Crown Prosecution Service
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal independent public body responsible for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales on behalf of the Crown.[1][2] It reviews evidence from police and other investigators to determine charges and pursues cases through the courts, ensuring decisions align with evidential sufficiency and public interest criteria.[2] Headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the CPS employs around 7,000 staff, including approximately half qualified lawyers, and operates across 14 regional areas to handle caseloads efficiently.[2] Established under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and becoming fully operational in October 1986, the CPS replaced fragmented local prosecution arrangements to centralize and standardize public prosecutions previously managed by police or the Director of Public Prosecutions' office.[3][2] Its core functions include providing pre-charge advice to investigators, preparing cases for magistrates' and crown courts, presenting prosecutions, handling appeals, and supporting victims and witnesses throughout proceedings.[1][2] Decisions are guided by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which mandates a two-stage Full Code Test to prosecute only viable cases serving the public good.[2] While the CPS maintains operational independence from police and government to uphold prosecutorial integrity, it has faced significant scrutiny over systemic challenges, including evidence disclosure failures that led to case collapses in 2017-2018 and ongoing criticisms regarding low conviction rates in serious sexual offence prosecutions.[2][4] Official inspections and parliamentary reviews have highlighted needs for improved case preparation, victim support, and resource allocation to address inefficiencies and public confidence issues.[5][3] Under current Director Stephen Parkinson, appointed in November 2023, the service continues to prioritize reforms in areas like rape and serious sexual offences amid annual prosecution volumes exceeding hundreds of thousands of cases.[2][6]History
Establishment Following the Philips Review
The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, was established by royal warrant on 3 February 1978 to examine the roles of police in investigating offences and handling prosecutions, amid concerns over the fairness of the existing system where police largely controlled both functions.[7] The Commission's report, published on 5 January 1981, concluded that the police's involvement in prosecutorial decisions risked perceptions of bias and inefficiency, recommending a clear separation of investigation from prosecution through the creation of an independent national service headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).[8] [3] This body would review police files, decide on charges, and conduct court proceedings, with a structure including a central headquarters for policy and 31 area offices aligned with police regions to ensure consistent standards.[9] [10] The UK government, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, endorsed the core proposal for prosecutorial independence despite reservations about implementation costs and bureaucracy, introducing the Prosecution of Offences Bill in the House of Commons on 28 November 1985.[8] The resulting Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 received royal assent on 11 July 1985, formally establishing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as the principal public authority for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales, excluding certain specialist cases like those handled by the Serious Fraud Office.[11] The Act placed the CPS under the DPP, with statutory duties to review cases for sufficiency of evidence and public interest, while mandating takeover of most police-initiated prosecutions under section 3(2)(a). Sir Thomas Hetherington, previously DPP since 1977, served as the inaugural head of the CPS until 1987.[3] The CPS transitioned to full operations on 1 October 1986, after phased recruitment of over 1,800 lawyers and administrative staff, absorbing workloads from police forces and local solicitors who had previously managed many prosecutions.[12] This establishment aimed to standardize decision-making via the Full Code Test—requiring both evidential sufficiency and public interest—reducing regional variations and enhancing accountability, though early challenges included case backlogs and integration with police practices.[13] By its first year, the CPS handled approximately 700,000 cases, marking a shift from ad hoc arrangements to a unified, lawyer-led framework.[12]Early Operations and Structural Adjustments
The Crown Prosecution Service initiated operations on 1 October 1986, assuming responsibility for reviewing and conducting prosecutions previously managed by police forces across England and Wales. Initially organized into a central headquarters and 31 local areas, each led by a Chief Crown Prosecutor, the structure emphasized independence from investigative authorities while maintaining local operational discretion. This setup enabled the CPS to apply a two-stage test—evidential sufficiency and public interest—for case progression, as codified in the inaugural Code for Crown Prosecutors issued that year.[14][15] In the first operational year (1986–1987), the CPS focused on crisis management, including rapid staffing of branch offices with personnel drawn from existing prosecution roles and administrative support, amid intense media scrutiny and logistical strains. Key accomplishments involved processing a high volume of police-referred cases, with systematic reviews leading to discontinuations where evidence fell short, thereby aiming to enhance overall prosecutorial quality despite initial underfunding and resistance from police accustomed to retaining control over charging and court advocacy. Early challenges encompassed inadequate training for many staff, inconsistent case handover protocols, and tensions arising from the CPS's authority to override police decisions, which strained inter-agency relations and contributed to perceptions of inefficiency.[15][3][16] Under Sir Thomas Hetherington as the inaugural Director of Public Prosecutions (1986–1987), succeeded by Sir Allan Green (1987–1992), the service pursued incremental adjustments to refine workflows, such as standardizing file review processes and bolstering administrative caseworkers to support lawyers. By the early 1990s, these efforts culminated in a significant structural overhaul prompted by an internal review, reducing the 31 areas to 13 to centralize management, reduce duplication, and improve alignment with major police forces, though this shift initially complicated local coordination. These changes addressed persistent issues like resource allocation and operational silos, setting the stage for later expansions in prosecutorial oversight.[15][3]Major Reforms and Reviews (1990s–2010s)
