credibility?
Is there any further evidence that could be obtained that
would support the integrity of evidence already obtained?
Where it is considered that it would be helpful in assessing the
teliability of a witness’ evidence or in better understanding
complex evidence, an appropriately trained and authorised
prosecutor should conduct a pre-trial interview with the witness
in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice.
Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not
sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely
at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
9
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557
POL00114557