The Prosecutors - the CPS

[sqounk]

A TV series of 3 x programmes on the work of the CPS.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w...arge_lifestyle
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w...roof_lifestyle
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3x...the-trial_news

[Silver]

Thanks for posting, very interesting x

[sqounk]

Thanks for posting, very interesting x

There's a police one on that site too which is pretty good - another 3 parter I think.

[Silver]

Thing is they all seem to conclude together like gossiping neighbours (lol)Yes they have a job to do but to me its all very informal...

[Franticwithworry]

I recorded the last two episodes of this when it was on TV. I missed the first, watched the second and forgot about the third.

It all seemed a bit too cosy and informal to me, and a bit insincere when they were talking about the need to be sure of the evidence and 'getting the right man'.

I understand what's going on when they're dealing with assaults that result in visible injuries, but when they talk about wanting to be sure they don't take weak cases to court and don't want to look foolish, and then they are prosecuting sexual offences on nothing but a statement, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

It's politics and a push for convictions, regardless, not justice. I wasn't impressed and think that they probably behave very differently in 'real' life from how they did for the cameras. The way I feel at the moment, CPS lawyers are as trustworthy as police officers.

[sqounk]

I just put the series links up for people to get a general sense of what the CPS is - I know I didn't have a clue what they were, only what I'd seen in detective/police series on TV! I think it is a bit of a worry the contradiction of 'we must have strong evidence to charge' vs 'testimony on its' own - if considered reliable and we trust it, we'll use it to charge you' in sexual cases. The standard of evidence has to be higher in court to convict though doesn't it? Or does it? You're going to say 'no' now, I can feel it.... I was very interested in some of what these programmes brought to light though; particularly that the defence's evidence does not have to be earth shattering, but significant i.e. that it must be enough to cast a shadow on the complainant's claim rather than completely disprove it. If there is the doubt in the mind of the jury they cannot pass a guilty verdict as the defendant's guilt is not beyond reasonable doubt. I was also was interested in how they worked as an operation - I can imagine it must be harrowing working on genuine cases like serial child abusers and rapists who are not falsely accused so I think some camaraderie is understandable, but I can understand the thinking that it is almost 'club-like' and one of the concluding scenes of ep3 didn't do them any favours; the obvious glee of convicting someone who is evidently a 'wrong 'un' and then trying to downplay the smiles etc. was not a good look - I'd have preferred them to just enjoy the 'win', but then they might be downplaying it because it is unseemly given the grim circumstances. I also enjoyed the very smart attire of the QC in the 2nd episode. He is not someone who frequents greasy spoons or drives a moped, I feel.

[Peter1975]

I think it is a bit of a worry the contradiction of 'we must have strong evidence to charge' vs 'testimony on its' own - if considered reliable and we trust it, we'll use it to charge you' in sexual cases. The standard of evidence has to be higher in court to convict though doesn't it? Or does it? You're going to say 'no' now, I can feel it...

In theory the standard has to be much higher for conviction in court than the standard the CPS use for charging decisions. If we look at the number of cases discarded at the investigation stage (around 80%) we can surmise that many guilty sex offenders are also being NFA'd and the cps and police have an impossible job to get right. I don't believe that cps lawyers are particularly well paid so we can perhaps say that they are mostly not very good lawyers working in the most difficult area of the law.

[Silver]

I personally don't think there should be 2 levels of charge(cps then crown court)It is such a waste of money.

So if the cps find enough "evidence" refers the case to crown court.If they are that concerned about the "suspect "they place on remand...

TBH nobody seemed to have a clear idea what they were doing, just like neighbours talking over the fence about a fellow neighbour they have concerns about...No wonder they take so long to decide when they're all dancing in circles...I mean really?

[Franticwithworry]

In theory the standard has to be much higher for conviction in court than the standard the CPS use for charging decisions. If we look at the number of cases discarded at the investigation stage (around 80%) we can surmise that many guilty sex offenders are also being NFA'd and the cps and police have an impossible job to get right. I don't believe that cps lawyers are particularly well paid so we can perhaps say that they are mostly not very good lawyers working in the most difficult area of the law.

With respect - and I value your contributions highly, Peter1975 - I think that it's a very dangerous stereotype and nothing short of insulting to claim that those who work in the public sector for little pay are of poor quality because 'of course' they would work privately and for more money if they were good enough and could.

Some poor souls are wrongfully languishing in jail because of the poor representation that they have received at the hands of the much more highly paid.

Yes, the CPS and police have a difficult job and the guilty, statistically, likely go free, but if the evidence isn't there, it isn't there, and in sexual cases especially, there is often little more than word of mouth to go on. Much of our objection to the current system is the fact that people are convicted on little or no evidence.