In the early 1990s, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, chaired by Lord Runciman and reporting in July 1993, identified shortcomings in the CPS's disclosure practices and case review processes, recommending enhanced duties on prosecutors to disclose unused material to the defence and greater independence in decision-making to reduce miscarriages of justice.[17] These findings, stemming from high-profile wrongful convictions, prompted legislative changes via the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which imposed statutory disclosure obligations on the CPS, requiring prosecutors to prepare schedules of unused material and assess its relevance, thereby shifting from ad hoc practices to a structured evidential test.[18] The most significant structural reform came from the Glidewell Review, published in June 1998, which critiqued the CPS's over-centralized 13-area model as inefficient for handling 1.3 million annual cases, with discontinuance rates averaging 12% due to poor police-CPS coordination and file quality.[3] Sir Iain Glidewell's 75 recommendations led to a reorganization into 42 areas aligned with police forces by 2000, empowering Chief Crown Prosecutors with local autonomy, establishing integrated Criminal Justice Units for pre-charge collaboration, and creating dedicated Trial Units to streamline advocacy and reduce administrative burdens.[3] Implementation, accelerated under the Access to Justice Act 1999, included CPS assumption of case file responsibilities post-charge and IT integration with police systems, aiming to cut delays and improve conviction sustainability from 85% in magistrates' courts.[19] During the 2000s, reforms emphasized CPS dominance in charging, evolving from post-charge review to primary authority; by 2004, protocols under the Director's Guidance mandated CPS approval for all indictable offences and most summary cases, reducing police autonomy to curb weak prosecutions and aligning with Glidewell's integration goals, though initial resistance from police highlighted tensions over investigative control.[20] Complementary changes included expanded rights of audience for CPS lawyers in higher courts and the formation of specialist units, such as for serious organized crime, to address rising caseloads amid falling budgets.[21] In the 2010s, the Stern Review of March 2010, commissioned after publicized failures in rape case handling, faulted CPS policies for prioritizing conviction rates over victim support, noting that only 6.5% of reported rapes reached conviction due to discontinuances and plea bargains, and recommended shifting focus to case viability over volume targets, enhanced victim communication, and inter-agency protocols without altering core evidentiary standards.[22] The government's response implemented 23 of Stern's proposals by 2011, including CPS training on trauma-informed prosecutions and data transparency on outcomes, though critics argued persistent low conviction rates—around 5-7%—reflected underlying evidential challenges rather than systemic bias alone.[23] These reviews collectively drove a more prosecutorial CPS, but evaluations noted uneven efficiency gains, with ongoing scrutiny from HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate revealing variable discontinuance rates across regions.[21]Developments from 2020 Onward
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) encountered substantial operational disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020, prompting adaptations such as remote charging decisions and management oversight for case alterations, though these measures contributed to a 32% rise in live caseload above pre-pandemic levels by early 2022. Court closures and reduced sittings exacerbated backlogs, with the CPS reporting persistent pressures in handling prosecutions amid electronic communication reliance between police and prosecutors. An internal CPS review in early 2020 identified systemic failings in rape case handling, including inadequate victim support and disclosure issues, but this was not disclosed to Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), prompting criticism of transparency deficits.[24][25][26] To address long-term priorities, the CPS published its overarching CPS 2025 Strategy around 2020, aiming to enhance organizational independence, fairness in decision-making, and trauma-informed practices by 2025, with the 2024-25 annual report noting advancements in prosecution reviews where 35% of cases required additional information for quality outcomes. Supporting strategies included the 2021 Defendants: Fairness for All initiative, embedding equitable treatment in the Code for Crown Prosecutors; the 2022 Evaluation Strategy for evidence-based policy; and the Economic Crime Strategy 2025, which by May 2025 reported preparations for the new Failure to Prevent Fraud offence effective September 2025. Quarterly data from 2024-25 showed fluctuating prosecution volumes, such as a 17% year-on-year increase to 2,670 in certain categories despite a 0.6% quarterly dip.[27][28][29] Post-pandemic recovery efforts faltered, with Crown Court backlogs reaching a record 73,105 cases by September 2024 and climbing to 76,000 by mid-2025, attributed partly to productivity declines and evidence mishandling, as a BBC analysis revealed approximately one in 20 Metropolitan Police prosecutions dropped due to missing or lost evidence between 2020 and 2024. HMCPSI inspections highlighted ongoing police-CPS collaboration barriers, including poor communication and over-reliance on digital systems, which delayed charging in complex cases like domestic abuse. The CPS faced specific scrutiny in high-profile instances, such as the 2020 prosecution of television personality Caroline Flack, where lawyers contended the service overlooked its own custody threshold guidelines amid public mental health concerns.[30][31][32] In late 2024, the CPS introduced victim-focused enhancements, offering pre-trial meetings and dedicated liaison for all adult victims of rape and serious sexual offences, alongside expanded access to independent sexual violence advisers. Leadership continuity persisted under Director of Public Prosecutions Max Hill QC through this period, with board updates in 2020 emphasizing resilience amid pandemic ministerial oversight, while a new Chief Digital and Information Officer was appointed in April 2025 to bolster technological capabilities. By the final year of the 2025 Strategy, the CPS reported re-accreditation in key areas like victim communication, though systemic delays continued to impact trial outcomes and public confidence.[33][2][34]Organisational Structure
