§ 33. Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West)What assessment she has made of the results of the trials under which the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police decides on the charge against defendants. [56378]
§ The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)In his review of the criminal justice system, Sir Robin Auld proposed that the CPS should take over responsibility for charging suspects, which is currently done by the police. To identify the practical issues that would need to be addressed if that change were made, we have set up pilot schemes in five areas, and the results of those pilot schemes will be looked at this summer.
§ Dr. StarkeyI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her answer, but may I tell her that a couple of my constituents, who have had experience of the CPS either refusing to press charges or downgrading charges against defendants, have been outraged by those decisions and the total lack of adequate explanations to them, as victims of crime, as to why the CPS took those decisions? May I ask her to ensure that, in considering the trial, communicating the decision to the victim is also considered and that, if the CPS takes the decision, it should communicate its reasons for doing so to the victim and not leave that to the police, who often disagree with the decision of the CPS?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralMy hon. Friend raises a number of important points. First, she talks about charges that have been made by the police subsequently being dropped and the disappointment that that causes the victim. It is also unfair on the defendants to have charges hanging over them. One of the charging pilot schemes' objectives is to ensure that a charge should never be made in cases that are going nowhere because of insufficient evidence and that therefore it is recognised from the outset that it is not a runner. That certainly appears to be happening in those pilots.
383 As for the explanation to the victim if charges have to be dropped or changed, we want to ensure that far fewer charges are in fact dropped or changed, but in the old days a charge could be dropped and sometimes the victim would not be told and only read about it in the newspapers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that that is quite wrong. That is why we have rolled out a national programme under which the CPS tells victims what is happening in a case and explains why it is happening.
§ Norman Baker (Lewes)Does the Solicitor-General accept that there is a further problem: sometimes the police second-guess the CPS and do not put evidence before it because they wrongly believe that the CPS will not prosecute, whereas it may well do so? Is that not a particular problem with sex offences, where the police perhaps conclude that, if there is no victim statement, they are unable to proceed with the case, whereas the CPS would be prepared to consider such cases on the basis of other evidence that might accrue?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is not just that cases are charged and then dropped, but that good cases are not taken to court because the police think that the CPS would not consider that there was enough evidence. The idea of the charging pilot schemes is that the CPS should work closely with the police at the outset, give advice about the nature of the evidence needed and assess the amount of available evidence, so that it can get the charge and the evidence right and the case can proceed swiftly to court.