The Crown Prosecution Service - Admission/Application Essay Example

EVALUATION OF THE ROLE OF CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE By Module Supervisor CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE Introduction The Crown Prosecution Service is a government institution charged with prosecution of criminal offenders in England and Wales. Its acronym is the CPS. The cases are investigated by the police then directed to CPS for prosecution on behalf of the State. CPS works together with investigation and prosecution agencies in other jurisdictions. Actually, its mandate is the same as that of the role of Crown office in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The institution is run or headed by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). The DPP answers to the Attorney General for both England and Wales. The Attorney General is answerable to the parliament for the services performed by CPS (Khan A. N. 2006). As such, this paper will explore and analyse the CPS. Additionally, CPS criticisms and the necessary areas for reform will be evaluated. Body The establishment of the 1985 prosecution of offences Act tasked the crown prosecution services with the duty of prosecuting all public criminal offences on behalf of the State. As a result, there was a merger between the offices of DPP and police prosecution departments. This led to establishment of the CPS that commenced its operations in 1986. The CPS was reviewed in 1999 to include geographical reorganization to include 42 areas of jurisdiction. Each area is headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. In 2003, the Criminal justice Act was enacted and it thus transferred all the powers to prosecute criminal cases to the CPS. The CPS has a role of giving pre-charge advice to investigators. This advice is given to determine the viability of a criminal prosecution in very complex and unusual legal cases. This advice is normally confidential and concerns serious matters of the pending litigation. For example, the advice may concern matters such as clarification of the intention to commit a crime by the offender. Advice may be given on the sufficiency of evidence available to prosecute the offender. The advice is very material to lawyers who are handling the exemplary cases (Samuels A 2001). It enables lawyers prepare adequately in advance so that their cases are not dismissed based on lack of proper legal backing, such as insufficiency of evidence and lack of criminal intention on the side of the offender. The pre-charge advice is very critical to ensure that the CPS only prosecutes cases that are genuine and properly researched to determine the crime and apply the appropriate punishment for the offender. CPS is responsible for making charging decisions. The CPS is charged with prosecuting major suspects with serious criminal charges such as murder, robbery with violence and rape. The police handle the majority of decisions to prosecute minor crimes such as criminal damage of property and general assault with low economic value of damages (Glidewell, S. I. D. 2005). The police thus have no power to act on major crimes such as rape and murder without the consent of the CPS. When the CPS is making charge decisions, it uses the Code for Crown Prosecution. The requirements of the code are that the prosecutors should answer two queries i.e. the code tests. The code requires that CPS follows the established evidence test. In following the evidence test, the Crown Prosecutors must evaluate whether the available evidence is sufficient and credible enough to support a successful conviction for the prospective criminal (Khan, A. N. 2006). The evidence test is an objective test. If it is fully satisfied, the jury/magistrate will more likely prosecute the convict of the charges against him/her. In determining if a given case fulfils the stipulation of the evidential test, the Prosecutors must consider the defence case. Where there lacks realistic prospect to convict an alleged offender based on the available evidence, the case fails the evidence test and does not proceed despite how serious its facts are. The second test in making charging decision is the public interest test. If a case satisfies the evidence test, the Prosecutors establish whether the prosecution is in line with the public interest. Often, the prosecution after passing the first test will take place unless there are substantial public interest claims/ reasons against the prosecution which are more than the public interest that support prosecution (Glidewell, S. I. D. 2005). If a criminal record is very serious, it is more likely that the crime should be prosecuted in the best interest of the public. Both the public interest tests and evidence test must be satisfied before a case can proceed for prosecution. However, in regard to establishing the appropriate charges for the crimes, the Prosecutors make decisions based on the Charging Standards for Offences that are agreed between the police departments and the CPS. The role of conducting prosecutions is fully the responsibility of the CPS. The police may make the decision to charge but the actual role of conducting the prosecution rests on the CPS. The process of conducting a prosecution involves preparation of court hearings, disclosing material facts to the defence and case presentation in the court. The CPS is normally represented in the court all through the process from the first court hearing all the way to actual the sentencing, and in some situations to the appeal of unsatisfactory cases. All the prosecutions have to be reviewed and halted if the evidence and the public interest tests are no longer satisfied or were never satisfied in the beginning of the prosecution process (Samuels, A. 2001). Mishandling of a case, for example, failure to disclose material evidence may lead to the court acquitting a defendant or dismissing the appeal of the conviction. Mishandling therefore results to denial of justice to the defendants or the criminal upon conviction as he may be denied an appeal. Evidence is very important and should not be tampered with. The CPS ensures that sufficient evidence is provided and is not tampered with at any stage of prosecution. The CPS handles the role of dealing with appeals. CPS makes the decision of whether the appeal lodged against conviction by the defender will be opposed. The CPS examines the grounds of the conviction and reasons for appeal before their decision to accept an appeal from an unsatisfied defender. The evidence presented in the case is examined again to assist the appellate in arriving at a sound and informed decision concerning the appeal. On rare occasions, the CPS invites defendants to make appeals (Glidewell, S. I. D. 2005). The CPS takes this position where it has established that there were questionable safety issues in their previous conviction. The CPS may use this approach to ensure that the defendant obtains justice without exposing the inefficiencies of the organization to give the desired convict the first time and avoid incidences of appeal. The CPS is charged with the role of extradition. In 2003, the Extradition Act tasked the CPS with the responsibility of representation of foreign states in court proceedings that involve extradition. These extradition proceedings are often heard at the Westminster Magistrate Court. The CPS follows the instructions of the foreign prosecutors. However, CPs determines how the extradition cases will be conducted. The CPS headquarters has an extradition unit that deal with cases of this nature. This unit deals with all cases where the extradition of