Leadership and Key Personnel
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who functions as the organization's chief executive for prosecutorial decisions, serves as the principal legal adviser, and acts as the accounting officer accountable to Parliament for the efficient use of public funds. The DPP is appointed by the Attorney General under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for a non-renewable term of five years, ensuring independence from political influence while maintaining oversight through the Attorney General's superintendence.[2][35] Stephen Parkinson has served as DPP since 1 November 2023, succeeding Max Hill KC whose term ended in October 2023 after five years marked by efforts to address case backlogs and resource constraints amid rising demand. Parkinson, a solicitor with prior experience in complex fraud and serious crime prosecutions, was selected following a competitive process emphasizing operational expertise and impartiality.[2][35][36] The CPS Board, comprising executive and non-executive members, provides strategic governance, risk management, and performance oversight, meeting approximately eight times annually. Chaired by non-executive Monica Burch, who leads on key committees including audit and risk, the board includes non-executive directors such as Dr. Peter Kane (chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee) and Subo Shanmuganathan, alongside executives like the DPP. Non-executive appointments, made by the Attorney General, prioritize diverse expertise in finance, operations, and public sector delivery to counterbalance potential institutional biases in prosecutorial priorities.[37][38][39] Key executive personnel supporting the DPP include Julie Lennard as Chief Operating Officer since November 2024, responsible for operational efficiency, digital transformation, and staff management amid ongoing budget pressures. Grace Ononiwu CBE was appointed as the inaugural Director General for Legal Delivery on 9 June 2025, overseeing casework quality and specialist divisions to enhance prosecutorial consistency. Steve Buckingham has held the role of Chief Finance Officer since May 2021, managing fiscal accountability during periods of constrained funding and rising caseloads.[2][40][2] Each of the CPS's 14 regional areas is led by a Chief Crown Prosecutor, who reports to the DPP and handles local case oversight, ensuring alignment with national charging standards while adapting to regional crime patterns. These roles, filled through internal promotions or external hires, emphasize evidential rigor over volume-driven metrics to uphold public confidence in prosecutions.[2]Regional Areas and Operational Divisions
The Crown Prosecution Service divides its operations into 14 regional Areas spanning England and Wales, each tasked with reviewing police files, advising on charges, and prosecuting cases within defined geographic boundaries.[41] Each Area employs prosecutors, caseworkers, and support staff who coordinate with local police forces, courts, and victim services to manage caseloads from minor offenses to serious crimes.[2] Headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor, these Areas ensure consistent application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors while adapting to regional variations in crime patterns and resources.[41] These Areas cover specific counties or groupings, such as the North East Area encompassing Northumbria, Tyne and Wear, and Cleveland; the South East Area including Kent, Surrey, and Sussex; the Wessex Area serving Dorset, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire; and CPS Cymru-Wales handling prosecutions across all of Wales for a population exceeding three million.[42][43][44][45] Other Areas include East Midlands, East of England, and various London divisions, reflecting a consolidation from prior structures to streamline efficiency.[46] Complementing the regional framework, operational divisions handle specialised nationwide functions beyond local Areas. CPS Direct functions as a "virtual" 15th Area, delivering 24/7 charging advice to police during out-of-hours periods—nights, weekends, and bank holidays—for cases where bail is unavailable, supported by over 250 staff under Chief Crown Prosecutor Tracy Easton.[41][47] Central Casework Divisions address high-complexity prosecutions requiring expertise in areas like terrorism, fraud, organised crime, and international cooperation, collaborating with agencies such as the National Crime Agency.[41] Key units include the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, Specialist Fraud Division, and International Justice and Organised Crime Division, each led by a Head of Division equivalent in seniority to a Chief Crown Prosecutor.[47] The Proceeds of Crime Division specialises in financial investigations, issuing restraint orders, enforcing confiscation, and recovering criminal assets to disrupt economic incentives for offending.[41] These divisions process cases transcending regional boundaries, ensuring specialised handling for approximately 1-2% of total CPS volume but with disproportionate impact on serious organised crime.[41]Oversight Mechanisms and Inspections
The Attorney General of England and Wales holds statutory superintendence over the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), providing general oversight of its operations, policies, and performance while maintaining operational independence for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).[48] [49] This role includes regular meetings with the DPP to discuss strategic priorities, such as prosecution standards and resource allocation, and the authority to issue directions in individual cases or on matters of public interest, though such interventions are rare and publicly reported.[50] The Attorney General also sponsors HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), ensuring its independence in scrutinizing CPS activities.[48] HMCPSI, established under the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, conducts independent inspections of the CPS to assess efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance with legal and procedural standards.