a) Explain the function of the CPS [14] b) evalate the effectiveness of the CPS [11]

The CPS is organised as there being a Director of Public Prosecutions and he is accountable to the Attorney General. Next there is 13 geographical areas and a virtual areas each needed by a Cheif Crown Prosecutor. There are also Crown Prosecutors, Paralegal Offices (training legal knowledge but have not got a degree) and administrative staff. The Director of Pulic Prosecutions is Keir Starmer QC.
        The powers of the Crown Prosecution Service are mainly contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1995, but have been added to by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The CPS have three main functions that make it up to be successful. To charge an offender they use Criminal Justice Act 2003, for deciding whether to prosecute and prosecution in court its the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
        The Criminal Justice Act 2003 gave the CPS even more contol because CPS lawyers were placed in police stations to provide telephone advice to the police as to the charge against the offender. This was considered necessary because the police were not experts on law and they could get it wrong. The CPS make more objective decisions. The main objective of the CPS was 'right person, right offence, right time'.
        

There is the Threshold Test which required the Crown Prosecutors to decide whether there is at least a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence, and if there is, whether it is in the public interest to charge the suspect. This test is applied to those cases in which it would not be appropriate to release a suspect on bail after charge, for example a suspected terrorist.
        When the CPS make a desicion to prosecute or not and when they did this they used what they called the 'full code test'. There are two parts to this. The evidencial test and the public interest test. These are contained in what is known as the Code for Crown Prosecutors which is writted by the DPP to help prosecutors make their desicions. First there is the evidential test where the Crown Prosecutor will look at the evidence gathered by the police and assess whether there is a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. This means they need to get rid of weak cases. The standard used by the Crown Prosecutor is whether the evidence is 'more than likely to lead to a conviction'. An example of not having enough evidence was the Colin Stagg case where he was accused of murdering Rachel Nickell 15th July 1992. This was also known as the 'honey trap case' where they tried to get evidence that he killed Rachel by sending an undercover police woman to get into a relationship with him to get him to confess to her. When it came to court, the evidence was deemed sufficient and therefore Stagg was convicted. But when the case reached the Old Bailey Justice Ognall ruled that the police had shown "excessive zeal" and had tried to incriminate a suspect by "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind". He excluded the entrapment evidence and the prosecution withdrew its case. Stagg was formally acquitted in September 1994. This was because the evidence was collected illegally.
        The 'Public Interest test' is the second test the Crown Prosecutors must check whether a prosecution is in the public interest. This involved balancing reasons for and against prosecution. Factors in this are if it results in a significant sentance, if a weapon is used or violence, if its commited against someone serving the public or if it was motivated by some form of discrimination. The CPS also have to look at factors against proescution where the loss or harm is minor. It can also be where the offence was committed by mistake or misunderstanding or because of the age of the defendant. A good example of a public interest test was the Debbie Purdy case. She was a woman with MS and she no longer can walk and is losing the strenght in her upper body. She wanted to know if her husband would be charged and prosecuted if he helped her end her life. Even though if he did help, the CPS would have sufficient evidence to prosecute him, they had to see if it was in the public interest to prosecute. The House of Lords were ruled that the DPP must publish guildance which sets out the circumstances in which it will be in the publics interest to prosecute someone for assisting suicide. They ruled that if Debbie's husband did help her, he would not be prosecuted. This was a very good example to show although the first part of the test says no, it does not mean that the second test will come out the same.