One of the key documents for the Crown Prosecution Service is the code for Crown prosecutors, issued under s.10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

It sets out the basic principles which Crown prosecutors should follow when they make case decisions.

It is a public document and, although written for members of the CPS, it is widely used by others in the criminal justice system to understand the way in which Crown prosecutors make decisions.The code is kept under continual review to ensure that it continues properly to reflect the appropriate criteria used by Crown prosecutors in the decision-making process.On 15 December 1993, the Attorney-General announced in the House of Commons that I had commissioned a formal review of the code.

The Attorney stated that both he and I had reviewed the fundamental principles of the code and found them to be sound.

We had agreed that the two concepts of evidential sufficiency and the role of the public interest in the decision-making process were right.But the Attorney went on to highlight three particular areas on which the review would concentrate: the need for plainer and simpler English; clarification of the evidential criterion and the meaning of a 'realistic prospect of conviction'; and the clearer identification of those public interest factors which tend in favour of prosecution.

Each of these areas has been addressed.-- Simpler language and plain English.

I readily accept that lawyers can too easily get carried away with long sentences, using legal terminology which only they think they understand.

We have tried to sweep all that away in this revision, and use everyday expressions and words wherever possible.

The Plain English Campaign gave us very helpful advice in a number of key areas.-- Evidential criterion and a 'realistic prospect of conviction'.

The code now defines a 'realistic prospect of conviction'.

We have clearly stated that it is an objective test.

It means that there must be enough evidence for the tribunal, properly directed in accordance with the law, to be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the offence alleged.In my view, this test represents the proper balance between preventing cases going before the courts which are more likely than not to fail, and continuing with cases only when there is something approaching a certainty of conviction.

Neither extreme is right.

I believe that the middle path we have adopted represents a proper way forward in this difficult area.The way in which the tests are defined means that Crown prosecutors must consider the strength of the evidence and the likely result of any case as if it were put before an objective, impartial and reasonable tribunal.

There is no distinction for these purposes between a Bench of magistrates and a jury, both properly directed in accordance with the law.There is no room for allowing individual opinions on where cases are more likely to succeed to influence the decision to prosecute.The quality of justice does not vary from courtroom to courtroom or between tiers of court.

The code's evidential test is an objective test to be considered against the background of an objective tribunal.-- Public interest factors to be brought out more clearly.

Crown prosecutors also have to consider the public interest in making their decisions.

In cases of any serious ness, there is now clear guidance to Crown prosecutors that they should usually continue with a case unless public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour.The role of the prosecutor in determining the public interest is crucial.

The code now sets out separately those factors which are in favour and those which are against a prosecution.

This should again help in consistent decision making.The most important issue to highlight here is the fact that decision making is not an exact science.

It is not simply a question of adding up the factors on one side and comparing them with factors on the other.

Weighing each factor properly is an essential element in fair decision making.In addition to those matters outlined by the Attorney, we have taken the opportunity of looking at other sections of the code and revising them where appropriate.Criminal practitioners will also be interested to note that the section dealing with charging practice has also been clarified.It is essential that the charges selected reflect the seriousness of the offending and provide the court with sufficient sentencing powers.

It is equally important that the choice and number of charges allow the case to be explained to the magistrates or jury in a simple and clear way.If all these criteria are met, it is possible that Crown prosecutors will not have to proceed in all cases with the most serious charge where there is more than one from which to choose.

Similarly, Crown prosecutors should not overload the case with any more charges than are necessary to meet the criteria set out in the code.Crown prosecutors must make sure that, as far as possible, the case has both the right number of charges, and charges which reflect the seriousness of the offending from as early a stage as possible.

This should mean that the number of 'cracked' trials are reduced over time as all parties in the criminal justice system come to accept that the correct number of appropriate charges or counts reflect the seriousness of the offending.Once a decision has been taken that an either way offence is the right charge in the circumstances of the case, it is entirely wrong to withdraw it and to prefer a summary only offence in the light of the defendant's election for trial or, more rarely, the magistrates' direction for trial.

Tactics such as this bring the CPS into disrepute and must not be used.I believe that the revisions which I have outlined above will help those within as well as those outside the criminal justice system to understand the way in which Crown prosecutors make their decisions.

As lawyers, we all know that these decisions are often not clear cut or obvious.

They involve the exercise of discretion against the background of clearly defined parameters.The revised code provides the framework for fair, effective and consistent prosecutorial decisions.

In this way, the CPS will continue to contribute positively to the criminal justice system.