CPS News Brief

John Lowe, 82, convicted of murders of Christine and Lucy Lee

An 82-year-old man who shot dead a mother and daughter at his home near Farnham, Surrey, has been convicted of their murders.

John Lowe killed 40-year-old Lucy Lee and her mother Christine Lee, 66, on Sunday, 23 February 2014. They had been providing care and assistance to Lowe after his long-term partner died in 2012. Lowe also killed four dogs at his home with the same shotgun.

Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS South East, Jaswant Narwal, said: “This case represents a terrible loss of life and our thoughts are with Lucy and Christine’s friends and family.

“The real tragedy in this case is that Christine and Lucy had been helping to look after John Lowe in recent months. After killing them, he showed no remorse for his actions and instead sought to portray himself as the victim.

“Anyone involved in this case cannot fail to have been moved by the extraordinary courage shown by Lucy Lee. On the day of the killings, she called emergency services to tell them her mother had just been shot and that, despite the clear threat to her own life, she would be going back for her. Tragically, Lowe killed her after she returned to the scene.”

ENDS

CPS statement: Man convicted for attempted murder of three sisters

Philip Spence was convicted today at Southwark Crown Court for the attempted murder of three sisters at the Cumberland Hotel on 6 April 2014.

Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:

“This was a truly horrific crime which displayed a shocking level of violence.

“This family were enjoying a holiday in our city when they were brutally and viciously attacked whilst they lay sleeping in their beds. Philip Spence used a hammer to try to kill the women before stealing their belongings.

“Not only were the three sisters severely injured in the attack, their children were in the room at the time and witnessed the horror of the violence.

“I would like to praise the immense courage of the victims who gave evidence in court whilst still undergoing medical treatment for their injuries and thank them for their help in bringing Spence to justice.

“Spence refused to take responsibility for his actions and despite pleading guilty to causing grievous bodily harm we did not accept that this reflected the criminality of his actions which showed a clear intent to kill. The jury agreed with this and have convicted Spence of attempted murder.

“Those who live and work in the capital, and those who visit, should be able to enjoy the city without fear of violence and the CPS is committed to working with police partners to tackle and prosecute violent crime.”

Background

Philip Spence was convicted of three counts attempted murder and conspiracy to cause aggravated burglary (with Thomas Efremi), he had previously pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary.

Thomas Efremi pleaded guilty to one count of fraud. Within hours of the aggravated burglary he used stolen bankcards to withdraw £5000. He was also convicted of a conspiracy with Philip Spence to commit aggravated burglary.

James Moss pleaded guilty to handling stolen goods. This included mobile phones, handbags and jewellery belonging to the three victims and their family.

DPP letter to The Times on RIPA legislation

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, has today written to The Times concerning an article published on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in which the newspaper reported that the DPP had "defended the police's use of anti-terrorism powers to hack into journalists' records to obtain their sources." The below letter has been published in today's Times:

Sir,

Far from defending the use of RIPA to obtain journalist sources I very clearly said that such data should only be obtained where serious criminal offending is alleged (Times, 15 October).

The two cases which have been highlighted involved a part time judge deliberately perverting the course of justice for which she was jailed, and allegations of a police conspiracy against the Government; this was not about either a confidential tip off over speeding fines or the source of an embarrassing leak, both of which would have been totally inappropriate uses of RIPA in my opinion.

A free and open press is vital to our democracy and maintaining confidential sources is an important part of holding power to account.

Alison Saunders
Director of Public Prosecutions

No further action to be taken following the death of Andrew Pimlott

Following the death of Andrew Pimlott in Plymouth in April 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has determined that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a police constable for gross negligence manslaughter or misconduct in public office.

A report submitted to the CPS by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) indicated that on 18 April 2013, police were called after reports Mr Pimlott had breached a restraining order in attending a specific address in Plymouth and had a jerry can of petrol. Two police constables attended and went to the rear garden where Mr Pimlott was seen to douse himself in petrol before appearing to strike a match. In response, one of the officers deployed his Taser and Mr Pimlott caught fire. Mr Pimlott was taken to hospital and died from the complications of severe burns on 23 April 2013. In July 2014 the IPCC submitted a file to the CPS requesting a charging decision.

In order to prosecute gross negligence manslaughter it must be shown that a duty of care was owed to the deceased, that that duty was breached, that the breach caused the death of the victim and that any breach was so bad that it should be categorised as gross negligence and therefore criminal. It is necessary to show that any acts were so serious and showed such an indifference to an obviously serious risk to life, that it amounts to a crime in law. An offence of misconduct in public office is committed by a public officer who wilfully neglects to perform his duty or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office-holder, without reasonable excuse or justification.  

