The Workings of the Crown Prosecution Service by Peter Tidy

Peter's talk had the potential disadvantage of having to follow the usual double act of the Chairman and Secretary. Who said live entertainment was dying in Norfolk!

For those who were not able to attend the meeting, this report will be even more frustrating because of Peter's recounting of incidents and decisions made by the CPS that were strictly off the record. They provided a fascinating insight to the decisions that were made about cases that did not reach the courts.

The CPS was established in 1986 by bringing together the prosecution functions previously undertaken by the police and by county councils into an independent body within the Criminal Justice system. The result is a CPS that is aligned with the organisational boundaries of the 42 police forces and is close to the community it serves through the Magistrates and County Courts. It performs four roles; advising the police during criminal investigations (and is developing this role further to advise and help the police in terms of evidence gathering and investigation); reviewing all cases raised by the police and decides which will go to court; preparing the case and then providing advocacy as crown prosecutors.

The decision to prosecute is based on two simple tests and following guidelines set out in the CPS' Code. Is there a realistic prospect of conviction using the evidence provided, and would it be in the public interest to prosecute? Peter used several scenarios to describe the difficulty in assessing public interest. For example an elderly minor shoplifter, where the action could be attributed to health or other issues; or a youth, where a criminal record for a very minor offence would result in consequences that would severely damage their future prospects. Another example was of a simple driver error, such as swerving to avoid an animal, having resulted in deaths and injury. No offence had been committed but the relatives of the victims were seeking prosecution. This sparked a lively debate on the relationships between perceived justice, emotion and whether the consequences of an incident should determine that some form of prosecution should take place.

Peter also highlighted the disparity between an offence and its consequential sentencing. For example driving without due care and attention that resulted in fatalities only carried the maximum penalty of a fine and/or community working. Yet an incident of dangerous driving, such as excessive speed, carried a potential penalty of 14 years in prison. To gain public confidence on this issue of disparity the government is considering, to misquote Gilbert and Sullivan, of making the punishment fit the consequences of the crime.

Peter summarised by saying that people need the confidence that, once a decision has been made on whether to prosecute or not, the decision was made correctly. There was lingering concern that a decision may be made correctly, but that the correct decision was not made. Black and white cases are very clear; it is the very many shades of grey that are the problem.

Brian Strowger