‘Common sense’ test proposed for prosecutions
Prosecution decisions would have to be tested for ‘proportionality’ under a proposed revised Code for Crown Prosecutors published by the director of public prosecutions yesterday.
The revised, ‘more succinct’, code would supplement the existing public interest test with a question about whether the likely outcome of a prosecution is proportionate to the costs involved in bringing it.
Keir Starmer (pictured), director of public prosecutions, described the proposal, which is open for public consultation, as a ‘commonsense approach’.
Starmer said: ‘Proportionality is about ensuring that we and the police are choosing the right cases to prosecute from the start, and doing so in the most effective way. Where cases are complex prosecutors should ensure prosecutions are focused. There may be cases - for example where a court might convict a defendant but decide not to record that conviction by giving an absolute discharge - where police officers or prosecutors might anticipate that a prosecution is not a proportionate way to approach the criminality.’
The code is the over-arching document for prosecutors to follow in deciding whether a suspect should be charged. The last version to include a proportionality test was in 1992, the Crown Prosecution Service said.
A spokesperson said the new code was needed to simplify procedures following the CPS’s takeover of prosecution functions of the Department for Work and Pensions and other government departments.
Comments
'Common Sense'?
Common sense? The decision as to what constitutes the ‘public interest’ should be a judicial one, not that of a government apparatchik. The danger of this can be seen in the case of the police officer charged (eventually) in the death of Ian Tomlinson.
Initially, the CPS refused to prosecute, despite the fact that there was more evidence already in the public domain, than normally satisfies the CPS that a prosecution is warranted.
Furthermore, one is forced to question whether the CPS may have sabotaged its own prosecution, given the fact that they frequently, in more mundane cases, bend and even break (arguably) the rules on so-called ‘bad-character’ evidence – which the jury never heard in this case – unlike in those more mundane cases
How can widening that discretion even further be in the public interest?
prosecutions
We are already seeing the decision to charge or not being prejudiced by the government's desire to save costs.
judges are constantly critical (to no effect though) of the Crowns decision to constantly under charge to save money. There is no regard for the victim, nor even the defendant who, when under charged is often (purposely) denied a jury trial.
I imagine some numpty at the CPS will be refusing to prosecute any case in the absence of an admission on interview because of the cost in pursuing the matter to a contested trial.
Where are we heading next?