how to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor

#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor full
#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor code
#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor trial

Suspects are likely to have a much lower level of culpability if compelled, coerced or exploited, particularly if they are the victim of a crime linked to their offending,Ĭ) What are the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim? The victim’s circumstances are highly relevant - the more vulnerable the victim, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. This includes the level of involvement, planning/premeditation, benefit from the offending, previous involvement with the criminal justice system, the likelihood of reoffending, the suspect’s age/ maturity and any significant mental or physical ill health or disability.

This is not an exhaustive list, so other matters can properly be taken into account, but in summary those matters to be taken into account are as follows:Ī) How serious is the alleged offence? The more serious it is, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.ī) What is the level of culpability of the suspect? The greater the culpability, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required. Public interest, including whether the case might best be dealt with by way of an out-of-court disposal such as a caution or conditional caution rather than bringing a prosecution.

#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor code

The prosecutor must consider a number of guidance factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (paragraph 4.14 a-g) to decide if a prosecution is required in the If, on the other hand, the prosecutor reaches the view that there is, on balance, sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction then the next question must be asked: Stage 2 - Is a prosecution required in the public interest? If the prosecutor reaches the view that the evidence is not sufficient then the case cannot go any further and no prosecution can follow. Prosecutors should also consider whether there is any further material which may affect the assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence, such as material held by the police (examined and unexamined) and material which may be obtained through further reasonable lines of enquiry. of a kind which would be permitted to be used in court). In reaching a decision, prosecutors should consider the reliability and credibility of the evidence as well as whether the evidence would be admissible (i.e. so the jury/magistrates are satisfied so that they are sure of the defendant’s guilt).

#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor trial

This is a far lower test than the standard of proof required at trial in a criminal court because for a jury or magistrate(s) to convict a defendant in court at trial the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. ‘A realistic prospect of conviction’ means ‘that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged’ (para 4.7 Code for Crown Prosecutors). The prosecutor must decide if the evidence is strong enough to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This evidential decision requires the prosecutor to carry out an objective assessment of the strength of the evidence this includes consideration of any defence which has been put forward.

#How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury prosecutor full

How is the decision to prosecute made? The Full Code Test Prosecutions can also be brought by private individuals, organisations or companies (who do not act on behalf of the police or any other public prosecuting authority), although private prosecutions are subject to restrictions for some offences and the CPS have the authority to step in and take the case over in certain circumstances. Sometimes the Latin term Regina is used instead of The Queen, so a criminal case against David Smith would often be written down as Regina v David Smith, or more often abbreviated to R v David Smith. Some lower level offences like low value shoplifting can be commenced by the police without being referred to the CPS (although if the case goes to court they must be reviewed by the CPS before the first hearing at the Magistrates’ Court takes place). There are other public authorities who prosecute cases, such as the Department of Work and Pensions, the Environment Agency, the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and the Serious Fraud Office. When the CPS bring a prosecution they do so on behalf of the Crown so a criminal case against David Smith would often be written down as The Queen v David Smith. Most prosecutions in England & Wales are carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).