Crown Prosecution Service - Case Study Example

KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE UNDER DUE PROCESS MODEL Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) By _____________ID 5448______ KEYROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE UNDER DUE PROCESS MODEL The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) is the Government Department accountable for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales (FN 1). It was formed after series of developments that took place in United Kingdom. There was a feeling that the prosecution of offenses should be given a right shape. Before the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879 there was no public prosecutor to take criminal cases to court and people had to find their own lawyers or present the prosecution case themselves. In 1962 Royal Commission on the police recommended that all police forces should have their own prosecuting solicitor’s departments. However, some police forces did set up their own prosecuting solicitor’s departments, whilst others continued to use local firms of solicitors for advice on prosecutions. Moreover, the police forces did not have to act on the solicitor’s advice. In 1978 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up under Sir Cyril Philips which criticized the efficiency of police in deciding the prosecution. It also pointed out that there was no uniformity in procedure of prosecution in different police forces. Its report was published in 1981 which recommended the Government that a new independent prosecution authority should be introduced by Act of Parliament. As a result, the Prosecution of Offences Act created the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 1985 (FN 2). The CPS started functioning in 1986. Having such a fundamental background, CPS has been entrusted with following responsibilities. However these responsibilities are to be delivered with in due process model that takes care of interests of innocent defendants. There remained the possibility that witnesses chose to forget what they had seen, because they considered the offense excused by reason. Because of that, insufficient proves prosecutions were completed without even further investigation due to which innocents were convicted and punished (FN 3). Due process model, one of the most efficient criminal jurisdiction systems, certainly aids in protecting the interests of innocents (FN 4, FN 5, FN 6 and FN 7). The due process model is definitely more effective than crime control model as it will not lead to any partiality in treating the defendants before the judgment and hence was supported by public irrespective of geographical region (FN 8). It allows more transparency and regulates the role of police. Responsibilities of CPS with in due process model: Advising the police on cases for possible prosecution: CPS acts like a legal advisor to police department. Because prosecutors are sensitive to the kind of information needed for conviction, they may help guide police investigations and exhort detectives to identify usable witnesses, thereby uncovering additional evidence. This role is limited, however police departments are independent of the administrative authority of the CPS and cooperation between them and are based upon the common goal of conviction. (FN 9). By doing this function, CPS guarantees the impartial enquiry done by the police and contributes for the due process model. Reviewing cases submitted by the police: Reviewing of cases submitted by police is very crucial as it decides the fate of defendants. CPS acts independently with out any partiality and comes up with a genuine guidance and hence plays avital role in ensuring the due process model. If the case does proceed to court, rather than being referred back to the police with the suggestion that no further action be taken, or that the police caution the young offender, the Crown Prosecution Service may at any stage prior to a plea being taken decide to withdraw or discontinue the case. The court then has sole responsibility for deciding upon sentence, though it may request agencies such as the Probation and Social Services to produce pre-sentence reports (FN 10). In this way, it acts independently, reduces the role of the police and contributes for due process model. Prosecutional responsibility CPS decides whether to file separate or multiple charges. The decision to try a defendant simultaneously on multiple charges can allow for the presentation of a considerable amount of evidence and permit an in court demonstration of a complete sequence of criminal events. Such a strategy has a practical side as well; it saves time and money by substituting one trail for what might otherwise be any number of trials if each charge were to be brought separately before the court. The final objective lies in balancing the interests of victims, and protecting the basic rights of defendants before they are found guilty which facilitates the due process model. Preparing cases for court : CPS is also entrusted with a responsibility of preparation of cases for the court as it ensures more neutrality and implementation of due process model. Traditionally, the police in England and Wales exercised the dual function of investigating and prosecuting criminal offences. The Crown Prosecution Service was established to separate these two functions while the police maintained the right to charge defendants and gathered evidence relating to the offence, including the right to interview witnesses, the Crown Prosecution Service assesses the evidence and presents the case in court. The Crown Prosecution Service has