Ac2.1
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is independent from the police and is responsible for
prosecuting cases across England and Wales. It was established after the 1985 prosecution of
offences act to help reduce the bias from the police seeing as in the past, they would both
investigate and prosecute the crime meaning there was no one to cross examine the evidence prior
to the trial. There are roughly 6000 workers and their roles consist of advising the police during the
investigation, before eliminating cases that are unlikely to prosecute. They then decide the
appropriate charges and prepare the evidence and the case, getting ready to present it in court.
When examining the case, the CPS must apply the Full Code Test to ensure that the procedure is
carried out fairly across all cases. The full code test consists of two parts: the evidential test and the
public interest test. The evidential test is crucial as it considers the reliability of the presented
evidence and whether it is enough for ‘realistic prospects of conviction.’ During this test they will also
interrogate the witness's statement to see whether they corroborate with the other evidence
provided. If the CPC believe that after hearing the evidence the judge is likely to find the defendant
innocent, then they will not continue with the case. The public interest test considers whether the
case is in the public interest, the level of seriousness and culpability within the case as well as the
impact it had on the community. Judging all these factors (along with the vulnerability of the
suspect), the CPS must conclude whether it is necessary to prosecute the case within the public
interest. A case illustrating the failed attempt of using the Full Code Test is that off Damilola Taylor,
where the CPS was heavily criticised for missing the obvious lies of the witness. When deciding to
prosecute, they relied on the credibility of a single witness, however, the statement was proven to be
lies during the trial which then resulted in the case collapsing. This implies that not enough time was
spent reviewing the evidence which signifies the importance of following the full code test efficiently.
In cases where the Full Code test cannot be passed but there are still incentives to charge the
suspect, The Threshold test may be applied. There are five conditions to this test, the first being that
there are reasonable grounds that the suspect committed the offence (they must consider
infringement of liberty). The second condition involves the possibility of further evidence being
obtained within a reasonable amount of time. The third condition implies that the seriousness of the
crime can justify the immediate charging decision and the fourth condition refers to there being
considerable risk of bail for the suspect. The last condition evaluates whether there is a significant
level of public interest. In Abu Hamza’s case the CPS failed to approve his prosecution despite the
police claiming to send evidence to them since 1999. The reason for the disapproval was due to the
evidence not passing the full code test at the time, however, they failed to acknowledge that his
crimes were serious acts and terrorism and in the public interest (all conditions of the Threshold
test). This resulted in a delay for his prosecution until 2004 when they finally approved the evidence
enabling him to be charged 5 months later.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is independent from the police and is responsible for
prosecuting cases across England and Wales. It was established after the 1985 prosecution of
offences act to help reduce the bias from the police seeing as in the past, they would both
investigate and prosecute the crime meaning there was no one to cross examine the evidence prior
to the trial. There are roughly 6000 workers and their roles consist of advising the police during the
investigation, before eliminating cases that are unlikely to prosecute. They then decide the
appropriate charges and prepare the evidence and the case, getting ready to present it in court.
When examining the case, the CPS must apply the Full Code Test to ensure that the procedure is
carried out fairly across all cases. The full code test consists of two parts: the evidential test and the
public interest test. The evidential test is crucial as it considers the reliability of the presented
evidence and whether it is enough for ‘realistic prospects of conviction.’ During this test they will also
interrogate the witness's statement to see whether they corroborate with the other evidence
provided. If the CPC believe that after hearing the evidence the judge is likely to find the defendant
innocent, then they will not continue with the case. The public interest test considers whether the
case is in the public interest, the level of seriousness and culpability within the case as well as the
impact it had on the community. Judging all these factors (along with the vulnerability of the
suspect), the CPS must conclude whether it is necessary to prosecute the case within the public
interest. A case illustrating the failed attempt of using the Full Code Test is that off Damilola Taylor,
where the CPS was heavily criticised for missing the obvious lies of the witness. When deciding to
prosecute, they relied on the credibility of a single witness, however, the statement was proven to be
lies during the trial which then resulted in the case collapsing. This implies that not enough time was
spent reviewing the evidence which signifies the importance of following the full code test efficiently.
In cases where the Full Code test cannot be passed but there are still incentives to charge the
suspect, The Threshold test may be applied. There are five conditions to this test, the first being that
there are reasonable grounds that the suspect committed the offence (they must consider
infringement of liberty). The second condition involves the possibility of further evidence being
obtained within a reasonable amount of time. The third condition implies that the seriousness of the
crime can justify the immediate charging decision and the fourth condition refers to there being
considerable risk of bail for the suspect. The last condition evaluates whether there is a significant
level of public interest. In Abu Hamza’s case the CPS failed to approve his prosecution despite the
police claiming to send evidence to them since 1999. The reason for the disapproval was due to the
evidence not passing the full code test at the time, however, they failed to acknowledge that his
crimes were serious acts and terrorism and in the public interest (all conditions of the Threshold
test). This resulted in a delay for his prosecution until 2004 when they finally approved the evidence
enabling him to be charged 5 months later.
