Crown Prosecution Responsibilities
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public prosecution authority in England and Wales. Its responsibilities stem mainly from the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and have been expanded and clarified through case law.
The CPS operates under two major tests from the Code for Crown Prosecutors:
The Evidential Stage – Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
The Public Interest Stage – Is prosecution required in the public interest?
Below is a detailed explanation of CPS responsibilities with supporting case law.
1. Reviewing Evidence and Deciding Whether to Prosecute
The CPS must review evidence objectively and decide whether charges should be brought.
Case 1: R v Galbraith (1981)
Key Point: Sufficiency of Evidence
Although not strictly a CPS case, Galbraith provides the foundational test for whether evidence is sufficient to proceed.
The Court of Appeal held that cases should go to juries only when there is evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict.
If evidence is tenuous or weak, it should be stopped.
Relevance to CPS:
CPS applies the Galbraith principles when assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction at the evidential stage.
2. Independent Review and Avoiding Bias or improper pressure
The CPS must act independently of police, government, and public pressure.
Case 2: R v Gloucester Crown Court, ex parte Little (1993)
Key Point: CPS independence
The court held that the CPS has the discretion to discontinue a prosecution even where police wish to continue.
Its independence is a fundamental safeguard in the criminal justice system.
Relevance:
This case clarifies that police cannot dictate prosecutorial decisions—reinforcing CPS autonomy.
3. Duty to Disclose Evidence
Under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), the CPS must disclose all material that might undermine the prosecution or assist the defence.
Case 3: R v Ward (1993)
Key Point: Non-disclosure and miscarriages of justice
This case (concerning wrongful conviction in IRA-related offences) found:
CPS and police had failed to disclose scientific evidence favourable to the defence.
Conviction was quashed due to “material irregularities.”
Relevance:
Led to major reforms in disclosure law and emphasised the CPS’s duty to act fairly.
Case 4: R v Davis, Johnson and Rowe (2001)
Key Point: Proper disclosure procedures
The House of Lords condemned a pattern of non-disclosure by police and CPS.
Reinforced that disclosure failures violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.
Relevance:
This case strengthened procedural safeguards and accountability on CPS to ensure full, timely disclosure.
4. Deciding Charges and Ensuring Appropriate Charges
CPS must ensure charges reflect the gravity of the offending and offer a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Case 5: R (on the application of F and D) v DPP (2011)
Key Point: Challenging CPS charging decisions
The High Court held that CPS decisions can be judicially reviewed if irrational or outside its lawful discretion.
Concerned alleged under-charging in a sexual offence case.
Relevance:
Demonstrates judicial oversight of the CPS when charging decisions are unreasonable.
5. Duty to Continue Reviewing Cases
CPS must continually review the evidential and public interest tests throughout proceedings.
Case 6: R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2008)
Key Point: Prosecutorial discretion
The House of Lords affirmed that prosecutors may discontinue or halt investigations if necessary for public interest, including national security concerns.
Relevance:
Supports CPS discretion to stop cases even when controversial, provided decisions follow lawful reasoning.
6. Ensuring Fairness and Compliance with Human Rights
CPS must uphold the rule of law and respect defendants’ rights.
Case 7: R v H and C (2004)
Key Point: Balancing disclosure with public interest immunity
House of Lords established a structured approach where courts determine disclosure when public interest immunity (PII) is claimed.
Ensured fairness while protecting sensitive material.
Relevance:
Clarifies the CPS role in applying for PII and seeking the court’s guidance, ensuring fair trial rights.
7. Handling Victims' Rights and Public Interest
CPS must consider victim welfare and societal interests, not solely factual evidence.
Case 8: R (on the application of B) v DPP (2009)
Key Point: Public interest in prosecuting domestic violence
High Court reviewed a CPS decision not to prosecute domestic violence.
Held that CPS must properly apply public interest factors, especially where victims may withdraw due to coercion.
Relevance:
Strengthens CPS responsibilities toward vulnerable victims and broader public interest considerations.
8. Avoiding Abuse of Process and Ensuring Proper Conduct
CPS must avoid conduct that would make a trial unfair.
Case 9: R v Mullen (1999)
Key Point: Abuse of process through improper actions abroad
Conviction quashed because the defendant had been unlawfully deported to the UK.
Although CPS did not directly conduct the wrongful removal, the court held prosecution should not profit from misconduct.
Relevance:
Emphasises CPS responsibility to abandon cases where prosecution would offend justice.
Summary of CPS Responsibilities (with Case Integration)
| Responsibility | Supporting Cases |
|---|---|
| Assessing sufficiency of evidence | R v Galbraith |
| Maintaining independence | Ex parte Little |
| Disclosure of evidence | R v Ward, R v Davis, Johnson and Rowe |
| Making fair charging decisions | F & D v DPP |
| Continuous review of cases | Corner House Research |
| Upholding human rights and fair trial standards | R v H and C |
| Public interest and victims' rights | B v DPP |
| Preventing abuse of process | R v Mullen |
RELATED Blog
comments