Jump to content


The CPS and police uniting


  • You cannot reply to this topic
46 replies to this topic

#1 Emzy kay1

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:53 PM

I am doing a project where I am investigating whether a proposal for uniting the police force and the CPS into one unit that carries out the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences is a more effective method of dealing with criminal offences. Do you think this proposal meets the overiding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Your thoughts and opinions on this will be highly beneficial for me.

#2 Brian

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2280 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:11 PM

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

This has been brought to you during a brief encounter with reality from my otherwise bizarre world.

#3 BIkerider

    Forum Member

  • Moderators
  • 7713 posts
  • LocationNorth Yorkshire

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:11 PM

I was an operational police officer when the CPS was pushed upon us (since retired) and the theory behind it was partially to make the detection and prosecution side entirely separate entities. By doing what you suggest would be stepping back 25 years.

Many of the contributors to the forum would agree getting rid of the CPS would be no bad thing. (I am one) To many CPS is an overweight, over bureaucratic,  very expensive, out of touch, time wasting dinosaur which is apparently answerable to no-one. In my opinion and I am well placed to give this one, - they are largely responsible for the mountains of paperwork required by them for a court case. 

Kingy from Tyneside

Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I just sits!

#4 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 07:10 PM


Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....


I'm here.

Yes, it is much more efficient, as well as being much cheaper, to run them as one unit. That is how we did it before the CPS was invented and they have been an absolute failure; the actual conviction rate has fallen (well, it remains the same as before but they are cherry picking only the jobs they expect to succeed with so, in reality, their conviction rate has fallen), they cost a fortune to run and the police are more expensive with them, they keep police officers off the street filling up their forms (often several hours per arrest) and contribute to a reduction in police training.

The CPS are not needed and are not wanted. They only exist because of a report by lawyers looking for jobs for the boys and accepted by failed lawyers who were then politicians. They, alone, directly and indirectly, have been responsible for increasing crime rates and a reduction in law and order.



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#5 Maverick22

    Maverick22

  • Moderators
  • 35725 posts
  • LocationNear 51.20N 2.56W

Posted 03 March 2011 - 07:30 PM

Before the Crap Prosecution Service was invented, we had a superb system, run by the police, which had a go at virtually everything, and had an excellent  conviction rate.  We employed the best solicitors when needed, and also the best barristers when required.  Paper work was an absolute minimum, only 3 sheets of paper required for a guilty plea.    Along came the CPS, top heavy with poor solicitors, because they paid peanuts, only had a go at cases with a 90% chance of a conviction, drop anything that was complicated,  paper work increased by 1000%. 

One thing we do not want to do is unite with the CPS, they would just try and drag us down to their level.Maverick222011-03-03 19:32:16
There are certain people in the world who you know will only ever have two certificates in their lives, a Birth and Death Certificate.

#6 Emzy kay1

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:04 PM

I understand the views on police timing would be better spent elsewhere than filling out countless amounts of paperwork for the CPS however from the view of the defendants interests would this fusion of the CPS and the police be beneficial in ensuring that they get a fair trial under the CPE rules, isit the matter of weighing up justice with efficiency and which deservs more weight. Will this fusion potentially trigger a wave of miscarriages of justice as the CPS will no longer be reviewing the cases baught to them but instead be working alongside the police not only governing how the case is investigated but also providing a stronger case from the presecution side. Therefore the defense and the prosecution are no longer on equal footing.



#7 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:09 PM

It is just as big a miscarriage of justice if a guilty man/woman walks free, and that happens far too often with the CPS. It is the court that runs the trial, not the prosecution, so the defendant would get just as fair a trial without the CPS as with. However, they guilty would not be allowed to escape so easily.




I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#8 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 08:10 PM

By the way, defence is spelled with a "c" in the UK.