[51] [52] It performs two primary types: area-based inspections evaluating CPS regional operations, such as case handling and victim engagement, and thematic inspections targeting specific functions like disclosure practices or out-of-hours charging decisions.[53] Inspection reports, published openly, include evidence-based recommendations; for instance, a July 2024 thematic review of CPS complaint handling identified inconsistencies in response times and quality, prompting CPS commitments to implement standardized assurance processes by September 2025.[54] CPS is required to respond publicly to these findings, often detailing action plans, as seen in responses to 2024-2025 inspections on modern slavery referrals and organized crime prosecutions.[55] [56] Additional mechanisms include parliamentary scrutiny through select committees, which review CPS annual reports and policies for transparency, and internal CPS quality assurance frameworks, such as peer reviews and performance metrics, though these are subject to HMCPSI evaluation for robustness.[57] In cases of systemic issues, joint inspections with bodies like HM Inspectorate of Constabulary may occur, as in reviews of CPS-police interfaces on serious case oversight.[53] These layered mechanisms aim to promote accountability, with HMCPSI's 2021-2024 strategy emphasizing evidence-driven assessments to drive improvements without direct operational control.[58]Roles and Responsibilities
Pre-Charge Advice and Charging Standards
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) offers pre-charge advice to police investigators to assess the evidential basis for potential charges and guide investigative strategies, particularly in complex or serious cases such as those involving death, rape, or large-scale fraud.[59] This advice is requested through a digital interface, where police submit case summaries, details of completed and ongoing inquiries, and available evidential material, enabling CPS prosecutors to recommend further lines of inquiry without directing police operations.[59] CPS involvement is mandatory for indictable-only offences, cases resulting in death, or specific serious sexual offences against minors, ensuring alignment with prosecutorial standards before formal charging decisions.[59] Charging decisions adhere to standards outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (8th edition), which mandates a two-stage Full Code Test as the default: an evidential stage requiring sufficient admissible evidence for a "realistic prospect of conviction," objectively evaluated based on reliability, credibility, and potential defence challenges; and a public interest stage, where prosecution proceeds unless factors against it—such as minor offences with low culpability or disproportionate impact on vulnerable individuals—outweigh those in favor, including offence seriousness and harm to victims or the community.[60] The Full Code Test applies when reasonable investigative steps are complete or further evidence is unlikely to alter the outcome, with police required to provide comprehensive files under the National File Standard, including key witness statements, exhibits, forensic reports, and disclosure schedules.[59] In exceptional circumstances where the Full Code Test cannot yet be met but immediate action is warranted—such as risks to public safety or bail objections—the Threshold Test permits charging if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt, further evidence can realistically be obtained to meet the Full Code evidential stage, the offence's seriousness justifies prompt custody, substantial bail risks exist, and public interest supports proceeding.[60] Cases charged under the Threshold Test require a joint police-CPS action plan for timely evidence gathering, with mandatory review against the Full Code Test as new material emerges, typically within set timelines like medical reports or forensic analysis.[59] CPS prosecutors review all police-initiated charges prior to initial hearings to confirm compliance, potentially leading to discontinuance if standards are unmet.[59] These processes, governed by the Director's Guidance on Charging (6th edition, December 2020), emphasize independence, impartiality, and compliance with human rights and equality obligations, while requiring prosecutors to consider victim impacts and avoid weak cases that undermine public confidence.[59][60]Conducting Prosecutions and Case Management
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) conducts prosecutions by applying the Full Code Test outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which comprises an evidential stage requiring a realistic prospect of conviction based on available evidence, and a public interest stage assessing whether prosecution serves the broader interests of justice.[60] This two-stage evaluation determines whether to authorize charges, particularly in serious or complex cases where CPS prosecutors advise police investigators pre-charge, ensuring decisions are made independently of investigatory pressures.[61] Prosecutors must consider factors such as the seriousness of the offence, suspect culpability, and victim impact, with the Code emphasizing objectivity over deference to police recommendations.[60] Once charged, CPS manages cases through a structured progression from magistrates' courts to the Crown Court where applicable, involving continuous review to maintain evidential sufficiency and address evolving circumstances, such as new witness statements or forensic results.[62] Case management responsibilities include preparing trial bundles, ensuring compliance with court timetables under the Better Case Management (BCM) framework, and coordinating with defence solicitors to resolve issues like guilty pleas or evidence admissibility prior to hearings.[63] BCM, introduced to enhance efficiency, mandates early case progression hearings, proactive disclosure of unused material, and digital submission of case files to reduce delays, with CPS prosecutors required to file initial details of the case within 50 days of sending for trial in Crown Court matters.[63] In court, CPS prosecutors present the case, examine witnesses, and respond to defence challenges, adhering to duties of candour by disclosing all relevant material that might undermine the prosecution or assist the defence, as mandated by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.[62] Case management extends to post-charge liaison with police via joint systems in some areas, though variations in local case management software can complicate data sharing and tracking.[64] Digital tools, including the CPS's case management system handling over one million annual decisions, facilitate electronic file preparation and remote hearings, aiming to streamline processes amid resource constraints.[65] Prosecutors also monitor case outcomes, discontinuing proceedings if the Full Code Test is no longer met, thereby preventing unjustified continuations.[60]Appeals, Extradition, and Specialized Functions
