CPS News Brief

Response to misleading article in Sun on Sunday

Last Sunday, The Sun on Sunday published a misleading article (Witless for the Prosecution) on the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The article said prosecutors deal with 160 cases “at a time”. Last year, CPS prosecutors on average dealt with 79 cases at any one time although of course not all of those cases will require active consideration at the same time as many will be awaiting trial or sentence with the necessary work having been completed. Those dealing with Magistrates’ Courts will have more cases whilst those dealing with complex Crown Court matters will, of course, have fewer.

The article said one in 20 homicide cases fail because “the CPS has not produced enough evidence”. The proportion of homicide cases dropped has reduced by more than a third over the last five years. It is absolutely right that where there is not enough evidence, a case does not proceed. The evidence, which is provided to us by the police, can change and new evidence can come to light which changes the overall strength of the case, for example.

The article said “just two lawyers can cover as many as 16 courts”. It is ridiculous to suggest that the entire caseload of 16 criminal courts will be dealt with by just two lawyers running between them or that just two lawyers would have to present all of those cases in court between them on any given day. But with digital working, different lawyers can prepare cases for numerous courts remotely.

The article said prosecutions have dropped by 10 per cent –implying that this was due to some CPS failing. It is true CPS case numbers are down in the Magistrates’ Courts as police have taken over the prosecutions of some higher volume but lower level crimes (this explains the decrease in CPS led prosecutions (by 12%) in Magistrates’ Courts). But the number of CPS prosecutions in the Crown Courts has increased from 2013-14. Of the cases referred to us (and not retained by the police) we are actually bringing more cases to court than five years ago, and now we charge more than three cases for every one we decide not to proceed with.

The article implied the DPP receives £600,000 a year. The DPP’s salary is on our website at between £200,000 and £205,000 in the year 2014-15, and is set out in the Annual Report. The DPP is also part of the Civil Service, standard, “Classic” pension scheme which calculates potential future benefits over many years, in the same way for every member of its scheme.

The vast majority of this context and information was provided to the Sun on Sunday, at its request, on the Friday before publication.

Our record of delivering justice for the public speaks for itself. The overall conviction rate has been maintained at over 80% - that means that more than four in five of the cases we prosecute result in a conviction. And last year, we secured more convictions against sex offenders than in any other year on record, with many of these cases being particularly sensitive and complex. This is a credit to our hardworking and dedicated staff.

Seven people charged for importing and possessing firearms in Kent

Tom Guest, Specialist Prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following an investigation by the National Crime Agency, on 13 August 2015 I authorised charges against David Payne, Jennifer Arthy, Christopher Owen, John Smale, Richard Rye, Harry Shilling and Michael Defraine.

“I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge all seven with importation of firearms on or before 11 August 2015 contrary to section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. I have also authorised to charge all seven defendants with conspiring to possess firearms with intent to endanger life contrary to section 1 Criminal Law Act 1977.

“The firearms alleged to have been imported are 22 Czechoslovakian CZ-58 assault rifles and 9 Skorpion sub-machine guns.

“The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“All seven appeared at Medway Magistrates’ Court today (14 August 2015). They were all remanded in custody and will appear at Maidstone Crown Court on 4 September 2015.

"Criminal proceedings have now commenced and all seven defendants have a 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."

 

Prosecutors continue to tackle revenge porn across the country

A 25-year-old man from Kidderminster has today, 13^th August, been sentenced to a 12 month community order, handed a fine and ordered to pay costs, as prosecutors continue to tackle revenge porn across England and Wales using the new legislation.

Alex Till, who was the first person in the West Midlands to be convicted of revenge pornography, was sentenced at Kidderminster Magistrates’ Court after he pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to disclosing on Facebook, a private photograph of the victim which was of a sexually explicit nature, without her consent.

In June 2015, the defendant sent the victim a Facebook message from a false account using the private sexual photograph of the victim as his profile picture. This caused the victim enormous distress.

The matter was reported to the police who subsequently arrested the defendant and charged him with an offence contrary to Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Lionel Idan, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor from West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said:

 “Alex Till sought revenge against the victim by posting a sexually explicit photograph onto a social media website without the victim’s permission.

“This deliberate and callous act was intended to cause the victim maximum distress, humiliation and embarrassment.

 "Such criminal actions will not be tolerated by the CPS and the police and we will do everything in our power to obtain justice for victims of this crime by robustly prosecuting all those who engage in such malicious activity.

