§ Mr. AshleyTo ask the Attorney-General for what reason the Crown prosecution service initially refused to support a reckless driving charge against Peter Sumner and Mark Hill-Trevor subsequently given custodial sentences by the Court of Appeal following a private prosecution.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe Crown prosecution service initially declined to prosecute Peter Sumner for the offence of causing death by reckless driving because it appeared that the evidence against Peter Sumner was insufficient to afford a realistic prospect of securing a conviction for that offence. In reaching that decision it applied the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. But the making of such assessments, particularly in this category of case, is not an exact science, as the conviction itself has shown. The Crown prosecution service assumed responsibility for a prosecution for the offence once the matter had been committed for trial by the magistrates court.
In the case of Mark Hill-Trevor there was no refusal to prosecute for the offence for which the defendant was convicted. The proceedings were at all stages conducted by the Crown prosecution service.