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) manages appeals against convictions and sentences from the Crown Court through its Appeals and Review Unit, housed within the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD). This unit is responsible for conducting all such appeals to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), including notifications of appeals and responses to challenges on points of law or jurisdiction.[66] [67] The CPS may also pursue referrals to the Supreme Court for cases raising significant legal issues, in coordination with the Appeals and Review Unit under a memorandum of understanding with the judiciary.[68] In extradition matters, the CPS holds primary responsibility under the Extradition Act 2003, with the Director of Public Prosecutions statutorily tasked with conducting proceedings unless otherwise directed. For incoming requests, the CPS represents foreign states seeking surrender of individuals from England and Wales, handling cases at Westminster Magistrates' Court and subsequent appeals.[69] [70] [71] The Extradition Unit within the CPS prepares outgoing requests to non-EU territories on behalf of CPS areas and other agencies, ensuring compliance with dual criminality and human rights bars.[72] Specialized functions are coordinated through dedicated divisions and units addressing complex, high-profile, or niche prosecutions. The SCCTD oversees counter-terrorism cases, serious crimes such as homicide and public corruption, and appeals, managing cases that demand specialized expertise due to national security implications or evidential intricacy.[73] Central Casework Divisions handle fraud, economic crime, and proceeds of crime confiscation, while CPS Direct supports digital and volume crime prosecutions.[41] These units integrate with regional areas to ensure consistent application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors in specialized contexts.[2]Performance and Outcomes
Prosecution Statistics and Trends
In the financial year 2023–2024, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) completed prosecutions against 419,401 defendants, comprising 348,268 in magistrates' courts and 71,133 in Crown Court.[6] This marked an overall increase from 402,052 completions in 2022–2023 (341,940 in magistrates' courts and 60,112 in Crown Court), though still below the 426,824 total of 2021–2022 (362,906 in magistrates' courts and 63,918 in Crown Court).[6]| Financial Year | Magistrates' Courts Completions | Crown Court Completions | Total Completions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–2022 | 362,906 | 63,918 | 426,824 |
| 2022–2023 | 341,940 | 60,112 | 402,052 |
| 2023–2024 | 348,268 | 71,133 | 419,401 |
Success Rates, Efficiency, and Resource Challenges
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains an overall conviction rate for prosecuted cases of approximately 83% in recent fiscal years, reflecting a stable performance metric despite varying caseload pressures. In the 2024-2025 financial year, the conviction rate stood at 83.1%, a slight increase of 0.4 percentage points from the prior year, with quarterly figures showing minor fluctuations such as 82.5% in the first quarter of 2025-2026. This rate encompasses prosecutions across magistrates' and Crown Courts, where successful outcomes depend on evidentiary thresholds met under the Full Code Test, though lower rates persist in specialized categories like rape prosecutions, averaging 51.2% for the 2024-2025 year.[76][75][76] Efficiency in case handling is measured by metrics such as completed prosecutions and timeliness from charge to finalization, which reveal operational strains. Completed prosecutions totaled 108,620 in the first quarter of 2024-2025, decreasing 1.1% from the previous quarter, before rising to 111,670 in the second quarter, indicating variable throughput influenced by court availability and case complexity. Average days from charge to case finalization ranged from 167 in Cymru/Wales to 320 in Thames and Chiltern areas during late 2024-2025, highlighting regional disparities in processing that contribute to broader criminal justice delays, including a Crown Court backlog exceeding 73,000 cases by September 2024.[77][78][76] Resource challenges have persistently constrained CPS operations, stemming from historical budget reductions and staffing shortfalls that limit capacity amid rising referrals. Post-2010 austerity measures reduced CPS staffing by over 30%, from approximately 8,600 to under 6,000 full-time equivalents by the mid-2010s, with ongoing pressures from increased police referrals—linked to 20,000 additional officers—straining prosecutorial workloads without proportional funding uplifts. Although recent allocations address external pressures, such as heightened caseloads, the CPS director warned in 2022 that further budget cuts could exacerbate court backlogs, as resource limitations impair case preparation and evidence disclosure, leading to higher discontinuance rates in approximately 12% of charged cases on average.[3][79][80]Impact on Criminal Justice System Metrics
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) exerts a direct influence on criminal justice system metrics by filtering police referrals into prosecutable cases, thereby shaping prosecution volumes, court workloads, and overall throughput. In the financial year 2024-25, CPS prosecutions totaled 449,573, reflecting a 7.2% rise from 2023-24, with magistrates' court cases up 6.9% and Crown Court cases increasing by 8.4%; this uptick has intensified demand on judicial resources amid persistent capacity limits.[76] Conviction rates serve as a primary measure of CPS efficacy in sustaining viable cases to trial, averaging 51.2% across all courts for 2024-25—a figure comprising higher magistrates' court outcomes (74.0% in Q4 2024-25, dipping to 73.2% in Q1 2025-26) and lower Crown Court results due to evidentiary complexities in serious offenses.[76][75] These rates, while stable year-over-year, underscore selective charging under the Full Code Test, where only cases meeting evidential and public interest thresholds proceed, potentially optimizing resource use but risking under-prosecution in low-yield categories like certain sexual offenses.[81] CPS operations contribute to systemic delays, as evidenced by growing Crown Court backlogs—exacerbated by rising case inflows without commensurate court expansions—leading to average wait times exceeding sustainable levels and hindering timely justice delivery.[82] Joint inspections by HMICFRS and HMCPSI in July 2025 identified pre-charge inefficiencies, including fragmented police-CPS communication and inconsistent case file quality, resulting in frequent post-charge revisions, discontinuations, or downgrades that inflate processing times and administrative costs across the pipeline.[83][84] Such bottlenecks, compounded by CPS staffing pressures noted in its 2024-25 annual report, have broader ripple effects, including elevated remand populations and diminished deterrence, as unresolved cases erode public confidence in enforcement efficacy.[28]| Metric | 2023-24 Value | 2024-25 Value | Trend Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Prosecutions | ~419,500 (estimated from growth) | 449,573 | Increased court strain[76] |
