• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why was the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) created?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Why was the CPS created? The obligations of the crown prosecution service (CPS) before 2000 was to instruct independent counsel (barristers) to prosecute cases in the Crown Court and other higher courts. After changes were brought by Access to Justice Act 1999 solicitors who are employed lawyers who have the right qualification could now be able to appear in the Crown court and the higher courts. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 created the CPS, which only came into being in 1996. The Crown prosecution services have the responsibility of prosecuting people who have been charged with a criminal offence in England and Wales. The CPS is headed by under the supervision of an Attorney General the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). It is an independent body that works with the police, the courts, the home office, the ministry of justice as well as other agencies that are in the criminal justice system such as the RSPCA. Each year the CPS will have to deal with more than a million cases in the Magistrates court and around 130,000 cases in the Crown court, to deal with this there is around 8,775 staff that are employed by the CPS which is spilt into 3 different groups which are the prosecutors, paralegals and the administrators. ...read more.


Thirdly that there could be a potential infringement of a right to a fair trial, as the police were involved with the investigations they had been tampering with evidence to help win cases, this meant that there were several miscarriages of justice when it came to the prosecution. The report only fuelled the criticisms on the police?s control over the prosecutions. In 1978 the Government decided that they wanted to address the problem so they set up a committee that was to investigate the prosecution process. The committee was called the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and was chaired by Sir Cyril Phillips. The committees Phillips report was ytyyyyythen presented to the Government in 1981. One of the thing that committee had found out was that too many trials were being halted at the end of the prosecution presentations of the case in court. This was because the evidence for the prosecution wasn?t sufficient enough to prosecute which led to lots of judge directed acquittals. The commission then stated that they thought that the CPS should have seen beforehand that those cases were going to fail because of the lack of evidence, and then when they had chosen to proceed it was a waste of money and the police?s time. ...read more.


That the CPS should be under the control of a Chief Crown Prosecutor who would be given freedom and own budget from the central control. The CPS would take over the cases after police had charged the person, and then they would arrange the initial magistrates court hearings and the witnesses. The decision would be made by the CPS in deciding whether or not to prosecute or charge a suspect, however before this the police would make the decision. Another recommendation was that the Criminal Justice Units (CJU) would be established to deal with many of the cases in their entirety; these units would be made up of the police, administrative staff i.e. the caseworkers and the CPS lawyers. Another would be that the section called the Central Casework would deal with the more serious cases and they would be given any additional staff resources that they needed. Yet another recomendation was that a CPS lawyer should be allocated to each Crown court. The report was soon accepted which led the Government to act swiftly on Glidewell recommendations. His recommendation on having the CPS in 42 areas was implemented and has been spilt into numerous branches with each branch headed by a Branch Crown Prosecutor. This system seemed to be working more efficiently as Sir Iain Glidewell had predicted as 70%-80% of criminal cases that were dealt by the CPS resulted in a conviction in 2008 to 2009 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Free essay

    Critically discuss whether the criminal courts of England and Wales require substantial reform. Firstly ...

    Not everyone will agree with these changes but then, as with every proposal for improvement or reform, not everyone does, and when opposition is expressed on principal grounds, it requires careful attention. These new functions have been described as "all stylish and modern but...revolutionary of the adversarial process.

  2. Court Structure

    Alternatively the appeal may be based on the law, where the defendant argues that the court has misunderstood what the law requires for the offence in question. It is also possible for an appeal to be based on a mixture of fact and law.

  1. Let Him Have It " This film (let him have it) is directed by ...

    Craig eventually ran out of bullets & threw him self off the roof in a vain attempt to avoid capture. He landed on a greenhouse roof 30 feet below & broke his back. Both Derek and Craig were charged with the murder of Pc miles.

  2. Mandatory Minimums: A National Injustice

    This means that over 1.5 million children currently have a parent in jail (Cruel). A fair amount of these parents are mothers, and the number is continually growing. Since the start of mandatory minimums the number of women in prison has tripled.

  1. The Canadian Justice system towards aboriginal offenders

    A 'judge' from a non-aboriginal context is simply an outsider without authority.7 The aversion to instituting a judge as an aboriginal authority figure is but one of several problems plaguing aboriginal offenders in the Canadian criminal justice system. Evidence also indicates that aboriginal offenders are intimidated by the adversarial process

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

    They appealed this until they finally had enough evidence to none of them had committed the crime. Therefore the 6 were finally freed in 1991 which was 16 years after they were convicted. That example shows clear evidence that the police were too close to the case and this gave

  1. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.? The clear and

  2. Explain the role of the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission)

    said: 'we have no doubt that these convictions were both safe and satisfactory.' Then in 1990 the Home Secretary referred the case back to the Court of Appeal. At that point there was a new system which then proved the police had tampered with the evidence, and therefore the new evidence meant the men we set free.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work