“The CPS has introduced new guidelines for its prosecutors on revenge porn and I urge anyone who has been a victim of such a crime to report it to the police and to help us bring such offenders to justice.”

Additional information:

In April 2015, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 created a new criminal offence of Revenge Pornography, making it a criminal offence to disclose private sexual photographs and films without the consent of an individual who appears in them and with the intent to cause that individual distress. A typical case of revenge pornography would involve an ex-partner uploading an intimate image of the victim to the Internet or sending it to their friends and family.  It is carried out with the intention of causing distress, humiliation and embarrassment to the victim. 

Previously, these cases have been prosecuted under other areas of legislation, such as the Communications Act 2003, Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Harassment Act 1997. Under the new legislation someone convicted of an offence could face up to two years in prison and receive a fine. 

The guidance on Revenge Porn outlines:

• Revenge Porn is the sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress. The images are sometimes accompanied by personal information about the subject, including their full name, address and links to their social media profiles.
• The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image.    
• To fall within the offence, a photograph or film would have to be private and sexual. This could include an image that depicted an individual's exposed genitals, or a picture of someone who is engaged in sexual behaviour or posing in a sexually provocative way, if what is shown is not of a kind ordinarily seen in public.
• 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.

 

Peter Lewis writes to Daily Mail regarding article 'Toll of surge in sex crimes'

The Chief Executive of CPS, Peter Lewis, has written to the Daily Mail concerning an article published on Monday 10 August 2015 ‘Toll of surge in sex crimes’ in which the paper reported that a 10% decrease in prosecutions last year was linked to an increase in the number of Child Sex Abuse cases.

Please see letter below:

Sir,

I write regarding an article which featured today, Monday 10^th August, ‘Toll of surge in sex crimes’.

The article states that the CPS brought 10% fewer cases overall last year due to the growth in complicated sex crimes. However, these two changes in our caseload are unconnected.

The CPS continues to prosecute cases referred to us in the same way, and according to the same tests, as we have always done and our performance has also remained steady - last year a conviction was secured in 83% of those cases.  Some lower level cases, such as the proof in absence of routine road traffic offences are now dealt with by the police, meaning the CPS prosecutes fewer of these cases. This is not related to the increase we have seen in cases involving rape, child sexual abuse and domestic abuse.

Kind regards

Peter Lewis, Chief Executive CPS

Bradford schoolboy sentenced to 11 years for teacher stabbing

A 14 year old youth has been sentenced  to 11 years at Bradford Crown Court today after pleading guilty at a previous hearing to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. On 11 June 2015, the youth, a pupil at Dixons Kings Academy, Bradford, stabbed his teacher, Vincent Uzomah in the stomach.

Jonathan Sharp, Principal Crown Advocate, Crown Prosecution Service Yorkshire and Humberside, said:

“This was a truly shocking incident: a pre-planned attack by a 14 year old youth on his teacher, in front of the rest of the class.

“Mr Uzomah was stabbed deeply in the stomach, with a knife that the youth had brought into the school specifically for that purpose. It also seems that the attack was at least in part, racially motivated – the youth used a highly offensive racist word just before stabbing his teacher.

“The victim has suffered serious physical and psychological injuries, has had to put his career plans on hold and is uncertain when, or if, he will feel able to return to teaching – a profession he loved.

“It was also profoundly distressing to Mr Uzomah - and shocking– that the youth posted a Facebook update boasting of what he had done. This subsequently received 69 ‘likes’ from the youth’s circle of acquaintances.

“In the circumstances it is remarkable that Mr Uzomah has expressed his desire to forgive the defendant, whilst wishing to see justice done as a deterrent to others. I hope that the sentence passed today gives Mr Uzomah and his family some comfort. Our thoughts remain with them.”

Benefits cheat convicted for using details of brother who died in 1967

Carl Jones has pleaded guilty today [Friday 7 Aug] at Liverpool Crown Court for making dishonest representations, theft, fraud and other offences. Mr Jones made a number of claims for pension credit and housing and council tax benefit by using documents which he claimed were completed by his brother Roy Jones, who passed away in 1967, and his former school friend. He also used passport details of these two people as well as holding passport details of another former school friend. Mr Jones has been sentenced to 28 months imprisonment.

