By proceeding with a prosecution doesn't the Crown Prosecution service prejudice the jury?

Question

Before a case comes before the Crown Court in the UK the prosecution service have to weigh up the evidence and only when they are reasonably sure of a guilty verdict do they allow the case to proceed.
As juries are aware of this it must introduce bias into their considerations, in the same way that it would if newspapers published reports on a case in which the paper indicated that it believed the accused to be guilty.
Shouldn't the police be the sole arbiter as to whether or not to prosecute?

Answer 1

The role of the police is to investigate and gather all information and evidence pertaining to a crime, whether or not it helps the prosection.

You're wrong, by the way, the Crown will only proceed when it is satisfied that the accused has a case to answer, not if they are reasonably sure if a guilty verdict will be obtained. The role of the prosecution is merely to put before the jury any information which may be incriminating against the accused, it is not the role of the prosecution to secure a conviction at all costs.

So basically, you are wrong and misguided.

Answer 2

The purpose of trial by Jury, for cases that are triable either-way (in which the defendant elects to be tried by Jury rather than by Magistrates), is to enable the jury to decide whether the Crown (Prosecution) has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant. it is up to the Crown to prove, in virtually all cases that get to Crown Court, that not only did the defendant do the guilty act (actus reus), but also that he had the intent to commit, or was sufficiently negligent or reckless to engage to commit, the offence to which he is answering.

It is true that the CPS may not bring a case to trial where the evidence is not sustainable - this saves an immense amount of money. The CPS employs lawyers of the highest calibre to ensure that prosecutions are only brought where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Furthermore, the CPS is independent of the Police, and this is an important agent in ensuring the impartiality of the English Criminal Law. The Police cannot bring charges out of spite towards a family who may be leaning a little bit towards the delinquent, unless they themselves can satisfy the CPS that a genuine case exists.

The CPS does not bring actions only when there is a reasonable certainty of conviction of the defendant. They bring actions when there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial.

The Judge will direct the Jury as appropriate, depending on the the evidence presented. A Judge is expected to be impartial, and will only direct a Jury on the points of evidence. The Jury still makes the decision of guilty or not guilty, in accordance with the evidence. Bias will be corrected by the Judge.

I rest my case.

Answer 3

No, every crime has to accessed by the court to see if the case has merit and if it does, they'll prosecute.

It costs money to take a case to court and no government will take a case to court if it doesn't believe that it has enough evidence to get a guilty verdict.

What's the difference between the police bringing a case to court with evidence and a prosecutor? Both are part of the justice system - and also remember, a trial is not just about a guilty verdict, but is also about what punishment is due (which is decided by a judge based on the charges brought forth by a prosecutor).

In the Uk justice system, the juries are advised that someone is Innocent until proven guilty.

Answer 4

I think we are in danger of confusing the law and justice. The procedures are as they are now to control the volume of cases tried before a court and the police need some external control to prevent ridiculous cases going to trial. Most of the high profile cases seem to be dealt with sensibly by juries, one safeguard that should never be done away with.

Answer 5

you'd better believe its true, this alleged 'fair system' is the biggest conspiracy going, also - if a jury returns a verdict that the judge doesnt like he also has the ultimate power to reverse it, the only good thing a defendent has left (and this is being eroded) is the right of non-disclosure of his defence. the prosecution have to give advanced disclosure of their case, but they are blind to the defence until it appears

Answer 6

Before the creation of the CPS the police used to do exactly the same thing. The CPS removed this burden from the police, leaving them to get on with fighting crime, not prosecuting it.

Answer 7

No the Police should not decide whether to prosecute. Their role is to enforce the law. Anything else is part of the judicial process and outside their remit.