The Role of the Crown Prosecution Service - Report Example

Role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the English Criminal Trial Process By + IntroductionThe Criminal Prosecution Service is an independent authority located both in England and Wales to put on trial criminal cases that have been investigated by the police. It works hand in hand with the police but still maintains its independence. It is involved with 42 areas and was established in 1986 headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Its primary functions are to give information to the police at the onset of investigations, set the suitable fees in more severe or complex cases, keep a clear track record of cases by reviewing them continuously and choosing on the cases to be arraigned in court. In addition, it organises cases for trial and prosecutes cases with jurisdiction of domestic advocates, freelance advocates or representatives to present cases in court; and delivers facts and support to victims and prosecution witnesses. There are two main documents that CPS uses to execute its roles: the Code for Crown Prosecutors; and Core Quality Standards (CQS). The function of the Code Crown Prosecutors is to re-examine a defendant’s case against the Code for Crown Prosecutors before charging the defendant. The code’s role is to establish the principles that the Crown Prosecutors will use to make decisions prior to charging suspects in court and whether it is appropriate pursue prosecutions or not. The main principles to which these decisions are reached are if there is sufficient evidence to bring to book truthful and accurate prospects of conviction against every defendant. The judgement to prosecute an individual is a stern step hence justified and effective prosecution is very important to the safeguarding of law and order. Regardless of the nature of the case, whether big or small, the prosecution has the obligation to follow strictly the codes on behalf of the victims, witnesses and defendants. CPS applies the code for crown prosecutors for the fairness; consistency in decision-making activities concerning prosecutions and making sure that justice is done. This paper explores the functions of CPS and their authenticity in practicing law in previous cases handled by the institution. Defining the Role of a Prosecutor The public is not only confused about the functions of a prosecutor in CPS but also the place of CPS in the criminal justice system. Traditionally, the CPS has been perceived as a subordinate partner that is second to other institutions that have a function correlated to the criminal justice system like the police. In actual sense, prosecutors are very important in the decisions they make with respect to criminal cases. They are considered to be the gatekeepers who have the power to see the direction of the cases of the accused. For instance those cases to be prosecuted at public expense. The prosecutor’s role is dominant to the criminal justice system and has grown in time with regard to the challenges that the institution has faced in the recent past. However, there has not been clear and precise expectations or bearing ton showcase these changes. Important changes have been carried out especially to matters relating to the prosecutor and its relationship to other branches of the criminal justice system but this has not appeared to be a key factor in in the general vision. The CPS has done many things to streamline the justice system by taking responsibility for most of the decisions made about charging the victims in cases, which was the task given to the police and also shifted the powers to them to endorse conditional cautions which was a function of the sentence. The prosecutor’s role in this scenario is defined by what it takes away from the criminal justice system’s other functions, putting itself at the forefront of numerous decisions to be made. This creates a mix up of functions in the organization thus leading to the duplication of roles. Evidently the prosecutor does not have a strategic place, which is well defined with specific roles and boundaries in the criminal justice system. Its role with reference to victims is also not understood in the best of ways. The prosecutor’s role in relation to victims also seems to be generally misunderstood. The Prosecutor is not able to be an advocate for the victim in the way that the defence counsel is indebted to the defendant. However, government declarations that the prosecutor has an upper hand in most decisions relating to the victims’ rights has come out as a false impression. Most of the work the prosecutor does is to attend to the needs of the victims and have better service to them. However, there should be a better and clear understanding about what is right for the prosecutor to perform as his duty with reference to his victims The Decision regarding Whether to Prosecute In cases cited as complex and serious, prosecutors are compelled to agree whether an individual ought to be prosecuted with a criminal offence. In the event that the verdict is a positive one, they need to out rightly determine what the offence ought to be. The Director of Public Prosecution in charge guides these decisions. The police are obliged to abide by the same principles to determine whether it is necessary to begin criminal proceedings against an individual in the cases where they have full responsibility over. All investigators involved in a criminal case especially the police have the main responsibility of performing enquiries into suspected criminal activities and make rational decisions on how to set up the resources needed to make the resources needed to come up with reliable information. The necessary steps involved are if it is okay to begin or continue an investigation and the possibility of having positive results. Prosecutors have the mandate to advise the investigators especially the police about the inquiries that have been made upon cases and the evidential requirements and give a lending hand with pre-charge procedures. In investigations that involve large scale investigations the prosecutor can be asked for advice on the strategy being used in the investigation including the decisions to be made to improve or narrow the scope of criminal conduct as