4. Definitions and Acronyms• Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)• Success• Models▫ Justice▫ Punishment▫ Management of crime and criminals (Packer; 1968, King; 1981:13 in Davies, Croall and Tyler; 2005:26)• Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)• Her Majesty‟s Crown Prosecution ServiceInspectorate (HMCPSI)• Royal Commission of Criminal Procedure (RCCP)
5. Context• Thatcherite thinking• Pre-1985• 1980s – the turning point (CPS: 2012)• Glidewell Report 1998 (Adams: 1998)• Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act2000 (HMCPSI: 2012)
6. Facts and Figures• Annual expenditure £568 million• Employs 7,800+• Prosecuted 1.25 million for criminal offences(2004-05)▫ 92% Magistrates‟ Court (National Audit Office; 2006)0102030405060708090100Convictions Unsuccessful ProsecutionsPercentage(%)Comparison of Convictions and UnsuccessfulProsecutions for a Number of OffencesHomicideOffences Against thePersonsPublic OrderSexual OffencesDrug OffencesMotoring(Data.gov.uk; 2012)62%16%7%4%2%3%2% 2% 2%Criminal Justice System expenditure 1999/2000PolicePrision ServiceCriminal Legal AidProbation ServiceCrown Prosecution Service and Serious FraudOfficeMagistrates CourtsOtherCriminal Injuries Compensation and VictimSupportCrown Court(Home Office; 1999:70)
8. Has the CPS maintained its independence from the police?
9. Job Well Done?• Sufficient evidence• Public interest• Can they succeed at these independent of thepolice?
10. CPS as a bridge• „...bridge between police investigation andcriminal courts...‟ (McConville & Wilson; 2002:9)• Dropped 10-20% cases presented by police▫ 39% due to lack of sufficient evidence▫ 35% witness unreliability (Home Office: 1994)• Does that mean it is successful in fulfilling itspurpose?
11. Powerful and uninfluenced?• Bias in the CJS is „imported through police“clues”‟ (Duff; 1997:37)• Independence as sovereign „dependent on policeraw material... the more refined, greater policeinfluence‟ (Mansfield; 1987 in Saunders; 1988:520)• Has the bridge been tampered with?
12. Inspecting the inspectors• HMCPSI „more proactive in seeking informationand trying to build a case‟ (Brown et al; 2007:356)• Inspectorate found discontinuance because:▫ 24% on public interest grounds▫ 25% of cases had delays in decision overdiscontinuance (Ashworth and Redmayne, 2010: 213)
13. Neo-liberal Agendas• Anglo-Capitalism and free markets• Home Office bureaucratic priorities▫ CPS no exception• No longer about initial goals but... £££▫ Its all about the money, money, money...• „Efficiency, minimal expense...‟ (Croall et al; 2005:12)
14. Co-operation with other agencies without losing independence?
15. PoliceOffice of the Prosecutor Generalof the Russian FederationAssociation ofChief PoliceOfficersMediaCounterTerrorismUnit Crimes AgainstHumanity UnitInstitute of LegalExecutivesMetPoliceForensic ScienceServiceNon-GovernmentalOrganisationsIndependentPolice ComplaintsCommission VictimsLocalGovernmentBarNHSOffice of RailRegulationInterpretersLocalGovernmentAssociationFire andRescueServicesWelsh LocalGovernmentAssociationMaritime and Coastguard AgencyChildProtectionServicesHealth and Safety ExecutiveBritishTransportPoliceSeriousandOrganisedCrimeAgencyImmigrationServices
16. CPS as Judge and Jury• Code for Crown Prosecutors▫ „realistic prospect of conviction‟ which should bean „objective test‟▫ 5 editions from start• Approaches of the CPS▫ Predictive▫ Intrinsic merits• 1986 and 1992 – favour of diversion fromprosecution• 1994 and 2000 – reversal
17. CPS Currently and its future• John Report 2003• Determine all but minor routine offences▫ Police regaining powers – independent?• Future to create a super prosecuting service▫ Serious Organised Crime Agency▫ Revenue and Customs▫ UK Border Agency
