Crown Prosecution Service Accountability
π Crown Prosecution Service Accountability β Overview
The CPS is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales.
It has discretion over whether to charge someone, what charges to bring, and whether to continue prosecutions.
Accountability arises when CPS decisions are challengedβeither for abuse of discretion, negligence, or breaches of legal duty.
Legal challenges usually come through judicial review or civil claims.
βοΈ Landmark Cases on CPS Accountability
1. R (Mirza) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 12
π Facts:
Mirza alleged that the CPS failed to disclose evidence that could have helped his defence.
He claimed the CPS breached its duty of fairness and his right to a fair trial.
βοΈ Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that CPS has a duty to disclose evidence material to the defence.
Failure to do so can lead to liability for miscarriage of justice.
However, the CPSβs decisions on prosecution are generally immune from civil claims, unless acting unlawfully.
π Significance:
Reinforces the CPSβs obligation to act fairly.
Sets limits on civil liability for CPS decisions but stresses procedural duties.
2. R (Lumba) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12
π Facts:
Though primarily about immigration detention, this case involved CPS decisions about prosecuting or detaining individuals.
Highlighted issues of policy transparency and lawful decision-making.
βοΈ Held:
Supreme Court ruled that decisions, including those by CPS, must follow published and lawful policies.
Secret or unpublished policies that affect prosecutions can be challenged.
π Significance:
CPS must act transparently and lawfully.
Judicial review available for unlawful decisions.
3. R (O) v. Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 226 (Admin)
π Facts:
The claimant sought judicial review of the CPS decision not to prosecute after a police investigation.
Argued the CPS had acted irrationally and unlawfully.
βοΈ Held:
The court confirmed CPS decisions on whether to prosecute are subject to judicial review.
However, courts defer to CPS discretion unless decisions are irrational or unlawful.
π Significance:
Judicial review is a key accountability tool.
CPS decisions must have a reasonable basis.
4. R (Farrakhan) v. Crown Prosecution Service [2011] EWHC 2604 (Admin)
π Facts:
CPS was challenged for refusing to prosecute a controversial political figure.
The claimant alleged improper motives and failure to apply the law properly.
βοΈ Held:
Court found no evidence of unlawful refusal.
Reinforced that CPS has wide prosecutorial discretion, but it must be exercised properly.
π Significance:
Balances prosecutorial discretion with public confidence.
Accountability through courts is about legality, not policy preferences.
5. R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26
π Facts:
Though about military conduct, it raised issues about the CPSβs role in investigating alleged criminal conduct.
Questioned CPS accountability in handling complex cases involving state actors.
βοΈ Held:
Highlighted the importance of effective investigations and prosecutions.
Stressed accountability mechanisms must ensure the CPS acts independently and impartially.
π Significance:
Emphasizes CPS role in upholding rule of law.
Accountability extends to CPS conduct in politically sensitive cases.
6. R (Corner House Research) v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60
π Facts:
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO), a CPS-like prosecutorial body, halted a corruption investigation citing national security.
Judicial review challenged this decision.
βοΈ Held:
Law Lords held that decisions to halt investigations must be lawful and subject to scrutiny.
The case affirms prosecutorial accountability even in complex contexts.
π Significance:
Shows limits of prosecutorial discretion.
CPS and similar bodies are accountable to the law and public interest.
π§ Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Prosecutorial discretion | CPS can decide whether and how to prosecute, but must act lawfully |
| Judicial review | Courts can review CPS decisions for illegality or irrationality |
| Duty of fairness and disclosure | CPS must disclose evidence favorable to defendants |
| Policy transparency | Decisions must follow clear, published policies |
| Immunity from civil claims | CPS protected from negligence claims except for unlawful acts |
π Summary Table
| Case | Year | Legal Issue | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R (Mirza) v. Home Dept | 2016 | Duty of disclosure and fairness | CPS must disclose material evidence |
| R (Lumba) v. Home Dept | 2011 | Lawful and published policies | Secret policies unlawful |
| R (O) v. CPS | 2012 | Judicial review of prosecution decision | Review possible but deferential |
| R (Farrakhan) v. CPS | 2011 | Prosecutorial discretion | Wide discretion but must be lawful |
| R (Al-Skeini) v. Sec of State | 2007 | CPS role in sensitive investigations | Importance of impartial prosecution |
| R (Corner House Research) v. SFO | 2008 | Lawful halting of investigations | Prosecutorial decisions subject to legal limits |
β Final Takeaways:
The CPS has broad discretion but must act within the law.
Accountability mainly through judicial review, focusing on legality and reasonableness.
Fairness, transparency, and adherence to procedure are key duties.
Courts protect CPS from routine civil claims unless unlawful conduct is proven.
CPS accountability is vital for public trust in the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments