Crown Prosecution Service

The CPS employs about 9,000 staff. They primarily prepare cases for internal and external advocates and liaise with police and third parties. Its approved external advocates number 2,900 solicitors and barristers, among which are specialists. Both sets of advocates include King's Counsel—concentrated externally.[2]

Grades of staff

• Crown Advocates present cases in the Crown Court
• Crown Prosecutors (also known as reviewing lawyers) provide advice to investigators, make charging decisions and present prosecution cases in the Magistrates Court.
• Associate Prosecutors represent the CPS in cases with guilty pleas in the magistrates' courts
• Paralegals/casework assistants provide clerical support and help with progressing cases.[2]

Headquartered in London and York, the senior management team sets policies and handles corporate matters such as finance and communications. The Director of Public Prosecutions is assisted by the CPS Chief Executive in running the organisation.

Most of its casework is dealt with by the fourteen CPS Areas, which are responsible for conducting prosecutions in specific parts of England and Wales; each area is led by a Chief Crown Prosecutor.[8]

The areas are composed of police force areas, except in London where the Metropolitan Police are split across two areas. They are:

• Cymru/Wales (Dyfed Powys, Gwent, North Wales, South Wales)
• East Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire)
• Eastern (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk)
• London North (Metropolitan)
• London South (City of London, Metropolitan)
• Mersey Cheshire (Cheshire, Merseyside)
• North East (Cleveland, Durham, Northumbria)
• North West (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire)
• South East (Kent, Surrey, Sussex)
• South West (Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucestershire)
• Thames and Chiltern (Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Thames Valley)
• Wessex (Dorset, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Wiltshire)
• West Midlands (Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands and British Transport Police[lower-alpha 1])
• Yorkshire and Humberside (West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Humberside)

Before a review, these numbered 42 to mirror the police forces (save that CPS London dealt with both of London's territorial police forces).

CPS Direct provides charging advice/authorisation by phone and electronically to police forces at all hours.[8] Prosecutors assigned to CPS Direct are remote workers in order to provide support outside of normal business hours.[9] Most charging decisions by the CPS are now made by CPS Direct, which then passes the prosecution to the appropriate CPS Area.[10]

The Casework Divisions deal with prosecutions requiring specialist knowledge and experience:[8]

• Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division – Appeals, counter-terrorism, and special crime, which includes deaths in custody, public corruption, and medical manslaughter.
• Serious Economic, Organised Crime and International Directorate - This consists of the former Proceeds of Crime Unit, Specialist Fraud, and International Justice and Organised Crime Divisions

The Attorney General oversees the work of the CPS, meeting regularly with the DPP and requesting briefings on matters of public or Parliamentary concern. The Attorney General (or their deputy, the Solicitor General) answer for the CPS's performance and conduct in Parliament.

However, the Attorney General has no role in the day-to-day running of the organisation or in deciding whether a suspect should be prosecuted. The CPS is an independent prosecuting authority and government ministers have no influence over its decision making.

The only exceptions to this rule are when a case involves matters of national security or the Attorney General must personally consent to a prosecution (e.g. all Official Secrets Act prosecutions require the Attorney General's permission to proceed).

Due to the Attorney General's limited role in the CPS's casework, the use of nolle prosequi (halting of proceedings on indictment; a prerogative of the Attorney General) is now rare. Questionable incidents, such as the dropping of the case against John Bodkin Adams for what was believed to be purely political reasons, have not been repeated in modern times.

His Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is responsible for inspecting the work of the CPS.[11] The current Chief Inspector of the CPS is Kevin McGinty.[12]

The CPS will often provide confidential advice to investigators on the viability of a prosecution in complex or unusual cases. This includes clarifying the intent needed to commit an offence or addressing shortcomings in the available evidence.

Unlike in many other jurisdictions, the CPS has no power to order investigations or direct investigators to take action. Whether the CPS is asked for advice or a charging decision is entirely at the discretion of investigators (see History for background on this division of responsibilities in England & Wales).

The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for charging suspects with indictable offences (e.g. murder, rape) and all other criminal offences that lay beyond the prosecutorial authority of the police. Police forces can charge suspects with less serious summary offences (e.g. common assault, criminal damage with a low value) but cannot charge suspects with indictable offences without authorisation from a crown prosecutor (except in certain emergency situations).[13]

The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires prosecutors to answer two questions in the 'Full Code Test': Is there sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? (in other words, is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge). The code outlines this means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. The second question asked is: Is a prosecution required in the public interest?[14] These questions must be answered in this order; if there is insufficient evidence, the public interest in prosecuting is irrelevant.