18. How does this reflect success, if at all?
19. Convictions and the CPS• Police organisation of prosecutors before CPS▫ Police reluctant to change this• Disjunctions between Policy and what actuallyhappens▫ ECHR- “equality of arms”• Evidence and its impact on cases• Prosecution of Offenders Act, 1985, Section 23▫ Police control evidence▫ Construction by Police, selective, Policesummaries and their eradication
20. Convictions and the CPS• Prosecution of cases as crime control strategy▫ “Confait Affair”• Convictions▫ Discontinuation of weakcases, Government, statistics▫ Doesn‟t it show CPS does what it was set up to do?Figures suggest it.• Stephen Lawrence case (Macpherson of Cluny, Sir W., 1999)
21. Convictions and the CPS• CPS rarely drops evidentially weakcases, research confirms weak cases continue tobe prosecuted, public interest cases• Violations of due process, Police cautioning• CPS as decision reverser, not a decisionmaker, “Prosecution momentum”
22. Convictions and the CPS• Prosecution of weak cases▫ Commitment to help the “vulnerable” victim(Sanders et al. in Home Office, no. 44; 1997)• Little difference in Police and CPS outlook andevaluations of cases, CPS mindset asPROSECUTION not CRIMINAL JUSTICEagency (McVonville et al.;1991)• Unlike Holland (Brants and Filed; 1995).
23. Convictions and the CPS• Ethnic minority defendants▫ More likely to have cases BOTH discontinued andadmitted to court, racism elements of Police(Mhlanga, 1999)
24. Convictions and the CPS• Adaptation and progression▫ Schemes like PICA (Public Interest CaseAssessment)▫ RCCP recommendation that PICA “should beexpanded across country” (RCCP Report, 1993)▫ “Prosecutors have no way of knowing...” so Codeof Crown Prosecutors can not be applied correctly
25. Convictions and the CPS• Adaptation and progression cont.▫ Auld Report 2001▫ Statutory Charging Scheme▫ Senior Prosecutor in the past warned CPS needs acultural change (Brownlee, 2001), structural and roleconflicts• CPS Annual Report 2004-05 proclaimed this asprogressed.
26. The jury is out...
27. On the grounds of:IndependenceInterdependenceCPS and Convictions
28. The verdict is in...
29. GuiltyOverall, unsuccessful
30. Not-GuiltyOverall, successful
31. Bibliography1. Adams, D., 1998. Reforming the Crown ProsecutionService. Policy Studies, 19(3/4), pp. 223-227.2. Anon., 1981. Royal Commission on CriminalProsecution Report. London, HMSO.3. Anon., 1993. Royal Commission on CriminalProcedure, London: MHSO.4. Anon., HSP 90. Inquiry into the CircumstancesLeading to the Trial of Three Persons on ChargesArising out of the Death of Maxwell Confair and Fairat 27 Doggett Road, London SE6, London: HMSO.5. Ashworth, A. & Redmayne, M., 2010. Prosecutions. In:The Criminal Process. 4 ed. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 193-227.
32. Bibliography6. Auld, L. J., 2001. Review of the Criminal Courts of Englandand Wales, London: TSO.7. Barclay, G. C. & Tavares, C., 1999. Information on theCriminal Justice System in England and Wales Digest4, London: Home Office.8. Bowling, B., 1998. Violent Racism. Oxford: Clarendon.9. Brants, C. & Field, S., 1995. Discretion and Accountability inProsecution. In: C. Harding et al., ed. Criminal Justice inEurope: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Clarendon.10. Brown et al., 2007. Protective Roles in Seeking Informationand Trying to Build a Case. Journal of Psychology, Crimeand Law, 13(4), pp. 355-370.11. Clarkson et al., 1994. Assaults: The Relationship betweenSerious ness, Criminalisation and Punishment. CriminalLaw Review 4.
