AC 2.1 Writing Frames
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is an independent body that is responsible for all criminal cases
in England and Wales. Its independence from the police is vital in ensuring that it promotes fairness.
The organisation was created in 1986 under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 with an
overarching role of prosecuting offenders. It does this through advising police throughout
investigations and certifying that they have enough evidence to bring a case to court. It will also
make the decision to prosecute an offender and determine what charges should be bestowed upon
them, this is detailed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
When making the decision to bring a case to court, the CPS must analyse it under the Code for
Crown Prosecutors 2018 (The Full Code Test). This code was issued by the Director of Public
Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. There are two major
components of the code: the evidential test and the public interest test. The main goal of the
evidential test is to confirm that enough evidence has been gathered during the investigation, so
that it has the potential of reaching a conviction in court. If the CPS determine that this test has been
satisfied, they can progress onto the public interest test. If they believe there is not enough
evidence, the case will not progress any further.
If the case reaches the public interest test, the CPS will evaluate whether it would be in the public’s
best interest to prosecute the offender. They will do this through looking into certain factors such as
the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the suspect, the degree of harm to the victim, the
age of the suspect, the wider impact of the crime on the community, whether prosecution would be
proportionate for the crime committed and if private sources of information need protection (e.g.
national intelligence). In more detail, the suspect’s culpability would involve aspects such as whether
it was pre-meditated and if they have prior convictions. In terms of the age of the suspect, there is a
lower chance of prosecution if they are under 18 as there is more of a priority to prevent them from
entering the CJS to in turn prevent further offending once they are older. After the CPS have
assessed the case using this test and believe the objectives have been met, it can go to court.
However, in some cases even if the evidential case has not been fulfilled, a suspect can still be
charged. This is called the threshold test. This is applied to cases where the individual in custody
poses a great risk to the public but police have not yet gathered enough evidence to satisfy the
evidential test criteria. However, the threshold test also comes with its own set of standards that
need to be met. These include the lack of evidence to currently complete the evidential test, but
reasonable grounds to believe that this evidence will be available within a reasonable time frame.
For example, if the results from DNA samples haven’t yet been received, but police know they will
arrive in a few days. It also states that the offence must be serious enough to warrant immediate
charging and that the police need to be able to justify that there are substantial grounds under the
Bail Act 1976 to withhold the suspect in custody after charge. They will need to make this application
at court by a prosecutor. The threshold test cannot be used unless all of these points are met.
A case study that can be applied to the full code test is the case of Abu Hamza. He was suspected of
11 terrorism cases in 1999 but police didn’t have enough evidence to satisfy the evidential test.
However, the seriousness of the offences meant that it would have been in the public’s best interest
to keep him in custody. Therefore, the threshold test should have been used.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is an independent body that is responsible for all criminal cases
in England and Wales. Its independence from the police is vital in ensuring that it promotes fairness.
The organisation was created in 1986 under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 with an
overarching role of prosecuting offenders. It does this through advising police throughout
investigations and certifying that they have enough evidence to bring a case to court. It will also
make the decision to prosecute an offender and determine what charges should be bestowed upon
them, this is detailed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
When making the decision to bring a case to court, the CPS must analyse it under the Code for
Crown Prosecutors 2018 (The Full Code Test). This code was issued by the Director of Public
Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. There are two major
components of the code: the evidential test and the public interest test. The main goal of the
evidential test is to confirm that enough evidence has been gathered during the investigation, so
that it has the potential of reaching a conviction in court. If the CPS determine that this test has been
satisfied, they can progress onto the public interest test. If they believe there is not enough
evidence, the case will not progress any further.
If the case reaches the public interest test, the CPS will evaluate whether it would be in the public’s
best interest to prosecute the offender. They will do this through looking into certain factors such as
the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the suspect, the degree of harm to the victim, the
age of the suspect, the wider impact of the crime on the community, whether prosecution would be
proportionate for the crime committed and if private sources of information need protection (e.g.
national intelligence). In more detail, the suspect’s culpability would involve aspects such as whether
it was pre-meditated and if they have prior convictions. In terms of the age of the suspect, there is a
lower chance of prosecution if they are under 18 as there is more of a priority to prevent them from
entering the CJS to in turn prevent further offending once they are older. After the CPS have
assessed the case using this test and believe the objectives have been met, it can go to court.
However, in some cases even if the evidential case has not been fulfilled, a suspect can still be
charged. This is called the threshold test. This is applied to cases where the individual in custody
poses a great risk to the public but police have not yet gathered enough evidence to satisfy the
evidential test criteria. However, the threshold test also comes with its own set of standards that
need to be met. These include the lack of evidence to currently complete the evidential test, but
reasonable grounds to believe that this evidence will be available within a reasonable time frame.
For example, if the results from DNA samples haven’t yet been received, but police know they will
arrive in a few days. It also states that the offence must be serious enough to warrant immediate
charging and that the police need to be able to justify that there are substantial grounds under the
Bail Act 1976 to withhold the suspect in custody after charge. They will need to make this application
at court by a prosecutor. The threshold test cannot be used unless all of these points are met.
A case study that can be applied to the full code test is the case of Abu Hamza. He was suspected of
11 terrorism cases in 1999 but police didn’t have enough evidence to satisfy the evidential test.
However, the seriousness of the offences meant that it would have been in the public’s best interest
to keep him in custody. Therefore, the threshold test should have been used.