According to the code, if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, no further action will be taken against the suspect or the prosecutor will ask the police to carry out further inquiries to gather more evidence. When there is sufficient evidence but a prosecution is not required in the public interest, prosecutors can decide that no further action should be taken or that a caution or reprimand is a suitable alternative to prosecution.

In limited circumstances, where the Full Code Test is not met, the Threshold Test may be applied to charge a suspect. The seriousness or circumstances of the case must justify the making of an immediate charging decision, and there must be substantial grounds to object to bail. There must be a rigorous examination of the five conditions of the Threshold Test to ensure that it is only applied when necessary and that cases are not charged prematurely. All five conditions must be met before the Threshold Test can be applied. Where any of the conditions are not met, there is no need to consider any of the other conditions, as the Threshold Test cannot be applied and the suspect cannot be charged.[14] The five conditions that must be met before a Threshold Test can be applied are as follows:

1. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person to be charged has committed the offence
2. Further evidence can be obtained to provide a realistic prospect of conviction
3. The seriousness of the circumstances of the case justifies the making of an immediate charging decision
4. There are continuing substantial grounds to object to bail in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 and in all the circumstances of the case it is proper to do so
5. It is in the public interest to charge the suspect[14]

A decision to charge under the Threshold Test must be kept under review. The prosecutor should be proactive to secure from the police the identified outstanding evidence or other material in accordance with an agreed timetable. The evidence must be regularly assessed to ensure that the charge is still appropriate and that continued objection to bail is justified. The Full Code Test must be applied as soon as the anticipated further evidence or material is received and, in any event, in Crown Court cases, usually before the formal service of the prosecution case.[14]

Whether a decision to charge is taken by police or prosecutors, the CPS will conduct the case, which includes preparing the case for court hearings, disclosing material to the defence and presenting the case in court. The CPS will be represented in court from the first hearing through to conviction/sentencing and in some cases appeal.

All prosecutions must be kept under continuous review and stopped if the Full Code Test (see above) is no longer satisfied or was never satisfied (i.e. the decision to charge was wrong). Mishandling of a case, such as failing to disclose evidence, can result in the courts either acquitting a defendant or quashing the conviction on appeal.

When an appeal against conviction or sentence is lodged by a defendant, the CPS will decide whether or not to oppose the appeal after considering the grounds of appeal. If it decides to oppose, it will present relevant evidence and material to assist the appellate court.

Exceptionally, the CPS has invited defendants to appeal when it has concluded that the safety of a conviction was questionable, for example in the case of undercover police officer Mark Kennedy.

The Extradition Act 2003 tasks the CPS with representing foreign states in extradition proceedings, heard at Westminster Magistrates' Court. While it acts on the foreign prosecutor's instructions, the CPS retains discretion on how the case should be prosecuted.

The Extradition Unit at CPS Headquarters deals with all cases in which the extradition of a person within England and Wales is sought by another state and all cases in which the CPS is seeking the extradition of an individual outside the European Union. The CPS Areas prepare and manage their own extradition requests under the European Arrest Warrant framework.

• Oliver Glasgow QC (2021– )

• John Nutting QC (1993–1995)
• David Calvert-Smith QC (1995–1998)
• Orlando Pownell QC (1999–2002)
• Richard Horwell QC (2002–2006)
• Mark Ellison QC (2006–2008)
• Jonathan Laidlaw QC (2008–2010)
• Brian Altman QC (2011–2013)
• Richard Whittam QC (2013–2015)
• Mark Heywood QC (2015–2018)
• Duncan Penny QC (2018–2020)

The CPS faced embarrassment after it destroyed key emails relating to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Email exchanges between the CPS and the Swedish Prosecution Authority were deleted after CPS lawyer Paul Close retired from the CPS in 2014. According to The Guardian, the CPS "unaccountably advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange. An interview at that time could have prevented the long-running embassy standoff." The CPS data destruction was disclosed in a freedom of information case pursued by Italian investigative journalist Stephania Maurizi, who took her case against the CPS to an information tribunal in London on 13 and 14 November 2017.[15]

On 30 October 2020, the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, a member of the UAE royal family, who was accused by the curator of the inaugural Hay festival in Abu Dhabi, Caitlin McNamara, of sexually assaulting her during a meeting to discuss human rights concerns. McNamara had been seeking a prosecution in the UK, but the CPS concluded that it could not prosecute Nahyan, as the alleged offence happened outside its jurisdiction.[16]