| Overall Conviction Rate | ~53.4% | 51.2% | Slight decline, signaling case quality scrutiny[76] |
| Crown Court Backlog | Pre-existing growth | Continued quarterly rise | Delays amplified by volume[82] |
Controversies and Criticisms
Disclosure and Evidence Handling Failures
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) bears statutory responsibility under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 for disclosing to the defence all unused material gathered during investigations that is reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence.[85] Failures in this process have manifested as a systemic issue, contributing to trial collapses, miscarriages of justice, and significant resource wastage, with the Criminal Cases Review Commission identifying non-disclosure as the primary cause of quashed convictions in 2016.[86] These shortcomings stem from inadequate initial scheduling by police, insufficient CPS oversight of reasonable lines of enquiry, and challenges in managing voluminous digital evidence, such as up to 35,000 pages per seized mobile device.[86] Between 2013–14 and 2017–18, CPS-recorded cases halted due to disclosure errors rose by 40%, with 916 charges dropped in 2017 alone—a 70% increase from 537 in 2014–15—predominantly outside sex offence categories.[86] [87] High-profile incidents underscored these deficiencies, notably the December 2017 collapse of Liam Allan's rape trial after the defence discovered over 17,000 undisclosed text messages from the complainant indicating consent and fabrication, which police had failed to review fully despite downloading 40,000 messages.[88] [89] Both the Metropolitan Police and CPS issued apologies, attributing the lapse to "a combination of error, lack of challenge, and lack of knowledge" rather than deliberate withholding, prompting a broader CPS review of over 3,600 live cases in early 2018, which resulted in 47 additional discontinuations.[4] [90] Similar failures in multiple rape prosecutions between late 2017 and spring 2018 exposed entrenched problems in handling complainant digital records, eroding public confidence and incurring costs estimated at £21.5 million for unheard cases in 2014–15 alone, averaging £975 per Crown Court matter.[86] [91] The House of Commons Justice Committee in July 2018 criticized insufficient leadership from the then-Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, and the Attorney General for failing to address known issues persisting since 1996, despite six prior reports since 2011; it linked exacerbations to CPS budget cuts of 27% from 2009–2017 and police funding reductions of 25% from 2010–2016.[4] [86] The Attorney General's November 2018 review affirmed the robustness of CPIA legislation but highlighted implementation flaws, including poor scheduling and late disclosures, recommending mandatory Disclosure Management Documents for Crown Court cases by summer 2019, enhanced digital tools like AI-assisted triage, and rebuttable presumptions for key materials such as CCTV.[92] A 2020 HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate follow-up inspection of 555 live Crown Court cases showed partial improvements—e.g., CPS advice on reasonable enquiries rising from 46% to 74% compliance—but persistent gaps, including only 15–20% of cases receiving feedback to police on deficiencies and overall disclosure review rates below 83% for continuing obligations.[93] Ongoing concerns with digital evidence volume prompted a 2023–2025 independent review, which identified continued strains on CPS-police coordination and data management, though comprehensive post-2018 statistics on CPS-specific discontinuations remain limited in public reporting.[94] Reforms, including the National Disclosure Improvement Plan and targeted training, have aimed to mitigate these, but inspectorates note that cultural and resource barriers hinder full resolution, with variability across CPS areas.[95] [93]High-Profile Case Decisions and Outcomes
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has faced scrutiny over its handling of several high-profile cases, where charging decisions or discontinuations were criticized for perceived inconsistencies, evidential thresholds, or external pressures. In the 2009 review of allegations against Jimmy Savile, the CPS declined to prosecute based on evidence from a single complainant, citing insufficient corroboration under then-applicable guidelines requiring a realistic prospect of conviction and public interest. A subsequent 2013 CPS internal review upheld the original decision as correctly applied but acknowledged that post-scandal evidential standards for historical sexual abuse had evolved, leading to revised prosecution policies in 2011. Critics, including parliamentary inquiries, argued the CPS underestimated institutional patterns of abuse, though Keir Starmer, DPP at the time, was not the reviewing prosecutor and claims of his direct oversight lack substantiation.[96] In cases involving organized grooming gangs, particularly in Rotherham and Rochdale between 2008 and 2013, the CPS has been accused of under-prosecution due to hesitancy over cultural sensitivities and fears of racism allegations, with convictions remaining low until policy shifts.[97] During Starmer's tenure as DPP (2008–2013), guidelines were updated in 2009 to lower barriers for prosecuting unsupported victim testimony in sexual offenses, resulting in a claimed increase in such cases, yet independent reviews like the 2025 Casey audit highlighted persistent CPS failures in charging complex group-based exploitation, attributing delays to evidential conservatism and inter-agency coordination issues.