Pamela Jain, specialist fraud prosecutor at the CPS said: 

“These actions were cold and calculated. Carl Jones used the identity of his dead brother to claim benefits he was not entitled to. He also stole the personal details of his friends and in one case used these to claim further payments. This friend had no idea that his name and details were being used to make claims including for pension, housing and council tax benefits.

“Faced with the strength of the case in front of him, Carl Jones has pleaded guilty today. The case has been dealt with under the ‘Early Guilty Plea’ scheme, which is designed to improve the number and efficiency of guilty plea cases in the Crown Court. Securing an early guilty plea saves valuable court time and has allowed us to make savings to the public purse which stand in stark contrast to Carl Jones’ own fraudulent actions involving total claims of over £200,000.”

Further information:

Early Guilty Plea scheme

The scheme requires the CPS to identify straightaway cases where defendants are likely to plead guilty. This allows the court to hear the case immediately and pass sentence, unless the defendant tells the court that they want a trial. In this way, the scheme encourages defendants who are pleading guilty, to do so at an early opportunity. This provides certainty for victims as to the outcome of their case far sooner and also saves significant resources as it reduces the number of hearings per case, and frees up judge, court and lawyers’ time. It also enables more resources to be focussed on preparation for cases where a jury trial is genuinely needed and helps to bring cases on for trial sooner, which benefits witnesses, victims and defendants alike and is a more efficient use of court proceedings.

Convicted of:

Nine counts of Dishonest representation for obtaining benefit, contrary to section 111A(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992

Two counts of Theft, contrary to section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, contrary to section 24A of the Theft Act 1968

Using a copy of a false instrument with intent, contrary to section 4 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

Two counts of Possession of an identity document with improper intention, contrary to section 4(1) and (2) of the Identity Documents Act 2010

Two counts of Fraud, contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006

Prosecutors being advised to learn from revenge porn cases across the country to help them tackle this “humiliating” crime

Since the introduction of the new Revenge Pornography law in April the CPS has brought cases across England and Wales using the new legislation.  The first defendant believed to have been convicted is due to be sentenced today, (Friday 7^th August), and details of the cases brought so far have this week been circulated to prosecutors across the CPS to help them use the new legislation most effectively.

Jason Asagba, 21, due to be sentenced at Reading Magistrates Court after he was convicted of posting, texting and emailing intimate photos without the woman’s consent with intent to cause her distress under the new Revenge Pornography legislation.  He pleaded guilty and was convicted on 16^th May.

In this case the victim did not consent to having the pictures taken and was asleep when they were taken.

Asagba sent the pictures to the victim’s family via text and he sent the victim a picture via email.  He also hacked into the victim’s Facebook account and shared an image on her timeline.

It was clear from his actions that Asagba intended to cause the woman distress and embarrassment.  Sharing these pictures in a public forum was vindictive and criminal. 

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, said:

“Revenge pornography is a particularly distressing crime for the victim which is often, but not always, brought about by the vengeful actions of former partners. It is a violation of trust between two people and its purpose is to publicly humiliate.

“Prior to the new law, crimes were dealt with by using other areas of legislation such as the Malicious Communications Act 1988.  I am pleased that these crimes can now be prosecuted as an offence in their own right, reassuring victims that it is a recognised offence and it is being taken seriously by the authorities.

“The new offence has only been in force since April, therefore, it is too early for us to be able to say what impact this is having on the number of prosecutions, however, anecdotally we are seeing more of these cases being brought to us by the police and it is clear that the new legislation is having an impact.  I am pleased that awareness of these cases of revenge pornography is growing so victims come forward to report these nasty crimes and prosecutions are brought where we have sufficient evidence.

“Within the CPS I am ensuring that all relevant staff have the most up to date guidance, and the benefit of learning from their colleagues, so we have circulated details of case studies we now have to help improve our expertise in using the new legislation.”

 

The Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC MP said: 

“We live in a world where images are able to be shared instantaneously and the criminal justice system needs to keep pace with that reality.  I am pleased that the CPS’s guidance highlights the significant impact that these offences have on their victims.

 “This case shows that anyone maliciously and deliberately distributing intimate pictures of people without their consent can and will be brought to justice”

 

In April 2015, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 created a new criminal offence of Revenge Pornography, making it a criminal offence to disclose private sexual photographs and films without the consent of an individual who appears in them and with the intent to cause that individual distress.  A typical case of revenge pornography might involve an ex-partner uploading an intimate image of the victim to the Internet or sending it to their friends and family.  It is carried out with the intention of causing distress, humiliation and embarrassment to the victim. 

