The Crown Prosecution Service - Essay Example

? BILLY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THE ALLEGED ASSAULTS The Crown Prosecution Service The Crown Prosecution Service refers to a department of the government that is normally responsible for arraigning criminal cases inspected by the police in Wales and England in place of the State. The Crown persecution service, normally liaise with the inspecting and prosecuting organizations of other authorities, and its responsibility is comparable to that of the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland, and the crown prosecution in Scotland. The crown prosecution service is controlled by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is normally accountable to the Attorney General in Wales and England. The Attorney General, as a result, is normally answerable to Parliament for the service provided by the crown prosecution service1. The Crown Prosecution Service normally has the responsibility for taking criminal cases above the police investigatory level. The crown prosecution service normally direct the police on cases for conceivable prosecution, they evaluate cases submitted by the police; they decide any charges in minor cases; they organize cases for court and forward cases to court, both in the Crown and the Magistrates Court. The major role of the crown prosecution service is to examine the evidence collected by the police, and deliver guidance. After sufficient evidence is obtained, the crown prosecution service normally makes its decisions based on the evidence. They also decide whether a case should be followed or dropped. In the occasion that the crown prosecution service is contented that there is sufficient evidence to arraign, they then prosecute either in the Magistrates Court. If the case is to be taken to the Crown Court, they order an independent advocate to arraign for them or, gradually, they may employ their advocates. Despite the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service operates with the police, it is autonomous of them, and except for exceptionally petty cases, the choice whether to arraign a case depends on the crown prosecution service2. The Crown Prosecution service is normally accountable for defining the charge in all, but minor cases, they also advice the police during the initial stages of an enquiry, they also study cases passed by the police for prosecution; the crown prosecution also have the responsibility of examining cases for court and handing over those cases at court. In each case studied, the prosecutor normally weighs, whether, there is enough evidence, and if there is sufficient evidence, the prosecutor determines whether the person needs to be prosecuted. Despite the fact that Crown Prosecutors interact closely with the police, they normally have a responsibility of serving the Crown Prosecution Service, which is an independent governmental organization3. The rules and principles relating to assault and the general principles of the crown prosecution service are as follows: the crown prosecution service normally has the responsibility of deciding, whether, to prosecute or give an individual involved in an assault an out-of-court clearance. The crown prosecution service normally have to ensure fair and effective trial is provided. This is normally necessary so as to maintain law and order. The crown prosecution service has the responsibility of ensuring that the right person is prosecuted. They also have the responsibility of ensuring the person is prosecuted for the right offence. This is necessary to ensure that such offenders are brought to justice. It also the role of the crown prosecution service to ensure that casework judgments are performed fairly, without any bias, and with integrity in order to bring justice for defendants, witnesses, victims and the public4. The crown prosecution service also have the responsibility of evaluating, advising the people involved, and prosecuting cases to ensure proper out-of-court disposal to the lawbreaker. The crown prosecution service should ensure that the law is applied properly; they should do this by ensuring all necessary evidence is provided before the court. The crown prosecution service should ensure that requirements of disclosure are observed, according to the principles set out in the Code5. Despite the fact that each case is normally considered based on its facts, and merits, the crown prosecution service normally have the general principles and guidelines on how the prosecutors should approach different cases. They normally require the prosecutors to be objective, independent, and fair. The prosecutors must ensure that personal views concerning the victim or the witness, the gender of the suspect, the political view, the sexual orientation, the ethnicity, the age, disability and religion do not affect their decisions during prosecution. The crown prosecution service also has the responsibility of ensuring that the prosecutors do not succumb to undue pressure from outside. They should advice the prosecutors to act in the interest of justice and not act with the purpose of getting the lawbreaker convicted (Simester, Sullivan, Spencer,6. The crown prosecution service is normally a public authority, responsible for ensuring current, relevant and equal legislation. They, therefore, have to ensure that the prosecutors are bound by the duties set in the legislation. The crown prosecution service normally applies the guidelines of the European agreement on human rights. They normally ensure each stage of the case takes into account the human rights act. The prosecution service should also ensure that the guidelines issued by the Attorney general are followed by the prosecutors. It is the role of the prosecution service to ensure the prosecutors comply with the prosecution policies and the guidelines given by the attorney general. They should also ensure the criminal procedure rules are taken into consideration7. These guidelines apply to Billy because, despite Billy being a lawbreaker, the prosecutor should ensure he passes fare judgment. The prosecutor should also consider the witness he is dealing with, who his children. When offering his judgment, the prosecutor should consider the fact that Billy had a few pints before engaging in the crime8. Tests applied by the Crown Prosecution Service The different tests applied by the crown prosecution service include: the code test, which normally takes two stages. The first test in the code test is normally the evidential test, whereby if a case does not pass an evidential test it is normally taken to the next stage. If the case does not meet the evidential test, the crown prosecutors normally decide whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The test that follows the evidential test is the public interest test. In this stage the crown prosecution service normally starts its prosecution, if the case passes both tests9. In the evidential test, the crown prosecutors normally have the responsibility of ensuring, enough evidence is provided to enhance a realistic prospect of conviction. The crown prosecution service must consider what is likely to affect the case. A realistic prospect of conviction is