The CPS have many roles they have to conduct. Their main role is to prosecute the alleged defendant. They also advise the police to make sure that they have enough evidence against the defendant before the case is handed over. This is to avoid unnecessary cases, which are likely to be discontinued due to insufficient evidence. The CPS review all cases and prepare for the courts. A lawyer working within the crown prosecution service as a crown prosecutor conducts all the prosecutions taking place in the magistrate’s court. Independent lawyers act as prosecuting counsel within the crown courts. However as from April 2000 under the Access to justice Act 1999 crown prosecutors who have appropriate qualifications can prosecute the defendant themselves within the crown court. The CPS brings 75% of cases in the magistrates and 95% of cases in the crown court. The rest of the percentages are brought forward by other organisations such as Department of Social Security and Television Licensing Authority (Sanders et al 2000)
The crown prosecutors have to thoroughly review individual cases and decide whether to prosecute or not on two tests that are set out in the code for crown prosecution. The case has to pass both the evidential and the public interest test in order for the case to proceed and for the defendant to be prosecuted. No matter how grim the offence is, if it does not pass the evidential test the case cannot proceed.
The first test to be applied to any case is the evidential test. From this the CPS can conclude whether there is enough sufficient evidence to carry the case on within the criminal justice system. The CPS have to review and consider whether the evidence is strong enough for the likeliness of a defendant to be convicted by the magistrates or the jury. They also have to review whether the evidence obtained, is reliable and whether it can actually be used within the courts. They have to also review all confessions and question whether it could be unreliable due to the defendant’s age, lack of understanding and intelligence. There are may questions that the CPS have to ask themselves before it can pass this test, however they should not ignore any evidence but look closely at it to see if there is potential likeliness of a conviction.
After passing the evidential test, the case can now be forwarded for the public interest test. For this test, crown prosecutors have the duty to review all cases and must balance out the aspects for and against the conviction. They have to take into consideration the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. Lord Shawcross the attorney general in 1951 made a statement about the public interest test, he stated:
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be – that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution”
(House of Commons Debates, 1951)
There are a number of issues that will not be in favour for a prosecution to take place. The CPS will discontinue a case if they think it will be a waste of tax payer’s money to proceed. There are a number of issues for the discontinuation of a case but some of the factors against a prosecution are, if the crime will result in a light punishment, if the defendant is elderly and has serious physical or mental health issues and if there is a long delay of when the crime took place to the date of the trial.
However there are factors that increase the chances of a prosecution to take place. There are a vast amount of issues in favour of a prosecution that will help aid for a trial to begin. Some of the factors are, if a weapon is used or violence was threatened during the offence, the conviction is likely to be a heavy sentence, the evidence shows that the defendant was the ringleader or the organiser and last but not least the evidence shows that the offence was premeditated.
Whilst analysing the factors the CPS have to carefully study each factor that has been weighed out in each individual case. From this they have to make an overall decision as to whether the case should carry on for prosecution.
Once the case passes the tests successfully the CPS now have the job to decide on which charges to continue the case with. The CPS have to decide on an adequate charge, which reflects on the seriousness of the offender. The CPS should also present the case in a simple and clear manner and give the court adequate sentencing powers. Once the charge has been decided the CPS now have to prosecute the case in court.
The CPS may come across a defendant who wishes to plead guilty. In Circumstances of such the CPS should never accept guilty plea on the basis of it being convenient, as they still have to consider whether the court will be able to pass a sentence depending on the seriousness of the crime.
By applying the code of practice to each and every individual case, it can be seen that all Crown Prosecutors are using the same principle in order to prosecute their defendant. This can ensure that all victims around Wales and England are getting the same treatment, thus helping all CPS to prosecute fairly. Also by applying the code of practice, the CPS can notify which cases are weak and they can be thrown out at a very early stage. This avoids costly expenditure and time.
However there is a number of ways that the CPS can be criticised. It can be argued to what extent are the police and the CPS independent agencies?
The police once gaining enough relevant evidence pass the case to the CPS. From here it is the job of the CPS to review all cases and prosecute the defendant. However once the case has been passed over to the CPS, the CPS are under pressure to review the case carefully and thoroughly as the police have already fixed a date with the court for the first hearing. This can become a major problem due to the fact of limited time to review a case thus resulting in a weak case presented in court. This can be an issue as one is to blame the other for the poor outcome. The CPS has no say of the dates lined up for the cases to be heard both in the magistrate and crown courts. This also results in complaints from the magistrates and judges due to the lack of sufficiency within the case or a delay.
There is also friction between the two organisations as the CPS are totally dependent on the police for all the evidence for a case. However whilst in the process of handing over a case, they have the tendency to blame each other if the file is incomplete or if a document goes missing. This can be an issue, as the date set for the hearing of the case has to be adjourned. There is also an issue, of the fact that once a file is received the CPS review the case however once reviewed they do not keep up the
The CPS are geographically structured, this can be a disadvantage as information given to the CPS at the top of the structure will take a long time to filter through all the rest of the geographical organisation. This can be a major drawback as it means different branches would be working differently as the new instructions have not filtered through to everyone at the same time.
Since the codes of practice have been implemented there is a decrease in the number of the discontinuation of cases. However there are still cases that the CPS refuses to prosecute, resulting in private prosecutions being brought forward and resulting in successful prosecutions. There is also criticisms on the fact that the CPS often reduce the charge against the defendant, making it out to be a less serious offence than it actually is and to what the evidence shows. Due to this fact there is a higher rate of the defendant to plead guilty as they know that there sentence now is likely to be serious. But the question that lies here is that, is this really justice for the victim?
The CRE report (2001) investigating the Croyden crown prosecution service branch, also identified that the CPS were racist. A report found that one of the problems was that staff were segregated on the basis of their race. Race separation was clearly seen and was an issue. Amongst all the other problems identified within the report the Race Relation Act was enforced to reduce the amount of racism within the CPS. The CPS is known to be “institutionally racist.” Depending on the colour of your skin this can determine the defendant’s verdict. From Mhlanga (1999) it can be seen that black and Asian defendants often receive a positive outcome than the white defendants and have a higher chance for the case to be acquitted. Statistics show that in the year 2000 the acquittal rate for the white defendants was 30% whereas the black and Asian defendant’s acquittal rate was 42%. It can clearly be seen that there is racial discrimination within the CPS. This view can also be emphasised by a statement that the Director of Public Prosecutions made in 1999 where he said:
"Therefore I unreservedly accept the finding that as an organisation the CPS has been, within the Lawrence report definition, institutionally racist,"
(BBC News, 2001)
Therefore it can be concluded that, the CPS have the duty and the role to review and prosecute the alleged defendants. They are independent from the police, however still dependant on the organisation to retrieve the crime evidence. So it can be argued to what length are the two organisations independent? All the CPS organisations throughout Wales and England adapt the same set of rules whilst reviewing a case. The code of practice that all CPS refer to whilst reviewing a case has stemmed from the number of case discontinuations. All CPS now review the code to ensure that cases are being reviewed accordingly and to decrease the amount of case acquittals.
The CPS needs to consider changing the structure of the CPS. We can see that some of the branches throughout England and Wales do not receive new work instructions due to the delay of them coming down through the structure. It can be argued that this situation is unjust as parts of Wales and England are working slightly different to other parts when they should all be working with the same guidelines.
As we can see that the CPS have been downgraded in a number of Issues and the questions now lies, how hey are going to overcome such problems. However in the future new acts may be enforced or amended for the improvement of the CPS within the criminal justice system. But it can still be argued even though such acts may be enforced or amended, to what extent are they going to be implemented by the Crown Prosecution Service?