the power to drop or vary charges against the accused in weak cases which avoids victimization of innocent defendants and in that process facilitates due process model. Presentation of cases at court : CPS also presents the cases at court so that the justice to the innocent defendents will be taken care. In addition to the above mentioned responsibilities, CPS has been entrusted with some key roles fitting in to the due process model : Strengthening the prosecution process to bring offenders to justice: This is mainly for protecting the interests of general public affected by criminals. It provides an independent prosecution service, works with the police from the outset of a case to its disposal and advises the police before charge which in turn aid in due process model Championing justice and the rights of victims: It assesses the needs of victims and witnesses and their likely evidence from the outset and throughout the life of the case. This also facilitates the due process model by inculcating more genuinity. Inspiring the confidence of the communities we serve: Due process model needs more transparency and CPS fulfils it. Its approach is visible, open and accountable for all its decisions and hence draws the confidence of the serving clients. Driving change and delivery in the Criminal Justice System: As the criminal justice system needs to be addressed from time to time, CPS addresses it by infusing more principles of due process model. Being renowned for fairness and having a strong capability to deliver: CPS improves the efficiency of the prosecution system by facilitating more democratic principles and fairness. It develops the capability by integrating all the technological advancements in to criminal justice system. Area of concern: While ensuring the implementation of due process model, CPS faces some criticism also. There is a criticism that the crown prosecutors depend too heavily on police evidence, without reviewing cases independently, (FN 11) but there are suggestions that crown prosecutors merely endorse the sometimes rather ‘subjective’ exercise of discretion. (FN 12) That is, that there may be a certain amount of ‘moral accounting’ occurring which involves prosecutors in assessing the moral character of juveniles and the timeliness or otherwise of prosecution, as opposed to strict evidential and public interest criteria. Similarly, in considering the ‘evidential sufficiency’ the prosecutor must be certain that there is a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’ having regard to all the relevant evidence. (FN 13) When the prosecutor is satisfied that the evidence itself can justify proceedings he must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution. This is not an easy decision however, as defining where the public interest lies is frequently a complex and difficult process (FN 14). Conclusion: To perform the above mentioned key roles and responsibilities, CPS is expected to be in tune with the due process model. It is opined that crime control model has several flaws and cause injustice to the innocent defendents where as due process model effectively represents the basic rights for innocent defendents (FN 15). In this context, CPS has to function with in perview of due process model. It ensures higher independence and freedom of rights for the citizens. Moreover it protects the interests of the innocent defendents in addition to punishing the criminals where ever it is relevant. CPS plays a significant role in protecting the defendant’s interests and basic rights before they are found guilty by performing its roles and responsibilities with in the sphere of due process model. Bibliography FN 1: Spencer,J.R. 1989. Jackson’s machinery of justice. 8th edition. Cambridge University press. P:560.ISBN : 0521317673. FN 2: Crown Prosecution Service. http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/history.html. FN 3: Knafla A. Louis, (2002) Crime, Gender and Sexuality in Criminal Prosecutions: Greenwood Press: Westport, CT. FN 4 : Jance,J.A. 1993. With out due process. J.P. Beamount Mysteries series no. 36. Avon books, Newyork. ISBN : 0380758377. FN 5 : David Kairy. 1998. The politics of law. 3rd edition. Basic books. ISBN : 0465059597. FN 6 : Seqal,J.A. and Harold,J.S. 1993. The Supreme court and attitudinal model. Cambridge University Press. P:410. ISBN : 0521422930. FN 7 : Rosenblum,N.L. 1998. Membership and morals. Princeton University press. P:438. ISBN : 0691016895. FN 8 : Seliqson, M.A. 2003. Public support for due process rights : The case of Guatemala. Journal of the South West. December Issue. FN 9 : Schmalleger Frank, (1999) Criminal Justice Today, Fifth Edition: NY Prentice Hall International, (UK) Limited: London FN 10 : Fennell Phil, Harding Christopher, Jorg Nico & Swart Bert, (1995) Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study: Clarendon Press: Oxford. FN 11 : McConville M., A. Sanders and R. Leng, The Case for the Prosecution: Police Suspects and the Construction of Criminality (London; Routledge 1991). FN 12 : Gelsthorpe L. and Giller H, More Justice for Juveniles: Does More Mean Better? (1990) CrimLRev. 153 at 159-60; and S. Elliman, Independent Information for the Crown Prosecution Service, (1990) NLJ 812. FN 13 : Laing M. Judith, (1999) Care or Custody? Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: Oxford University Press: Oxford. FN 14 : Daw R. K, The Public Interest Criterion in the Decision to Prosecute (1989) 53 J Crim Law485- 501, 500. FN 15: BachelorGirl. 2005.  Analysis of the Crime Control and Due Process Models. http:// www.associatedcontent.com/ user/ 4583/ bachelorgirl.html. Read More