AC 2.1 Explain the requirements of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for prosecuting suspects
The main public prosecutor in England and Wales is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 1985, it was
set up under the ‘Prosecution of Offences Act 1985’. They decide if there is sufficient evidence for a case
to go to court to ensure it doesn’t waste time, money and resources. The CPS establish the appropriate
charges in more serious and complex cases. Also, they prepare cases for court and provide information,
assistance and reassurance to victims and prosecution witnesses. There are certain guidelines the CPS
must follow such as the ‘Full Code Test’ (FCT), which is split up into two separate parts. These are the
‘Evidential Test’ and the ‘Public Interest Test’.
The ‘Evidential Test’ (ET) happens before prosecuting and looks at if there is sufficient evidence to
potentially convict a suspect. There is three possible questions that might be asked to determine this:
1. Is the evidence allowed in court?
The evidence cannot be used to convict a suspect if it cannot be used in court. Therefore, if it is valid and
is allowed to be used in court, the CPS believe it could help to secure a guilty verdict then the evidence
will be used in court.
1. Is the evidence reliable?
If the evidence is reliable, then it can be trusted. This could be due to the evidence coming from a
reliable source, such as a trustworthy witness or investigative officials. It cannot be used in court if it is
not reliable and trustworthy as the evidence will be deemed unreliable.
1. Is the evidence credible?
If the evidence is deemed credible, it can be believed. However, this does not mean that it is always
trusted. The CPS could check if evidence is credible. They could do this by for example, comparing pieces
of evidence to see if there are any mistakes. The evidence can be seen as credible if it is analysed and
there are no inconsistencies. The ‘Evidence Test’ can be applied to the case of Damilola Taylor who was
murdered by a 12- and 13-year-old. They stabbed him in a block of flats. The CPS should have discovered
that the evidence collected did not pass the ET, because they didn’t cross-reference all available
evidence effectively. If they had done this properly, they would have found that the 14-year-old key
witness was lying about what she had seen. If the CPS had not allowed the case to pass the ET, the
inaccurate evidence wouldn’t have been used in court.
The CPS moves on to the second stage of the FCT, if the guidelines are met: the ‘Public Interest Test’
(PIT). A decision must be established regarding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
To decide this, another set of questions must be asked:
1. How serious is the offence?
A parking fine is not considered a serious crime, meaning it would not pass the PIT, as the driver would
not be seen as a danger to society. Alongside this, the murder could be compared to manslaughter, and
it would be considered more in the public interest to take a murder case to court than a case of
manslaughter.
1. What is the suspects level of culpability?
The main public prosecutor in England and Wales is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 1985, it was
set up under the ‘Prosecution of Offences Act 1985’. They decide if there is sufficient evidence for a case
to go to court to ensure it doesn’t waste time, money and resources. The CPS establish the appropriate
charges in more serious and complex cases. Also, they prepare cases for court and provide information,
assistance and reassurance to victims and prosecution witnesses. There are certain guidelines the CPS
must follow such as the ‘Full Code Test’ (FCT), which is split up into two separate parts. These are the
‘Evidential Test’ and the ‘Public Interest Test’.
The ‘Evidential Test’ (ET) happens before prosecuting and looks at if there is sufficient evidence to
potentially convict a suspect. There is three possible questions that might be asked to determine this:
1. Is the evidence allowed in court?
The evidence cannot be used to convict a suspect if it cannot be used in court. Therefore, if it is valid and
is allowed to be used in court, the CPS believe it could help to secure a guilty verdict then the evidence
will be used in court.
1. Is the evidence reliable?
If the evidence is reliable, then it can be trusted. This could be due to the evidence coming from a
reliable source, such as a trustworthy witness or investigative officials. It cannot be used in court if it is
not reliable and trustworthy as the evidence will be deemed unreliable.
1. Is the evidence credible?
If the evidence is deemed credible, it can be believed. However, this does not mean that it is always
trusted. The CPS could check if evidence is credible. They could do this by for example, comparing pieces
of evidence to see if there are any mistakes. The evidence can be seen as credible if it is analysed and
there are no inconsistencies. The ‘Evidence Test’ can be applied to the case of Damilola Taylor who was
murdered by a 12- and 13-year-old. They stabbed him in a block of flats. The CPS should have discovered
that the evidence collected did not pass the ET, because they didn’t cross-reference all available
evidence effectively. If they had done this properly, they would have found that the 14-year-old key
witness was lying about what she had seen. If the CPS had not allowed the case to pass the ET, the
inaccurate evidence wouldn’t have been used in court.
The CPS moves on to the second stage of the FCT, if the guidelines are met: the ‘Public Interest Test’
(PIT). A decision must be established regarding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
To decide this, another set of questions must be asked:
1. How serious is the offence?
A parking fine is not considered a serious crime, meaning it would not pass the PIT, as the driver would
not be seen as a danger to society. Alongside this, the murder could be compared to manslaughter, and
it would be considered more in the public interest to take a murder case to court than a case of
manslaughter.
1. What is the suspects level of culpability?
