This week's sessions complemented last week's, looking at the next few steps along the crime control 'conveyor belt' (or the due process obstacle course): the police decision to arrest & the Crown Prosecution Service's decision to prosecute (or not).
It is surprising to realise that the police's current arsenal of arrest powers are a modern invention. Before 1984, the standard way to be charged with a crime was to be issued with a 'summons' to court; arrests would only be made if suspects were seen to be dangerous or at risk of fleeing. Even after PACE was passed in 1984, there was a presumption that people would only be arrested for the more serious crimes ('arrestable offences'). Since 2005 all offences have been 'arrestable'; arrest is now firmly established as a relatively early part of the process of bringing a charge.
When the police have decided on a charge, it is the Crown Prosecution Service - another relative newcomer - which decides whether it should be brought. There are two tests: evidential ("is the evidence good enough to make a conviction more likely than not?") and public interest ("if the evidence is good enough, is prosecuting this offence in the public interest?") The 'public interest' test involves many different considerations, some of which can weigh against each other or cancel each other out. Imagine that the papers are reporting on a man who killed a police officer 50 years ago, went on the run and has now returned to this country, elderly and severely ill. 'Public interest' factors count in favour of prosecuting crimes of violence; against prosecuting crimes which took place a long time ago; in favour of prosecuting crimes against public servants; against prosecuting if the offender is vulnerable; in favour of prosecuting if failing to do so will affect public confidence... and so on. The seminar exercise gave you hands-on experience of weighing up these sorts of conflicting considerations; I hope you found it useful.