[98] By 2024, CPS data showed over 1,000 group-based child sexual exploitation offenses prosecuted annually, but critics contend earlier inaction allowed networks to persist, with ethnicity data collection only mandated post-2025 to address informational gaps.[97][99] The CPS decision not to charge Sir Cliff Richard following 2014 allegations of historical sexual abuse, after South Yorkshire Police raids, was upheld in 2016 following victim appeals, with prosecutors deeming the evidence insufficient for conviction.[100] Richard pursued civil action against the BBC for publicizing the raid, winning £210,000 in damages in 2018 for privacy breach, though the CPS's non-prosecution stance was separately affirmed as evidentially sound.[101] This case underscored tensions between investigative publicity and presumption of innocence, with no CPS policy change resulting. In the 2012 Twitter Joke Trial, the CPS authorized charges against Paul Chambers for a tweet deemed a "menacing" communication under the Communications Act 2003, leading to his initial conviction and fine, later quashed on appeal in 2012 as grossly disproportionate. The case prompted CPS guidance revisions in 2012 clarifying intent requirements for online threats, amid criticism that early prosecutions stifled free expression without clear harm. More recently, in the 2024 collapse of espionage charges against Christopher Berry and Christopher Cash, accused of spying for China, the CPS discontinued proceedings in September 2024, citing insufficient evidence of national security threat despite MI5 concerns, with a reference to China as an "enemy" excised from materials to align with policy.[102] MI5's head expressed frustration over the outcome, highlighting prosecutorial caution in intelligence-based cases.[102] These decisions reflect CPS adherence to the Full Code Test but have fueled debates on risk aversion in politically sensitive prosecutions.[103]Biases in Charging for Specific Crime Types
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has documented racial disproportionality in charging decisions, with ethnic minority suspects facing higher charge rates than white suspects for comparable offences. A 2023 CPS study analysing over 13,000 cases found that black defendants were charged in 77.5% of instances, compared to 69.9% for white defendants, while mixed ethnicity defendants (e.g., white and black Caribbean) had rates up to 80.4%.[104] [105] These disparities persisted across offence types, including violence against the person (74.5% charge rate for black suspects vs. 66.8% for white) and public order offences.[106] Possible causes identified in CPS research include variations in police file language—such as more emotive descriptions in cases involving ethnic minorities—and differences in suspect cooperation or prior records, though these do not fully explain the gaps.[107] In response, the CPS issued a 2024 action plan to mitigate unconscious bias, mandating prosecutors to explicitly consider bias in decisions and revising the Code for Crown Prosecutors to prioritise equitable outcomes.[108] [109] Critics, including parliamentary submissions, contend this framing overlooks evidentiary strengths in minority cases or potential over-caution in charging white suspects, potentially exacerbating perceptions of systemic favouritism.[110] In child sexual exploitation (CSE) cases, particularly group-based grooming gangs, charging decisions have exhibited patterns of delay or reluctance linked to offender ethnicity. Independent reviews, such as Greater Manchester Police's 2024 Rochdale inquiry, revealed that between 2004 and 2013, evidence of abuse by predominantly Pakistani-heritage groups was not escalated to CPS for charging due to fears of racial profiling accusations, resulting in fewer prosecutions despite victim testimonies.[111] The 2025 Casey audit into group-based CSE corroborated a "culture of blindness, ignorance, and prejudice" across agencies, including CPS hesitancy in authorising charges to avoid community tensions, with national convictions for such offences remaining low at under 1% of reported CSE incidents annually through 2023.[97] [112] During Keir Starmer's directorship (2008–2013), grooming gang prosecutions averaged fewer than 10 major cases yearly, despite emerging evidence from locales like Rotherham and Rochdale; subsequent inquiries attributed this partly to CPS guidelines emphasising public interest factors, including ethnic sensitivities, which deterred full-code charging.[113] [114] By contrast, overall CSE charge rates hovered at 5–7% of police referrals in the 2010s, with ethnic minority offenders overrepresented in prosecuted cases (e.g., 84% in Operation Stovewood by 2024), highlighting causal links between institutional risk-aversion and under-charging.[115] For hate crime prosecutions, CPS applies an aggravated full-code test, resulting in charge rates of 85–90% for referred cases involving racial or religious hostility, compared to 70–75% for non-aggravated equivalents; however, this elevates charging for offences targeting minorities while data shows lower authorisation for anti-Semitic or gender-critical incidents classified as non-hate.[76] Allegations of selective zeal persist in public order charges post-2024 riots, where CPS authorised over 1,000 communications offence prosecutions (many for online speech deemed inflammatory), yet parallel scrutiny of earlier BLM-related referrals yielded charge rates below 60%, though 2025 parliamentary reports dismissed systemic "two-tier" bias in CPS decisions.[75] [116]Questions of Independence and Managerial Pressures
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) operates under statutory independence, with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) empowered to make charging and prosecutorial decisions free from direct ministerial control, as established by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.[2] This framework aims to insulate decisions from political interference, with the CPS asserting that its operations remain separate from government bodies.[117] Nonetheless, high-profile discontinuations have prompted scrutiny over potential indirect influences, such as through evidence handling or policy alignments. In October 2023, the CPS halted proceedings against two individuals accused of espionage for China, citing insufficient evidence of harm to national security, despite initial authorization from the Attorney General's office.[118] Parliamentary debates and media reports highlighted the removal of references to China as an "enemy" from witness statements prepared under prior government policy, raising questions about whether diplomatic considerations indirectly shaped prosecutorial viability.