Code for Crown Prosecutors meaning

In this issue Criminal procedure and evidence Appeal and judicial review Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Consumer protection and cartels Environmental offences Food safety and hygiene offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Local authority prosecutions International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal procedure and evidence Challenging the decision not to prosecute (R (on the application of Hillary Smith) v DPP) The High Court’s judgment in R (on the application of Hillary Smith) v Director of Public Prosecutions delivers notable guidance on three fronts: the weight to be attached to inquest conclusions when the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) decides whether or not to bring a prosecution; the position the courts are likely to take in judicial review proceedings when scrutinising the reasonableness of the CPS’s application of the two-stage...

What are the practical implications of this case? CPS prosecutorial decisions will continue to benefit from a broad margin of appreciation in the courts, yet this ruling indicates that those impacted by decisions not to prosecute can now reasonably expect—and insist upon—clearer reasoning and justification from the CPS. Earlier challenges to non-prosecution outcomes produced a settled line of authority emphasising the courts’ need to grant the CPS a high degree of latitude when judging the reasonableness of prosecutorial choices, particularly following the introduction of the victim right to review scheme, which provided complainants with an internal independent review. Certain features arising in cases of this nature may mean the CPS must supply more comprehensive reasons for a decision to be regarded as reasonable, or that a reviewing court will be required to undertake a more rigorous level of scrutiny when examining the decision...

The Insolvency Service Legal Services Directorate (LSD) The Insolvency Service’s Legal Services Directorate (LSD) acts as the principal criminal enforcement body for insolvency-related fraud and corporate misconduct. It serves as the prosecuting authority for breaches of insolvency and company law that are referred by other Insolvency Service teams, the Official Receiver, Companies House, and allied agencies. The LSD also handles assorted criminal matters arising within the Department for Business and Trade... The Insolvency Service oversees the complete spectrum of investigation and enforcement activity being undertaken. Depending on the nature or scale of suspected offences, the LSD may pass cases to other enforcement authorities, such as: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Practitioners should take the LSD’s remit into account when assessing potential liabilities for their clients. In making charging decisions, the LSD is bound by the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors and applies both the evidential test and the public interest test. See...

Power to bring a private prosecution A private prosecution is initiated by an individual, company or organisation acting independently of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or any other public prosecuting body. Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985) safeguards the ability of a private person to commence and run criminal proceedings. A broad spectrum of offences is routinely pursued through such actions, often by specialist bodies and charities. Notably, the courts have repeatedly acknowledged this as a significant right within the justice system. Charities, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), bring cases privately. Organisations such as the Federation against Copyright Theft and the British music industry pursue misuse of intellectual property through private prosecutions. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also exercised this route, acting in the capacity of a private individual to prosecute matters outside its direct statutory remit (see R v Rollins). Taken together, these examples illustrate...

This Practice Note provides an overview of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement Code of Practice issued by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), addressing the use and negotiation of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs). It is commonly referred to as the . For fuller guidance on what DPAs involve, who might obtain one, the offences for which they are available, and how they are applied in practice, see: Practice Notes: Deferred prosecution agreements DPAs in practice Financial penalties as a term of a DPA What does the mean for prosecutors? The was issued by the SFO and CPS under Schedule 17 Part 1, para 6(1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013...