First Supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Crown Prosecution Service
INQUIRY INTO
THE WORK
OF THE
CROWN PROSECUTION
SERVICE
I am writing to follow up my appearance before
the Justice Committee with Peter Lewis on Tuesday 24 February.
At the hearing, Peter and I gave commitments to the Justice Committee
on the specific issues set out below.
Prosecutors in England and Wales
Mr Tyrie requested a list of prosecutors (see
Q301—uncorrected evidence 186). There is no definitive list
of organisations that institute prosecutions in England and Wales.
The common law power to instigate private prosecutions is preserved
under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and
it is used by a number of organisations who otherwise do not have
the statutory power to prosecute, and this makes it difficult
to produce an exhaustive list. However, I have listed those prosecutors
in England and Wales who are signatories to the Prosecutors' Convention
and members of the Whitehall Prosecutors' Group, they are as follows:
Crown Prosecution Service;
Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office;
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform;
Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs;
Office of Rail Regulation;
Service Prosecution Authority;
Maritime & Coast Guard Agency;
Financial Services Authority;
Department of Work & Pensions;
Department for Transport;
Health & Safety Executive;
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency;
Driver & Vehicle Licensing Authority.
In addition, prosecutions are instigated by
local authorities (including trading standards authorities), other
regulatory authorities, and a number of voluntary organisations
such as the RSPCA.
Common standards and efficiency
Mr Tyrie asked a number of questions about uniting
organisations with prosecuting powers under one prosecutor and
he asked if we could look at levels of efficiency between prosecutors
as part of the current review being led by the Attorney General
(see Q302—307). As Peter Lewis said at the hearing, the
Attorney General, together with her Directors of the superintended
prosecution authorities, will consider a number of issues as the
review proceeds and this will include consideration of which prosecution
models will deliver the greatest efficiency for the superintended
prosecution authorities.
Non-compliance with Conditional Cautions
In response to a question from you (see Q320/321)
about the number of cases where there is non-compliance with the
Conditional Caution, I said I would provide you with the figures.
In 2008, according to the CPS' figures, there
was a total of 8011 Conditional Cautions made by the CPS. Out
of those, there was non-compliance in 707 cases subject to a Conditional
Caution. Where there was non-compliance reported, 571 cases were
prosecuted, 126 cases were not prosecuted, and 10 had their conditions
varied.
If the CPS decides not to prosecute in such
cases, it will tend to be because the prosecutor considers it
would not be in the public interest to prosecute. This could be
because the person has met most of the conditions in the Conditional
Caution, for example, paying all but the final instalment of the
compensation to the victim and the prosecutor is satisfied with
the explanation about why the balance has not been paid. Another
reason could be that the original offence is not proceeded with,
as the person is subject to prosecution for more serious offences.
I hope this information is of assistance to
the Committee and I look forward to seeing the report in due course.
Keir Starmer QC
Director of Public Prosecutions
18 March 2009
| 
