CPS News Brief

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