Sally Walsh, a senior lawyer in the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “We carefully and thoroughly examined the evidence in this case in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The evidence suggests that this was a fast-moving incident with events unfolding suddenly and in near darkness; from the police approach to the garden to the petrol igniting the entire incident took less than 41 seconds.

“Having considered the evidence, we determined that although it could be shown that the officer owed Mr Pimlott a duty of care, there is insufficient evidence that the duty was breached. In the circumstances, we took the view that a jury would be more likely than not to accept that the officer held a reasonable and genuine fear for both Mr Pimlott’s safety and his own. Whilst we cannot know whether Mr Pimlott intended to set himself alight, seeing him douse himself in petrol and holding what appeared to be a lighted match, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that he intended to. It appears from the evidence that the officer did the best he could in what were clearly very difficult circumstances and that he was faced with a choice of either standing back to allow Mr. Pimlott to set himself alight or taking the somewhat lesser risk of applying the Taser in an effort to stop him doing so.

“With regards to misconduct in public office, the evidence suggests that the use of a Taser in these circumstances was not prohibited by police guidelines and that he acted in a genuine attempt to save Mr Pimlott’s life and keep others safe. There is therefore insufficient evidence to show that he wilfully misconducted himself or abused the public’s trust in him.

“Since there is insufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of convicting the officer of any criminal offence arising from the circumstances of Mr Pimlott’s death, we have advised the IPCC that no further criminal action should be taken.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute. In addition this CPS decision applies only to possible criminal proceedings and not to any possible misconduct proceedings under police regulations.

“Our thoughts remain with Mr Pimlott’s family at this difficult time and we have written to them to explain our decision in detail. We met with them in September to update them on the progress of our review and we have offered to meet with them again should they so wish.”

 

For editors:

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Former Sunday Mirror journalist charged and no further action taken against one individual

Former Sunday Mirror journalist charged with intercepting communications

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“A file was received from the Metropolitan Police in May 2014 and the CPS has today authorised the police to summons Graham Johnson, a former Sunday Mirror journalist, to be charged with an offence of intercepting communications without legal authority, namely mobile phone voicemail messages.

“Graham Johnson will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 6th November 2014.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against Graham Johnson will now be commenced and of his right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

“This decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the DPP’s guidelines on the public interest in cases affecting the media. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

Details of the full charge:

Graham Johnson, between 31st August 2001 and 22nd October 2001 intercepted communications in the course of their transmission, without lawful authority, namely mobile phone voicemail messages, contrary to s1(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

 

One individual informed that no further action will be taken regarding conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service said:

“The CPS has today decided that no further action will be taken in relation to an individual, concerning allegations of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.

“A file was received on 6 June 2014 from the Metropolitan Police. After careful consideration it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. This decision has been made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”

For editors:

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

CPS Statement: Ex-MEP charged with fraud offences and misconduct in public office

Zoe Martin, of the CPS Special Crime Division said:

“The CPS has today issued charges against Ashley Mote of obtaining a money transfer by deception, fraud by false representation, false accounting, receiving the proceeds of crime and misconduct in public office. We have decided there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.

“Ashley Mote will appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 3 November 2014.

“A decision has also been made that no further action will been taken in relation to a second individual who was investigated for offences of obtaining money transfer by deception, false accounting and fraud by false representation, as there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. In addition no further action will be taken against two other individuals who were investigated for offences of money laundering.

“These decisions were taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings against the defendant have been commenced and of his right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”

For editors: The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Details of the full charges:

Ashley Mote

Charge 1:

Misconduct in public office, contrary to Common Law

Charge 2:

Acquiring criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Charge 3:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 4:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 5:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 6:

Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 7:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 8:

False accounting, contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

Charge 9:

Fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006

Operation Yewtree: No further action to be taken in respect of two men

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that no further action should be taken against two men investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service as part of Operation Yewtree. The men, aged 65 and 75, were arrested on 29 October 2013 over allegations of sexual offences said to have taken place over a two year period in the early 1980s.

Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said:

“Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by two males believed to be aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending.

“Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences.

“These decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences. Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.

“The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision and offer a meeting should they wish to discuss the matter in more detail.”

The CPS received initial material from the Metropolitan Police Service regarding these allegations in February 2014. Investigative advice was provided to the police throughout 2014 and the final evidence was submitted to the CPS in September 2014.

For editors

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Statement on Prince Nasser of Bahrain and immunity from prosecution

Deborah Walsh, Deputy Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the CPS, said:

“In line with recent case law on this issue, we can no longer maintain our position that the Prince could have immunity.