a person in England and Wales is being sought by another State. It also deals with all cases in which the CPS is seeking for extradition of a person who is outside the European Union (Samuels, A. 2001). CPS prepares and manages the extradition requests within its jurisdiction. CPS Criticism and Areas to be Reformed The CPS has been under critical criticism over the years. For example, the evidence test has been criticized. Critics hold the view that this test is not objective. Therefore, it is incompatible with the responsibility of any jury to be very sure beyond all reasonable doubt before it can make a conviction. The jury should have the power to rethink the criteria for conviction if it deems it necessary, but the evidence test limits this power. The CPS has been accused of dropping cases for lack of sufficient evidence while in fact, there are no proper investigations carried out by the police to find the evidence (Glidewell, S. I. D. 2005). The critics consider CPS to be very lax in determining the evidence required to prosecute cases. The police constantly don’t obtain sufficient evidence to use in conducting the prosecution. Consequently, the CPS reject to decide deserving cases based on lack of evidence. This results in denial of justice to the defendants by the same body they run to obtain justice. There have been a lot of inefficiencies in CPS. Over the past years, CPS has only prosecuted a few cases out of the many cases it receives. The organization has a lot of pending cases that are yet to be heard. The government continues to fund CPS yet the body seems not to handle as many cases as it should (Khan, A. N. 2006). Many people have been frustrated as their cases are left pending even when they try as much as possible to follow up on the prosecution. There is a lot of break-down of communication and the CPS staff is not coordinated. When it was formed, it employed a lot of people who had more knowledge in administration than the law. Consequently, the body doesn’t have enough lawyers to handle cases. Most of its employees are administrators with very limited knowledge and experience in law. It is no wonder the body is at the verge of collapsing! CPS is unable to manage its annual budget and is always running under budget deficits. The Government faithfully allocates the organization sufficient funds. However, CPS is always complaining about lack of funds yet its performance is seriously wanting. The management and leadership of CPS has been a subject for criticism over a long period. There are evident examples of poor coordination and management in CPS. For example, it lacks a clear and precise flow of command and communication. Upon visiting the offices, a person is given contradictory information at different offices and departments. This leaves them more confused. The employee turnover rate is also very high. This ranges from junior staff to management employees who leave the body before their contract terms expire. As a result, CPS is seriously understaffed and is unable to perform its roles (Samuels, A. 2001). The management is incapable of bringing order and influencing the employees to perform. For example, CPS declines hearing of many cases based on insufficiency of evidence. The real situation is that the police department that handles investigation is lax in its work. Inability of the management to efficiently use the financial resources at its disposal is a major indicator of the management failure. The government funds the CPS very often yet the funds are mismanaged and never fulfil their purpose of remittance. The CPS was criticized for employing incompetent advocates to prosecute crimes. Some of the barristers who have handled prosecution are very incompetent in matters of law. They don’t have vast knowledge in handling sensitive cases that require deep knowledge and understanding of law concepts and criminal justice. Many people have been denied justice as a result of incompetence of barristers handling their cases. There is an outcry from citizens who have been denied justice because of inability of the advocates to remain objective in their cases. Incompetence leads to cases being put on hold while others are dismissed without valid reasons and legal backing. There is a critical need for the CPS to make some reforms that will enable it eliminate some of its inefficiencies and improve its performance. Structural reforms are needed to decentralize the authority. The effect of this restructuring is to allow lawyers to spend more time on prosecution duties rather than on management work (Khan, A. N. 2006). As a result, CPS will manage to handle more cases and remain objective in its role of prosecution and obtaining justice for defendants and offenders. There should be a national headquarter office that is tasked with formulating policies and setting standards to be followed by CPS. Such polices should concentrate on major issues such as fund management, strong leadership, quality control and professional competence of CPS members. The implementation of the policies and standards should be given to local organizations. These organizations should be allowed real autonomy and authority so as to be effective in ensuring the implementation process. The geographical jurisdiction should be increased to ensure wide coverage of all cases in the whole of England and Wales. Such jurisdictions should be managed and headed by competent Chief Crown Prosecutors to ensure performance and proper implementation of policies and standards of work A new chief executive officer (CEO) post should be introduced. The CEO should take over the administration running of the CPS services (Samuels, A. 2001). The DPP will thus concentrate on the core operations of prosecution and policy formulation decisions. The post of the CEO will allow for separation of authority and responsibility. Currently, the DPP is charged with both the responsibility of administration and prosecution. These responsibilities are intense and very critical for the success of CPS. Dividing these responsibilities will off-load the DPP of some burden so that he can mainly focus on prosecution while the CEO oversees administration. This way, CPS will achieve excellence in administration and on core function of prosecution. Efficiency will be attained since the two principals will take full responsibility and accountability for functions in their dockets. In reforming the performance of CPS, cases where the offenders plead guilty should not be used as a performance measure of convictions addressed by CPS. The key performance indicator should address that proportion of ineffective case trials that CPS was unable to prosecute due to internal inefficiencies. The body should allow the police to prosecute cases for which they have powers to prosecute (Glidewell, S. I. D. 2005). For example the police should have the power to prosecute cases of general issues such as theft and assault as long as they gather enough evidence. This will reduce the workload for CPS and allow it to concentrate on major felonies. Additionally, the police should be empowered to appeal to a magistrates’ panel where they feel that CPS was wrong in dropping a case. This is very important especially in cases that hold public interest. This will keep CPS on its toes and ensure that it efficiently prosecutes trials. References Glidewell S. I. D. 2005, The Review of the Crown Prosecution Service; summary of the main report with the conclusions and recommendations. Stationery Office. Khan A. N. 2006, Crown Prosecution Service. J. Crim. L., 50, 297. Samuels A 2001, Crown Prosecution Service. J. Crim. L., 50, 432. Read More