[119][120] DPP Stephen Parkinson defended the decision as an independent evidential assessment, unbound by political direction, though critics including senior lawyers argued it misapplied legal thresholds for public interest.[121][122] Further concerns emerged during the 2024 UK riots, where the CPS faced demands for rapid prosecutions amid public and political pressure for consistency.[123] Over 1,000 charges were brought within months, but selective discontinuations in cases involving alleged foreign interference fueled accusations of uneven application, with DPP Parkinson emphasizing operational autonomy under resource constraints.[123] HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate reports have underscored the need for robust safeguards against external pressures, providing independent audits to verify decision-making integrity.[51] While no formal evidence of overt political override exists, these episodes illustrate tensions between prosecutorial isolation and accountability to public interest, particularly in national security matters where government-sourced intelligence predominates.[124] Internally, managerial reforms have introduced performance metrics and efficiency targets that critics argue erode prosecutorial discretion. Academic analyses describe a shift toward "managerialism" in the CPS since the 2010s, where centralized policies prioritize volume-based outcomes and cost controls, potentially incentivizing early guilty pleas or case discontinuations to meet budgetary goals.[125] A 2023 study found diminished confidence among Crown Prosecutors in exercising professional judgment, attributing this to hierarchical oversight and standardized charging protocols that standardize rather than individualize assessments.[126] The CPS's 2024-2025 Annual Report acknowledges ongoing leadership transformations to address talent management amid caseload pressures, with initiatives to embed efficiency without compromising independence.[28] Such pressures, while aimed at resource optimization, risk subordinating evidential rigor to administrative imperatives, as evidenced by inspectorate findings on inconsistent application of full code tests in high-volume areas like public order offenses.[51]Leadership
Directors of Public Prosecutions
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) heads the Crown Prosecution Service, serving as its chief executive and accounting officer, with responsibility for deciding which criminal cases to prosecute on behalf of the public in England and Wales.[2] The DPP is appointed by the Attorney General under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for a non-renewable term of five years, though extensions have occurred in practice.[127] The role demands independence from political influence while ensuring prosecutions meet the full code test of sufficient evidence and public interest.[103] Since the CPS's establishment in 1986, the following individuals have served as DPP:| Name | Tenure | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sir Thomas Hetherington KCB CBE TD QC | 1986–1987 | Previously DPP from 1977; oversaw CPS formation but served briefly before retirement.[128][129] |
| Sir Allan Green KCB QC | 1987–1992 | Resigned amid personal scandal involving a police caution for kerb-crawling, unrelated to professional duties. |
| Dame Barbara Mills DBE QC | 1992–1998 | First woman in the role; tenure criticized for administrative issues and case collapses, though credited with expanding CPS scope.[130][131] |
| Sir David Calvert-Smith QC | 1998–2003 | Focused on improving CPS efficiency and staff reforms following prior criticisms; later a High Court judge.[132][133] |
| Sir Ken Macdonald QC | 2003–2008 | Emphasized prosecutorial independence; declined term extension to avoid politicization during terror-related cases.[134] |
| Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC | 2008–2013 | Appointed November 2008; prioritized domestic violence and reduced case backlogs by 20% through efficiency drives.[135][136] |
| Alison Saunders CB | 2013–2018 | Served five-year term ending October 2018; faced scrutiny over dropped rape cases and disclosure errors, with conviction rates falling to 57% in some areas.[137][138] |
| Max Hill KC | 2018–2023 | Appointed 1 November 2018; addressed resource strains and digital evidence challenges amid post-pandemic case volumes exceeding 500,000 annually.[127][139] |
| Stephen Parkinson | 2023–present | Appointed 1 November 2023; first solicitor DPP since the 1960s, focusing on rebuilding public trust post-riots and complex fraud prosecutions.[35][2] |
Chief Executive Officers
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) oversees corporate services, including finance, human resources, IT, and operational efficiency, serving as the principal accounting officer accountable to Parliament for the organization's management and use of public funds. This role, distinct from the Director of Public Prosecutions, emerged as the CPS evolved from its 1986 establishment, with dedicated CEOs appointed to handle administrative demands amid growing caseloads and budget constraints. The position has seen varying tenures, reflecting challenges such as funding pressures, digital transformation needs, and internal restructurings.| Name | Tenure | Key Details |
|---|---|---|
| Peter Lewis | 2007–2016 | Oversaw CPS headquarters operations during a period of efficiency reforms and international engagements; previously held roles within CPS including Director of Business Development (2003–2006).[141] |
| Nick Folland | April 2016–October 2017 | Focused on business development and operational improvements following Lewis's departure; later served in senior roles at the Co-op Group.[142][143] |
| Lesley Longstone | December 2017–May 2018 | Short tenure marked by efforts to stabilize administration amid prior leadership transitions; subsequently moved to the General Optical Council.[144][145] |
| Paul Staff | May 2018–August 2019 (interim) | Accountant who provided stability during recruitment for permanent role; retired after 28 years at CPS.[146][147] |
| Rebecca Lawrence | September 2019–November 2023 | Managed CPS through COVID-19 disruptions and recovery; resigned following settlement of an employment discrimination claim.[148][146] |
| Julie Lennard | Autumn 2024–present | Appointed as Director General and Accounting Officer (incorporating CEO functions), bringing experience from leading the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency since 2018, with emphasis on operational modernization.[149] |