I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#9 BIkerider

    Forum Member

  • Moderators
  • 7713 posts
  • LocationNorth Yorkshire

Posted 03 March 2011 - 09:06 PM

Quote

I understand the views on police timing would be better spent elsewhere than filling out countless amounts of paperwork for the CPS however from the view of the defendants interests would this fusion of the CPS and the police be beneficial in ensuring that they get a fair trial under the CPE rules, isit the matter of weighing up justice with efficiency and which deservs more weight. Will this fusion potentially trigger a wave of miscarriages of justice as the CPS will no longer be reviewing the cases baught to them but instead be working alongside the police not only governing how the case is investigated but also providing a stronger case from the presecution side. Therefore the defense and the prosecution are no longer on equal footing.



In theory it may be better and serve the ends of justice better but:- The vehicle to get this noble gesture to the ends of Justice is The Crown Prosecution Service!




End of story! That is where the system falls down. I am afraid justice + efficiency and the CPS do not make comfortable bed-fellows. They are to cumbersome and too remote to be of any real value to the ends of justice.

 

The way the system worked pre CPS was a short file was submitted to the Inspector, he made the decision which way the proceedings would go and if any more papers were required. Generally the officer dealing knew already what had to be done but took his guidance anyway. If all went well that was the last you heard of it unless called to court.

 

A simple traffic offence took about an hour to write up at the most. If the defendant went Not guilty only then were you required to take a few more statements and provide background information.

 

Post CPS, the number of pages in the files required even for a guilty plea could extend up 20-30 and even higher. CPS devised their own document reference numbering system MG1, MG2, MG3 and so on. Even if, say a page listed as MG16 was not needed because it had no bearing on the case, you were still required to submit one - Because CPS demanded it. What a total waste of time and money. Also if there were multiple defendants you would have to submit one for each defendant, either left blank, or simply struck through and marked- not required.

 

I am afraid CPS is like driving up the M1 and chucking £50 notes out of the window every few seconds, in other words a waste!

 

Then there is the very well known fact that officers, even after notifying the CPS of their annual leave dates and would not be available to attend court get called forward to attend Crown Court. This can happen, often with as little notice with a warning coming the night before the trial starts. If that officer is abroad or otherwise cannot be contacted, it is well known that many quite serious cases are simply discontinued because the officer was not available. Not the fault of the police, simply the inneficiency of the CPS

Kingy from Tyneside

Sometimes I sits and thinks. Other times I just sits!

#10 Cockneybob

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 12:16 PM

Sorry for digressing the OP but...
I've had two poor decisions this week with CPS which shouldn't have been.

1- seeking charging advice on what should have been an easy Dangerous driving by way of condition Sec 2(a)2 RTA . I won't go into detail as sub judice but advice was to summons Sec 40a RTA

2- Court, traffic job for No O licence. One I would have liked to have prosecuted myself. It was a black and white case which a court should have given opinion not someone who wasn't up to speed on this legislation.

 

Hey ho

Cockney

#11 intheblitz

    Barrack Room Lawyer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2238 posts
  • LocationEssex and proud!

Posted 04 March 2011 - 01:07 PM

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink


Calling Penbwich.....


Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed

 

(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.

#12 M&MBM

    Author of Death in Spigg's Wood

  • Moderators
  • 67514 posts
  • LocationEssex

Posted 04 March 2011 - 01:10 PM

I observed in court for research and the CPS seemed at best shamboloic to my untrained and rather aghast eye.
MOP, Joker & reformed character. Honest. Posted ImageI moderate with purple prose

#13 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 01:36 PM


Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".

I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#14 PennyG

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 05:57 PM

Although not in favour of the CPS, one has to wonder at the additional courses would have to be taken at various levels to take on their roles.  Perhaps in principle the idea of a seperate investigative unit and prosecution unit seems sound.  It is possibly the disfunction of CPS ( and I am sure they will say that of the police in return) that causes mcuh of the problems.
In opening the OP idea further, is the aim to improve the judicial system or to save money?


#15 Brian

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2280 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 06:11 PM


Quote

 is the aim to improve the judicial system or to save money?

It'll do neither IMHO.