Previously, these cases have been prosecuted under other areas of legislation, such as the Communications Act 2003, Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Harassment Act 1997. Under the new legislation someone convicted of an offence could face up to two years in prison and receive a fine. 

 Completed cases:

• Sam Colley, 35, was sentenced on 7^th July at Barkingside Magistrates Court to 12 weeks imprisonment suspended for 18 months after he pleaded guilty to an offence of Revenge Pornography.  He was convicted after pleading guilty to sending an intimate picture of a woman to members of her family via Facebook and threatening to post further pictures online.
• Clayton Kennedy, 21, was sentenced on 6^th July at Cardiff Magistrates Court to a 12 month Community Order, fined £110 and ordered to pay court costs of £295 and given an indefinite restraining order.  He posted intimate pictures of a woman onto Facebook, the victim was not aware the photo had even been taken, causing further distress. He was charged with Revenge Pornography on 28^th May and pleaded guilty on 22^nd June.
• Paul Marquis, 30, was sentenced on 30^th June at Teesside Magistrates Court to an 18 week suspended sentence, received a tagged curfew and ordered to pay costs and compensation.  He was charged on 1^st June after he sent an intimate image of a woman to her friend, he pleaded guilty and was convicted on 9^thJune.
• Jamie Law, 25, pleaded guilty and was convicted on 2^nd July at Feltham Magistrates Court and was sentenced at Uxbridge Magistrates Court to 12 weeks imprisonment and a restraining order was granted for 3 years. He was charged with Revenge Pornography after sending pictures of a woman to her brother.
• Luke Brimson, 29, was charged on 16^th July with Revenge Pornography after he distributed intimate pictures of a woman inside and outside of a supermarket. He appeared on 30th July at Woodspring Magistrates Court where he was sentenced to 24 weeks in prison suspended for 18 months, given a two year Restraining Order and made to pay costs. (There is a s46 direction - press restriction preventing the woman’s details from being disclosed)

On-going cases:

• Alex Till, 25, will be sentenced at Kidderminster Magistrates Court on 13^th August after he pleaded guilty to posting an intimate image of a woman on Facebook.
• John Duffin, 35, pleaded guilty and was convicted of Revenge Pornography on 17^th July at Bristol Magistrates Court after saving an intimate picture of a woman and setting it as his ‘Whatsapp’ profile picture, which would allow all of his contacts to view it. He is due to be sentenced at Bristol MC on 13^th August.
• Simon Humphrey, 40, will be sentenced on 27^th August after he pleaded guilty and was convicted of Revenge Pornography on 24^th July at St. Albans Magistrates Court. Humphrey was convicted after he changed his Facebook profile picture to an intimate picture of a woman allowing it to be seen by all of his friends and associates.
• Paige Mitchell, 23, was charged on 3^rd July with Revenge Porn after she uploaded intimate pictures of a woman to her Facebook account.  She had her first hearing at Stevenage Magistrates Court on 4^th August and pleaded guilty, she will be sentenced on 1^st September.
• William Nelson, 52, pleaded guilty and was convicted of Revenge Pornography on 29^th July at Croydon Magistrates Court.  Nelson created a false account on Facebook where he shared about 30 pictures of a woman whose friends alerted her after they had seen the profile. He will be sentenced on 26^th August.

 

The guidance on Revenge Porn outlines:

• Revenge Porn is the sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress. The images are sometimes accompanied by personal information about the subject, including their full name, address and links to their social media profiles.
• The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image.  
• 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.

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman charged for inviting support of ISIL

Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:

“Following an investigation by the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command, we have today authorised charges against Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.

“We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman for inviting support for ISIL, a proscribed terrorist organisation, between 29 June 2014 and 6 March this year. Each man is charged with one offence contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

“It is alleged that Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman invited support for ISIS in individual lectures which were subsequently published online.

“The decision to prosecute was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

“Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court later today, 5 August 2015.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and both men have a 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.”

Charges

1. Between 29th June 2014 and 6th March 2015, Anjem Choudary invited support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, namely ISIL, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State.

2. Between 29th June 2014 and 6th March 2015, Mohammed Mizanur Rahman invited support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, namely ISIL, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State.