normally defined as an objective test. In this case, the magistrates are directed according to the law. In this case, the jury may not convict the defendant of the alleged charge. The magistrates normally convict only if they are convinced that, the offender is guilty. During this test, the crown prosecutors also examine whether the evidence provided is reliable. This is because there are cases in which the evidence provided does not normally give a cause for concern. The crown prosecutors must, therefore, ensure that the evidence can be used in court. The evidence may be excluded considering the manner in which it was gathered. The prosecutors must, therefore, ensure there is enough evidence to enhance a realistic prospect of conviction. The prosecutors should also ensure the evidence is reliable, and such factors as the defendant’s age, level of understanding, and intelligence should be taken into consideration. The prosecutors should also determine if the witness background is likely to affect the prosecution case. Concerns about the credibility of the witness should also be considered. The prosecutors should ensure these concerns are based on evidence10. The other test is the public interest test; this test should normally be applied in a case where there seems to be enough evidence to enhance a realistic prospect of conviction. This test normally ensures a prosecution takes place, unless there are public interests preventing the prosecution from taking place. The prosecutors are the normally required to outweigh the favors. In case of any favors, the matters should be put in court, for any considerations before a sentence is passed. The factors that favor the prosecution and those that do not favor the prosecution should be balanced carefully and fairly. Factors of public interest that can affect the prosecution normally rely on the seriousness of the crime and the circumstance of the suspect. Certain factors may promote the need to prosecute while other factors may call for another cause of action11. The offence of assault The offense of assault according to the Assault Definitive Guideline is normally applicable to all offenders aged 18 and above. The first stage of such a prosecution is normally to determine the offence category. In the first category, the prosecutor should examine any instances of greater harm and higher culpability. In the second category, the prosecutor should examine any instance of greater harm and lower culpability or lower harm and greater culpability. In the third instance, the prosecutor should examine lesser harm and lower culpability. The court is normally required to determine the extent of harm and the culpability12. In case of any harm and culpability factors, the factors may entail the factual elements of the crime. The next step taken by the prosecutor is normally to ensure sentence is reached within the category range. This should apply irrespective of previous convictions. The factors indicating greater harm, such as injury, or psychological harm may show some seriousness in the context of the offense and should normally be presented. The victim is normally considered vulnerable due to personal circumstances. Sustained or repeated assault to such a victim should also be taken into consideration. Factors indicating lesser harm may be looked at in the form of the injuries which are less serious in the context of the offence13. Factors indicating culpability can be categorized into statutory aggravating factors, which can be: crime motivated by a person’s sexual orientation, or hostility to the target due to their sexual orientation. Under this category, the offence may be motivated by the victim’s disability status. Other aggravating factors include: a significant degree of planning, threatened or the use of a weapon, intended commitment more serious harm from the offence, enough harm caused necessary for commissioning of offense, targeting of a vulnerable victim, and offence motivated by, the victim's age, sex, gender identity14. There are factors that may increase the degree of seriousness of the assault, they include: location of the offence, the timing of the crime, the effect of the crime upon the victim, crime committed against those providing a service to the public. The presence of relatives, children or partner of the victim should be observed. The case of domestic violence, if the victim was forced to leave their home, would also be considered. The person’s failure to comply with current court orders, and offence committed whilst on license should also be addressed in cases involving an assault. The failure to respond to warnings expressed by other people about the offender's behavior should be addressed in such a case. The commission of crime due to the influence of alcohol or drugs should be addressed. The abuse of power, the exploitation contact preparations with a child to commit a crime. Established indication of community impact and action taken to stop the victim, for example, reporting the incident, or obtaining assistance could also be used during prosecution15. There are factors that may reduce the seriousness of an assault, or may reflect personal mitigation they include: the lack of previous convictions, remorse, exemplary conduct, addressing factors such as addiction, the medical conditions that may require long-term treatment and isolated incidents. Other factors that may reduce the seriousness of an assault include: the age of the offender, the interval of time since the crime was committed, any mental disorders, and if the offender is the sole provider for dependent relatives16. In conclusion, Billy should be prosecuted for assault, despite the commission of his crimes under the influence of alcohol. He should be convicted for domestic violence and assaulting his wife. He should also be convicted because he also caused his wife serious injury to the extent that his wife was hospitalized. Billy should also be convicted for having assaulted a public worker, evident by him slapping the nurse across the face17. Bibliography Carlo Guarnieri (1997), The judiciary in the Italian political crisis, 20, West European Politics, pp. 157–175. Dyer, Clare (2005). "Criminal justice revolution to secure more convictions". The Guardian. Elliott, Catherine; Quinn, Frances (2006). Criminal law. Pearson/Longman. Herrmann, Joachim (1974), Rule of Compulsory Prosecution and the Scope of Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, The, 41, U. Chi. L. Rev., pp. 468 Nichols, Matthew S. (2001), No One Can Serve Two Masters: Arguments against Private Prosecutors, 13, Cap. Def. J Robert M. Ireland (1995). "Privately Funded Prosecution of Crime in the Nineteenth-Century United States". The American Journal of Legal History (Temple University) Sidman, Andrew (1976), Outmoded Concept of Private Prosecution, The, 25, Am. U. L. Rev., pp. 754 Simester, A. P.; Sullivan, G. R.; Spencer, J. R.; Virgo, G. (2010). Simester and Sullivan's Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (4 ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Smith, J. C. (2002). Smith & Hogan: Criminal Law (10 ed.). London: Butterworths. Rothbard, Murray, (2000) "Punishment and Proportionality", The Ethics of Liberty Read More