 All it will do is create more jobs for lawyers. Funnily enough there are far more lawyers in parliament than there are ex-police officers. Let's hope this isn't something they get to decide on.

This has been brought to you during a brief encounter with reality from my otherwise bizarre world.

#16 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 06:59 PM


Quote

Although not in favour of the CPS, one has to wonder at the additional courses would have to be taken at various levels to take on their roles.  Perhaps in principle the idea of a seperate investigative unit and prosecution unit seems sound.  It is possibly the disfunction of CPS ( and I am sure they will say that of the police in return) that causes mcuh of the problems.
In opening the OP idea further, is the aim to improve the judicial system or to save money?


Courses, what courses?Shocked We used to do that role as ordinary coppers. There is nothing difficult about it. You need to know the law, of course, but that is, or should be, bread and butter to a police officer. There is simply no need for the expense and the dysfunction of the CPS.



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#17 Cockneybob

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 07:07 PM

[Courses, what courses?Shocked We used to do that role as ordinary coppers. There is nothing difficult about it. You need to know the law, of course, but that is, or should be, bread and butter to a police officer. There is simply no need for the expense and the dysfunction of the CPS.


[/QUOTE]

Trouble is Pen I wonder if the new PC's are being taught law and not how to pamper people.
 

Offence definition divided by points to prove equals offence. Simples. Wink

Cockney

#18 Old Codger

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1551 posts

Posted 04 March 2011 - 10:01 PM


Quote

Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".


Trouble is that us English like to scatter vowels about.  It assails our sence of correctness to have six consecutive consonants without a vowel to separate them.



Old Codger



Been there, seen it, done it.

#19 Penbwlch

    King of Penbwlch

  • Moderators
  • 67615 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 06:24 AM


Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Standby for incoming....Wink

Calling Penbwich.....

Sorry, but I find it annoying, even though it's not my "title".  Embarrassed
 
(Yes I am a pedantic little sod, as my old Mother would say)

Thank you for pointing out the mistake, ITB. I have got used to this mistake now as so many seem to make it and I have adopted the Mae West quote of "I don't care what you call me as long as it's not late for dinner".


Trouble is that us English like to scatter vowels about.  It assails our sence of correctness to have six consecutive consonants without a vowel to separate them.


It is the same in Welsh, OC; just that the Welsh have vowels that are not recognised by the English. There are two more than in English, the "y" and the "w".

The "y" is what is known in most languages as a neutral vowel. It sounds like a short "er" or a grunt.

The "w" serves as both a vowel and a consonant. When used as a vowel, it takes an "oo" sound. It is that vowel that is used in my username, which, very roughly, sounds like PENBOOLK (the ch at the end sounds like the ch in the Scottish loch and the closest I can think of is the letter K).

See? no 6 consonants without a vowel.Wink



I used to be conceited. Now I'm Perfect   Posted Image

Posted Image

#20 PennyG

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 05 March 2011 - 12:40 PM

Quote

Quote

Although not in favour of the CPS, one has to wonder at the additional courses would have to be taken at various levels to take on their roles.  Perhaps in principle the idea of a seperate investigative unit and prosecution unit seems sound.  It is possibly the disfunction of CPS ( and I am sure they will say that of the police in return) that causes mcuh of the problems.
In opening the OP idea further, is the aim to improve the judicial system or to save money?


Courses, what courses?Shocked We used to do that role as ordinary coppers. There is nothing difficult about it. You need to know the law, of course, but that is, or should be, bread and butter to a police officer. There is simply no need for the expense and the dysfunction of the CPS.
 So, just keeping the idea at a base level and non complex offence, if the custody officers are rushed off their feet, the partol/SNT supervisor is running around as well, the inspectors are trying to count the beans, you start to run out of supervisors to make the decisions on prosecute and for what offence, bearing in mind the various and ever changing policies not just of CPS but the courts as well.  Knowing the law is half the equation, knowing how to present it to the court is the other part - allegedly that is where CPS come in, but there are few police officers who would either be capable or want to do it.

 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

members, guests, anonymous users

×