AC (3) 2.1 & 2.2 Practice Assessment Question
AC 2.1 Explain the requirements of the CPS, for prosecuting suspects.
The Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1986 to replace the police who were investigating and
prosecuting crimes, as this could lead to impartial or objective outcomes. The CPS prosecutes
offenders and consists of solicitors and barristers. Before a case is sent to court, the CPS review cases
through a Full Code test, which includes an evidential test and a public interest test. In terms of
legislation, the establishment of the CPS in 1986, stemmed from the Prosecution of Offences Act in
1985. This was the transferring responsibility of prosecution from the police to the CPS. Moreover,
the Criminal Justice Act in 2003, states the CPS’s duties now. The CPS must decide what offence the
offender is charged with, except from minor offences where the police will decide.
Linking to the Full Code Test, the evidential test includes questioning if there is enough evidence to
gain a realistic prospect of conviction, as well as if the evidence is admissible in court, and if the
evidence is reliable and credible. The CPS has been criticised multiple times, and an example that
shows the evidential test not being applied properly is the Liam Allan case. Liam was accused of 12
counts rape and sexual assault, which he stated were consensual. However, the prosecution rested
largely on the complainant’s account, which created an arguably biassed and unbalanced case. Liam
Allan spent almost two years on bail ahead of his trial, when finally messages undermining the case
were uncovered. A review found more than 57,000 messages from the complainant's phone, but
only some served as evidence. The entire download was not transferred to the defence because the
officer managing the investigation stated there was ‘nothing relevant on it’, however they were. The
messages resulted in the collapse of the case and displayed Liam as innocent, some messages
included conversation between the alleged victim and friend stating how much the compliant loved
Liam and that she had a great time with him, the compliant also mentioned her rape fantasies. As a
result the CPS are now reviewing cases like these.
Moreover, the public interest test is questioning how would the general public feel about the
prosecution, how serious the offence is and the harm caused to the victim. As well as this, the CPS
will take the age of the offender in consideration, as a younger person may be a lower risk. A case
that displays the CPS applying the public interest case, is the Caroline Flack case. Caroline was
accused of hitting her boyfriend with her phone whilst he was asleep, as she suspected he was
having an affair. Caroline sadly committed suicide two days after the prosecutors decided to go
ahead with the case. The CPS decided it was in the public’s interest for Caroline Flack to be
prosecuted for the assault, despite initially wanting to caution her. The CPS ignored her boyfriend
clearly not wanting Caroline to be charged, as well as Flack’s serious mental health issues, when the
police arrived at the scene of assault she was found self harming and she was later assessed to the
psychiatric unit. Caroline’s family believe the CPS treated her more harshly than a normal person
would have been. Caroline had no previous convictions and was clearly mentally unstable. This case
arguably was definitely not in the public interest to prosecute.
AC 2.1 Explain the requirements of the CPS, for prosecuting suspects.
The Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1986 to replace the police who were investigating and
prosecuting crimes, as this could lead to impartial or objective outcomes. The CPS prosecutes
offenders and consists of solicitors and barristers. Before a case is sent to court, the CPS review cases
through a Full Code test, which includes an evidential test and a public interest test. In terms of
legislation, the establishment of the CPS in 1986, stemmed from the Prosecution of Offences Act in
1985. This was the transferring responsibility of prosecution from the police to the CPS. Moreover,
the Criminal Justice Act in 2003, states the CPS’s duties now. The CPS must decide what offence the
offender is charged with, except from minor offences where the police will decide.
Linking to the Full Code Test, the evidential test includes questioning if there is enough evidence to
gain a realistic prospect of conviction, as well as if the evidence is admissible in court, and if the
evidence is reliable and credible. The CPS has been criticised multiple times, and an example that
shows the evidential test not being applied properly is the Liam Allan case. Liam was accused of 12
counts rape and sexual assault, which he stated were consensual. However, the prosecution rested
largely on the complainant’s account, which created an arguably biassed and unbalanced case. Liam
Allan spent almost two years on bail ahead of his trial, when finally messages undermining the case
were uncovered. A review found more than 57,000 messages from the complainant's phone, but
only some served as evidence. The entire download was not transferred to the defence because the
officer managing the investigation stated there was ‘nothing relevant on it’, however they were. The
messages resulted in the collapse of the case and displayed Liam as innocent, some messages
included conversation between the alleged victim and friend stating how much the compliant loved
Liam and that she had a great time with him, the compliant also mentioned her rape fantasies. As a
result the CPS are now reviewing cases like these.
Moreover, the public interest test is questioning how would the general public feel about the
prosecution, how serious the offence is and the harm caused to the victim. As well as this, the CPS
will take the age of the offender in consideration, as a younger person may be a lower risk. A case
that displays the CPS applying the public interest case, is the Caroline Flack case. Caroline was
accused of hitting her boyfriend with her phone whilst he was asleep, as she suspected he was
having an affair. Caroline sadly committed suicide two days after the prosecutors decided to go
ahead with the case. The CPS decided it was in the public’s interest for Caroline Flack to be
prosecuted for the assault, despite initially wanting to caution her. The CPS ignored her boyfriend
clearly not wanting Caroline to be charged, as well as Flack’s serious mental health issues, when the
police arrived at the scene of assault she was found self harming and she was later assessed to the
psychiatric unit. Caroline’s family believe the CPS treated her more harshly than a normal person
would have been. Caroline had no previous convictions and was clearly mentally unstable. This case
arguably was definitely not in the public interest to prosecute.