well as how many suspects are involved in the crime during the time of investigations. This is to aid the police in doing further investigations so as to complete the inquiry in a timely fashion and build the foundation of the case so that the prosecutor can identify and where possible look for loopholes in the results to rectify weaknesses. This is dependent on the Threshold test in which they are obliged to immediately put a stop in cases which are not able to meet the Full code Test. These are cases which cannot be strengthened or stretched in any way possible and the public interest seem to be against its prosecution for the lack of sufficient evidence. These cases are always closed immediately in all fairness and if any developments could emerge in the future, the case can be reopened but after careful analysis of the relationship between the two sets of investigations. Although Prosecutors always consider that the evidence and information that is brought forward by the police and various investigators is the most reliable one, the suspects and his or her representatives can give evidence and any other information related to the case to the prosecutors through the police or any other investigators, prior to charge so as to assist the prosecutor in making a positive verdict. The prosecutors are allowed to begin or go ahead with its prosecution when the case has gone through both stages of the Full Code test. The only exception is when the Threshold Test can be put into analysis of a case where it is mandated to apply to the court that the suspect to be placed in custody after being charged in court. The evidence will have not have to go through a Full Code Test in this stage. The Full Code Test Two stage are involved in the full code test which are the evidential stage and the public interest stage. The evidential stage always comes before the public interest stage. If any case does not does not go beyond the evidential stage, it cannot be passed to the public interest stage no matter how deep the case seems to be. If any case passes through the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must go ahead to push the case to the public interest stage. The evidential stage involves can only begin if crown prosecutors have the enough evidence to give “realistic prospect of conviction” which is lodged against every defendant on every charge. The crown prosecutors must put into consideration the case that the defense holds and how it is expected to come out. A realistic prospect of conviction is regarded as a strong objective test. What this means is that the jury or a panel of magistrates or judges who have to hear the case with regard to the law will not convict the defendant according to the charge against him or her. This is a test that is of special purpose that must be applied by the criminal courts. The court must not convict the defendant if they are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty. When a decision has to be made about if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant, Crown Prosecutors always have to weigh options and see if the evidence that is presented is reliable. There are times when the evidence is very sufficient and on the other hand there are times when the evidence is not sufficient at all like it appeared first. Therefore Crown Prosecutors do ask questions among themselves. For example: Can the evidence be used in court? And is the evidence reliable? Crown prosecutors must never give evidence when they are not certain that it is reliable. In cases that are suitable, Crown Prosecutors should consider doing a pre-trial interview with the witness to open up the case further. The public interest stage must be used if there is sufficient evidence to present a realistic prospect of conviction. Even though can be public interest aspects to be out to light in some cases, the prosecution must look at those factors in court before sentencing. A prosecution always takes place unless there are aspects of public interest that are against the prosecution. Conclusion In conclusion, the Crown Prosecution service have clear roles for every arm of the criminal justice system but the roles are sometimes ignored, overlapping or made weak by hasty investigations. There are exclusive cases that can be retried even after acquittal if the case is of serious nature. This can be done through a written consent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and application to the court of appeal. Therefore all individuals involved in the criminal justice system should be very particular with their findings so as to practice justified and transparent law. Bibliography Crown Prosecution Service charging standards., 2005. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Crown Prosecution Service: Report. (2008). London: Home Office. “Decriminalisation: a pernicious hypocrisy?”, 2009. Edinburgh Law Review 112–116. Ferner, R., & Mcdowell, S. (2006). Doctors and manslaughter--response from the Crown Prosecution Service: Authors reply. Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, 544-544. Investigators and Prosecutors, or Desperately Seeking Scotland: re-formulation of the “Philips principle”, 2006. 69 Modern Law Review 143–182 Odoherty, S. 2006. Doctors and manslaughter--response from the Crown Prosecution Service. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 544-544. Out of Court and Out of Sight: How Often are “Alternatives to Prosecution” Used?, 2008. 12 Edinburgh Law Review 481–486. Parking’s Fine: the enforceability of “private” parking schemes, 2007. Juridical Review 1–25. The Army Prosecuting Authority: Her Majestys Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorates follow-up report on the Army Prosecuting Authority., 2009. London: HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. The Career Path of Recent Scottish Law OYcers, 2000. Scots Law Times 144–147. The Career Path of Recent Scottish Law OYcers Revisited: Lord Advocate becomes solicitor, solicitor becomes Lord Advocate, and other surprises, 2007. Scots Law Times 223–22 The Summary Criminal Procedure (Abolition) (Scotland) Act, 2007. A Critical Look at Part 3 of the Criminal Proceedings, etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 2008 Juridical Review 215–240. Read More