A.C.2.1 - Explain the requirements of the Crown Prosecution Service for the
prosecution of suspects
The Role of the CPS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was set up in 1986, under the Prosecution of
Offences Act 1985. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 gave the CPS the role of deciding
whether to charge a suspect, and what they should be prosecuted for as many cases were
susceptible to bias from police investigating and prosecuting them. Prior to 2003, police
could investigate and decide the charge of a criminal offence. The CPS now work with the
police, advising them on lines of enquiry and what evidence is admissible and required to
build a case. The CPS determine who to prosecute by assessing the evidence submitted by
the police, establishing the charges too. The CPS applies the test in the “Code for Crown
Prosecutors.” This code simply determines whether the case is for the court to consider.
The Full Code Test
The Full Code test is applied when the police have had all the line of enquiries answered,
and the decision is now for the CPS to decide whether a prosecution is possible for the case.
A case must pass the test first to go to court. There are two separate stages: The Evidential
Test and the Public Interest Test. Before a case is prosecuted, prosecutors must be satisfied
that there is enough evidence for a conviction, meaning the evidence must be objective for
judges, magistrates and a jury in deeming the suspect as the guilty. If it does not pass the
Evidential test, the CPS can not proceed with the case, no matter the level of severity. If
there is enough evidence, the following questions must be answered:
1. Is the evidence admissible? Is the evidence collected allowed to be used in court?
For example, could the evidence be ruled as hearsay or has the evidence been
obtained illegally?
2. Is the evidence reliable? Are there any reasons to doubt the reliability of the
evidence? Is it entirely accurate and integral? For example, are the witnesses truthful
and of good character?
3. Is the evidence credible? Is the evidence itself believable? Is the available
information about the case convincing enough for a ‘reasonable person’ like a judge
or magistrate?
In the case of Damilola Taylor, there was heavy reliance on the testimony of a 14-year-old
girl, which severely damaged the reputation of the CPS when it was found the girl was lying.
There was little time spent double-checking her evidence against the facts of the case. This
goes against the Full Code’s Evidential Test, as the evidence was neither reliable as she
was not truthful nor credible as the lies were not believable when compared to the facts of
the investigation.
After the evidential test has been passed, The Public Interest Test also enlist factors that
determine whether the case is likely to be prosecuted.
1. The seriousness of the offence. The more serious, the more likely for the suspect to
be prosecuted.
2. The suspect’s level of culpability. The greater the blame and responsibility of the
suspect, the more likely they are to be charged. For example, what was the suspect’s
level of involvement? Their previous convictions? Would they re-offend?
3. The harm suffered by the victim. The more vulnerable the victim is, the more likely
the suspect will be prosecuted. Was the offence motivated by prejudice? Is the
prosecution of suspects
The Role of the CPS
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was set up in 1986, under the Prosecution of
Offences Act 1985. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 gave the CPS the role of deciding
whether to charge a suspect, and what they should be prosecuted for as many cases were
susceptible to bias from police investigating and prosecuting them. Prior to 2003, police
could investigate and decide the charge of a criminal offence. The CPS now work with the
police, advising them on lines of enquiry and what evidence is admissible and required to
build a case. The CPS determine who to prosecute by assessing the evidence submitted by
the police, establishing the charges too. The CPS applies the test in the “Code for Crown
Prosecutors.” This code simply determines whether the case is for the court to consider.
The Full Code Test
The Full Code test is applied when the police have had all the line of enquiries answered,
and the decision is now for the CPS to decide whether a prosecution is possible for the case.
A case must pass the test first to go to court. There are two separate stages: The Evidential
Test and the Public Interest Test. Before a case is prosecuted, prosecutors must be satisfied
that there is enough evidence for a conviction, meaning the evidence must be objective for
judges, magistrates and a jury in deeming the suspect as the guilty. If it does not pass the
Evidential test, the CPS can not proceed with the case, no matter the level of severity. If
there is enough evidence, the following questions must be answered:
1. Is the evidence admissible? Is the evidence collected allowed to be used in court?
For example, could the evidence be ruled as hearsay or has the evidence been
obtained illegally?
2. Is the evidence reliable? Are there any reasons to doubt the reliability of the
evidence? Is it entirely accurate and integral? For example, are the witnesses truthful
and of good character?
3. Is the evidence credible? Is the evidence itself believable? Is the available
information about the case convincing enough for a ‘reasonable person’ like a judge
or magistrate?
In the case of Damilola Taylor, there was heavy reliance on the testimony of a 14-year-old
girl, which severely damaged the reputation of the CPS when it was found the girl was lying.
There was little time spent double-checking her evidence against the facts of the case. This
goes against the Full Code’s Evidential Test, as the evidence was neither reliable as she
was not truthful nor credible as the lies were not believable when compared to the facts of
the investigation.
After the evidential test has been passed, The Public Interest Test also enlist factors that
determine whether the case is likely to be prosecuted.
1. The seriousness of the offence. The more serious, the more likely for the suspect to
be prosecuted.
2. The suspect’s level of culpability. The greater the blame and responsibility of the
suspect, the more likely they are to be charged. For example, what was the suspect’s
level of involvement? Their previous convictions? Would they re-offend?
3. The harm suffered by the victim. The more vulnerable the victim is, the more likely
the suspect will be prosecuted. Was the offence motivated by prejudice? Is the