“We have always maintained that the issues raised by this Judicial Review are academic as before the DPP can consent to any application for a private arrest warrant, there needs to be an investigation by police. The likelihood of immunity is not considered a bar to prosecution and is a matter that should be considered on a case’s individual facts and merits, after some investigation. The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture, and has previously said that it would not undertake an investigation in relation to this matter for a number of reasons; the possibility of immunity was not one.

“The CPS is committed to the prosecution of war crimes and we take our responsibilities under international law very seriously. Whenever the evidence and law allows us to do so, we will vigorously pursue prosecutions through the UK courts. We have a well-established War Crimes Community Involvement Panel that consists of law enforcement, NGOs and others which has been cited internationally as an example of good practice. This meets regularly to discuss issues of concern and relevance and helps to improve our collective knowledge and understanding in this field.”

Crown Prosecution Service offers clear guidance for prosecutors on ‘revenge pornography’

The CPS has today updated its legal guidance regarding the prosecution of communications sent via social media with a clear section that explains how current legislation can be used to prosecute offences involving the malicious use of intimate media, sometimes referred to as ‘revenge pornography’.

This clarification does not signify a new approach but clearly sets out for prosecutors which laws can be used to bring these cases to court. In all cases the CPS will apply the most appropriate law which best addresses the alleged offending. It is a matter for Parliament to decide if further laws are needed or if changes need to be made to the current legislation.

A spokesperson for the CPS said,

 “No one should have to suffer the hurt and humiliation of ‘revenge pornography’ – a nasty and invasive crime that appears, anecdotally at least, to have increased as social media use has gone up.

 “The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes these cases using a range of current laws, and we have now clarified our legal guidance to set out clearly how these cases should be brought to court.

 “Due to the very personal nature of ‘revenge pornography’ prosecutors are being asked specifically to consider the impact on the victims involved. The new guidance also makes clear that the context of each case needs to be considered alongside current guidelines to ensure that the most appropriate legislation is used when prosecuting. The public, and indeed those intent on attacking former partners in this way, can now see clearly that this is a crime that can and will be prosecuted.”

‘Revenge pornography’ is typically sexually explicit media that is publically shared online without the consent of the pictured individual and is usually uploaded by ex-partners.  The images are often accompanied by personal information including the pictured individual’s full name, links to social media profiles and address, and are shared with the intent to cause distress or harm to the individual.”

The guidance outlines:

• The issue in cases of ‘revenge pornography’ will be whether the message or communication is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false, not whether the image itself is indecent or obscene.
• Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 deals with the sending of electronic communications which are indecent, grossly offensive, threatening or false, provided there is an intention to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.
• Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a ‘public electronic communications network’ a message that is ‘grossly offensive’ or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.
• Where there is more than one incident, or the incident forms part of a course of conduct directed towards an individual, a charge of harassment should be considered.
• Where the images may have been taken when the victim was under 18, prosecutors will consider offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
• In the most serious cases, where intimate images are used to coerce victims into further sexual activity, other offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be considered.

In order to prosecute, all cases must meet the evidential stage in the Full Code Test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and be considered to be in the public interest.

These offences would not normally be brought under the Obscene Publications Act.

We have informed the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications of this change, following their interest in the subject earlier this year. The CPS legal guidance on the prosecution of cases involving communications sent via social media were drafted specifically due to the rapid expansion of social media and can be found on www.cps.gov.uk. 

One individual informed that no further action will be taken in relation to two counts including conspiracy to intercept phone voicemail messages

Gregor McGill, a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service said: 

“The CPS has today [3 October 2014] decided that no further action will be taken in relation to an individual arrested on 30 August 2012, concerning allegations of conspiracy to intercept phone voicemail messages and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

“After careful consideration it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. This decision has been made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.”

For editors:

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.

Man and wife sentenced following the sale of fraudulent bomb detectors

Samuel and Joan Tree, from Dunstable, have today been sentenced at Kingston Crown Court, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, for an offence contrary to section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006. Samuel Tree has been sentenced to three and a half years and Joan Tree has been handed a two years suspended sentence with 300 hours community service. This is the last of four trials which relate to sales of fraudulent bomb detectors.

Elspeth Pringle, specialist prosecutor at the CPS, said:

“The deception undertaken by Samuel and Joan Tree is staggering – for many years they sold a product made in a shed in their back garden which, they claimed, could detect drugs, explosives and other substances. They even claimed it was capable of finding missing children. All of these claims were false; however Samuel Tree used whatever tactics he could to persuade his clients otherwise, resulting in the sale of these devices for hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds when in reality they cost little more than a few pounds to make.