The excellent lawyers who work on legal aid don't suddenly do better work when they are paid privately, they just have more time to work with and so can be more thorough. The myth that 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach,' is exactly that, a myth. NHS staff who work as agency staff aren't suddenly better at their jobs because they are paid 30% more than their colleagues working for the Health Trust. I could go on. :-)

We can't have it both ways.

[Silver]

I in my career,was part of a legal team representing clients that had usually been charged...And I can tell you everyone knew their place got on with job, case conference's were very formal, none of this jovial type behaviour..
We were all polite to each other and might briefly spoken at beginning of day about the weather,but that was it.Because what we were doing was serious stuff deciding the outcome of peoples lives.....

[Franticwithworry]

I in my career,was part of a legal team representing clients that had usually been charged...And I can tell you everyone knew their place got on with job, case conference's were very formal, none of this jovial type behaviour..
We were all polite to each other and might briefly spoken at beginning of day about the weather,but that was it.Because what we were doing was serious stuff deciding the outcome of peoples lives.....

I agree with you completely, Silver. I'm just saying that 3 hours of a TV show doesn't tell you the quality of the work that was being done or the motives of the people involved. Documentaries are still TV shows edited and controlled by the media. We can't possibly get an accurate view and the participants themselves might not be happy with the editing.

I have lived several 'lives' with more than one career change and it's safe to say that I am always irritated by the way pretty much any job I have ever done is portrayed on TV, fictionally or otherwise.

One thing was patently clear - I wasn't taken in by the 'we need to be sure we have the right man' nonsense. They had a victim and were working for a prosecution every time, and it seemed to me that the case where the victim who challenged the decision not to prosecute was staged. They don't start filming these things without knowing the outcome.

They had an agenda to follow, I'm sure of that. I'm also sure that an 80% failure to prosecute sexual offences reflects the high level of frivolous and false complaints as much as any figure showing how many guilty offenders go free.

[sqounk]

Great discussion guys - good to get a debate going. Just to chuck in my penny's worth and ask a few questions;

I think these things are definitely edited to meet the needs of the TV company and there would probably be a final approval contract - i.e. if the content was contentious the CPS could withdraw it's permission for a particular section to be aired. If that was the case I wonder about the guy who was accused of rape (and later found guilty - I researched him). Did he agree to be filmed and if not what were his rights (regardless of the fact that he was found guilty of a horrible crime - he still has rights or does he?!)?

When you say 80% discarded at investigation stage - is that the police or CPS? I thought that nearly all sexual allegations had to be investigated and then passed to the CPS for a charging decision with very few exceptions? I thought that was a policy that was insisted upon by the CPS now and has been in place for a year or two?

Also - if charging challenges can be made by the defence pre-court (and possible alternative charges introduced) is it sensible not to and to let it progress to court? Also, out of interest - I know double jeopardy doesn't exist very much any more but can some one be tried for one crime under one set of charges and be acquitted and the same incident tried again under different charges without new evidence?

[Franticwithworry]

Hi squonk. I would be very surprised if the guy accused of rape couldn't veto his inclusion in the programme, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else will know.

As for 'the investigation stage' I think the CPS deliberations before charge count as investigation, and there are many cases that the CPS does not proceed with. Yes, I also understand that the CPS give all sexual offences the once over and make the final decision as to whether charges are brought or not. I also read somewhere that the OIC can take a file to them with a recommendation not to proceed and reasons why, but I'm not sure where I read that.

As for double jeopardy, you can be tried for the same offence again if 'new and compelling' evidence comes to light, fir the most serious offences at least. Here's a link -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

The prosecution only get one bite at the cherry as it were, with the same evidence, which is why it's important that they get the charges right the first time. Take murder for instance - they don't charge you with that, have a trial and then retrial for manslaughter if they don't like the verdict, and the defendant needs to be found 'not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter' in the same trial on the evidence available at the time.

As far as I know anyway. Contradictions and education welcome.

[Silver]

I assumed that all these cases were fictitious,(I did not watch all )...just thought the "criminals" identifications were actors.. The CPS would be in serious trouble, if they had not gained permission from all party's involved if they are real life!

However the car crash accident, was based on a true story(or a very good actress)with the mother revealing the sad day when she was involved in the crash that killed her son.She clearly wanted to be filmed,(still coming to terms with the loss of her son )and in that case we did not see the perpetrator's picture..

[sqounk]

I assumed that all these cases were fictitious,(I did not watch all )...just thought the "criminals" identifications were actors.. The CPS would be in serious trouble, if they had not gained permission from all party's involved if they are real life!

However the car crash accident, was based on a true story(or a very good actress)with the mother revealing the sad day when she was involved in the crash that killed her son.She clearly wanted to be filmed,(still coming to terms with the loss of her son )and in that case we did not see the perpetrator's picture..

They are all real people! I found the car crash mother's story very compelling and heart rending. It showed tremendous character to forgive and speak to the defendant as she did.