33. Bibliography12. Crisp, D., 1993. Standardising Prosecutions. In: HomeOffice Research Bulletin 13.. London: Home Office.13. Crisp, D., 1993. Standing Accused, London: Home Office.14. Crisp, D. & Moxon, D., 1994. Case Screening by the CrownProsecution Service: How and Why Cases areTerminated, London: Her Majestys Stationary Office.15. Croall et al., 2005. Criminal Justice. London: Pearson.16. Crown Prosection Service, 2012. Prosecutors. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/prosecutors[Accessed 10 October 2012].17. Crown Prosecution Service, 2004-05. CPS AnnualReport, London: SO.
34. Bibliography18. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Area Business Managers. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/abm[Accessed 10 October 2012].19. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Chief Crown Prosecutors. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/ccp[Accessed 10 October 2012].20. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Chief Executive. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/ce[Accessed 10 October 2012].21. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Director of Public Prosecution. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/dpp[Accessed 10 October 2012].22. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Headquarters. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/you_cps/our_organisation/headquarters[Accessed 10 October 2012].23. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. History. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/history[Accessed 10 October 2012].
35. Bibliography24. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. National Protocols and Agreementswith Other Agencies. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/agencies/index[Accessed 10 October 2012].25. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. People at the CPS. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/people[Accessed 10 October 2012].26. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Sector Directors. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/sectordirectors[Accessed 10 October 2012].27. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. The Criminal Justice System. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/cjs[Accessed 8 October 2012].28. Crown Prosecution Service, 2012. Your CPS: Introduction. [Online]Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/about[Accessed 10 October 2012].29. Duff, P., 1997. Who Controls the Gates. British Journal ofCriminology, 37(1).
36. Bibliography30. Farrall, S. & Hay, C., 2010. Not So Tough On Crime? Why Werent theThatcher Governments More Radical in Reforming the Criminal JusticeSystem?. British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), pp. 550-569.31. Her Majesty‟s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, 2012. Who weare and what we do. [Online]Available at: http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/about/who-we-are-and-what-we-do[Accessed 14 October 2012].32. Her Majestys Government, 2012. Crown Prosecution Service caseoutcomes by principal offence category - August 2011. [Online]Available at: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/crown-prosecution-service-case-outcomes-by-principal-offence-category-august-2011[Accessed 17 October 2012].33. Khan, A. N., 1986. Crown Prosecution Service. Journal Of CriminalLaw, 50(1), pp. 297-304.34. Macpherson of Cluny, S. W., 1990. The Stephen Lawrence Case, Cm4262-1, London: SO.35. McConville et al., 1991. The Case for Prosecution. London: Routledge.
37. Bibliography36. McConville et al., 1994. Standing Accused: TheOrganisation and Practises of Criminal Defence Lawyersin Britain. Oxford: Clorendon Press.37. McConville, M. & Wilson, 2002. Handbook of CriminalJustice Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.38. Mears, M., 2000. Handle with Extra Care, London: TheSpectator.39. Mhlanga, B., 1999. Race and the CPS. London: SO.40. Mhlanga, B., 2000. Race and the CPS. London: TSO.41. National Audit Office, 2006. Crown Prosecution Service:Effictive use of Magistrates Court Hearings. [Online]Available at:http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0506/crown_prosecution_service_eff.aspx[Accessed 11 October 2012].
38. Bibliography42. Samuels, A., 1986. Crown Prosecution Service. Journal ofCriminal Law, 50(1), pp. 432-441.43. Sanders, Creaton, Bid et al., 1997. Victims with LearningDisabilities, Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research.44. Sanders, A. & Young, R., 20007. Criminal Justice. 3rd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.45. Saunders, A., 1988. The Limits to Diversion fromProsecution. British Journal of Criminology, 28(4), pp.513-532.46. The GHASTLY Truth about the Crown ProsecutionService.... 2008. [Film] Directed by 21stCenturyPolitix. UK:YouTube.com.47. Video of police assault on Ian Tomlinson, who died at theLondon G20 Protest. 2009. [Film] Directed by TheGuardian. UK: YouTube.com.