“The severity of this deception is underlined by the fact that the Trees sold these devices, which were to be used in dangerous, high-pressure and hazardous situations, knowing that they would provide no benefit or security for the men and women using them. When in its essence, the Alpha 6 device sold and created by Samuel and Joan tree was nothing more than a plastic box with antennae on the top and some pieces of paper inside, they put many lives at risk for the sake of making a profit.”

This sentencing marks the end of the four trials which were brought against six people accused of selling fake bomb detectors.

For information:

Samuel Tree

Convicted of: Making an article for use in the course of a fraud, namely that between 14th January 2007 and 12th July 2012 at 15 Houghton Road, Dunstable made an article, namely an Alpha 6 device, knowing that it was designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud or intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, fraud. Contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006

Joan Tree

Convicted of: Making an article for use in the course of a fraud, namely that between 14th January 2007 and 12th July 2012 at 15 Houghton Road, Dunstable made an article, namely an Alpha 6 device, knowing that it was designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud or intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, fraud. Contrary to section 7(1) of the Fraud Act 2006

CPS Statement: Criminal extradited from Spain and jailed for non-payment of UK Confiscation Order

Martin Hickman, who was convicted in relation to the illegal sale and supply of medicinal products in 2009, has been extradited from Spain and jailed for 10 years after failure to pay a confiscation order made against him in 2012 at Southwark Crown Court. 

Nick Price, Head of CPS Proceeds of Crime said:

“Martin Hickman’s crimes were unscrupulous and greedy, putting people’s health at risk for the sake of pure profit. Having failed to pay his debt, he has now begun a ten year sentence behind bars.

“Mr Hickman’s arrest, extradition from Spain and subsequent imprisonment back in the UK should send out a clear message to criminals seeking to hide themselves and their assets abroad: if you won’t pay up, we will find you and you will go to jail.

“We would like to thank Titan, the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit and International law enforcement colleagues for their tireless work on this case.”

Background

• Hickman was prosecuted by DWP in relation to the illegal sale and supply of medicinal products. He was convicted on 06/03/09, having pleaded guilty to five counts on the Indictment, and was convicted of one further offence following a guilty plea on 16/03/09. On 08/06/09 he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. On 27/04/12 a Confiscation Order was made. DWP prosecutions were transferred to the CPS on 1 April 2012.

• Martin Hickman was jailed for 10 years following his extradition from Spain in August after failure to pay on a Confiscation Order made against him at Southwark Crown Court on 27/4/12 for £14,407,850.28.

• His Confiscation Order currently stands at £13,940,391.44 plus interest. The service of the default sentence will not expunge the debt.

• A European Arrest Warrant was issued in March this year. Mr Hickman was arrested in Spain in early July and extradited to the UK on 13 August where he was taken immediately to prison to begin his sentence.  

 

DPP publishes final standards for all prosecutors

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has today published the final version of new standards for all CPS prosecutors. This follows a consultation with the public, which demonstrated that draft interim standards published in April 2014 were largely in the right place.

Casework Quality Standards apply to all cases prosecuted by the CPS and set out the benchmarks of quality expected by the DPP in every major aspect of CPS work. The four standards also place greater emphasis on the quality of casework and replace the previous 12 Core Quality Standards. The Casework Quality Standards are:

• Victims, witnesses and communities;
• Legal decision-making;
• Casework preparation; and
• Presentation in court.

Alison Saunders said: “I am grateful to those organisations and individuals who have taken the time to respond to our public consultation - with their help I am confident that we now have a clear set of standards against which both we and the public can measure our performance.

“In particular, these standards are a very clear commitment to victims and witnesses. Our success in prosecuting criminals relies on the willingness of victims and witnesses to engage and give evidence, so it’s right that they should know what to expect from us and be able to hold us to account when necessary. That’s why, following consultation with the public, our standards now promise to protect the interests of victims in the court process, which we know can be a difficult experience.

“These are the standards for a modern and forward-looking CPS, with a focus on victims and casework quality. I’m particularly pleased that the public consultation welcomed, for example, our emphasis on identifying the proceeds of crime and ensuring that criminals do not retain any financial advantage. Such work embodies what we now expect of our public prosecutors; effective, thorough and doing all they can to serve victims and the wider public.”

 

 

Background:

The final Casework Quality Standards are available on the CPS website, along with a summary of responses from the public consultation. The initial review considered the original Core Quality Standards 1 to 10, relating to the key aspects of casework from advice to presentation. In their place, there are now four new standards.

A separate consultation in respect of the Complaints Handling and Community Engagement Quality Standards is currently ongoing and is due to conclude on Friday, 10 October 2014.