The CPS has been criticised for its performance in rape prosecutions in a new report by the prosecutor’s watchdog. In a blog, Serious and General Crime partner Peter Csemiczky asks whether this criticism is merited, and what it really tell us.

+++++

On 15th July this year, the body charged with overseeing the work of the Crown Prosecution Service published a report into the CPS’ performance in the early stages of adult rape cases.

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s report on the quality of the CPS’s early advice and pre-charge decision making in adult rape cases makes depressing reading.

Depressing. But not unexpected.

As a solicitor who represents accused individuals, my initial reaction to this report was to shrug my shoulders. Here, I thought, would be yet another politically motivated criticism of the CPS’s work in this difficult and sensitive area of law.

But then I read it. And I realised the HMCPSI’s 135-page report demands urgent action.

The report identifies various ways in which the CPS fails complainants of rape and accused individuals (who, it is important to remember, are innocent until proven otherwise).

In essence, the report concludes that the CPS are not following their own, much-trumpeted, national operational model which was meant to improve how these cases are handled, reducing delays and ensuring all parties are better supported.

The inspection shows that rape prosecutors routinely:

• Fail to provide police with the early advice that is relevant and meaningful to the investigation.
• Fail to set out the clear and cogent analysis of the evidential material the police have obtained or need to obtain.
• Fail to apply a “thinking approach” to evidence disclosure so vital evidence could be uncovered far later than it should be, and on some occasions not at all.
• Fail to provide any contact details on pre-charge advice reviews so that police are unable to properly engage.

The negative impact of these problems cannot be overstated.

One of the most significant consequences (and one that my colleagues and I frequently encounter) is that that evidentially weak cases are being brought to trial.

This happens because the police and the CPS appear unable or unwilling to make the decision not to pursue a rape allegation which does not merit it.

They instead leave this decision to the court: usually to a jury who must decide on guilt but in some cases to a judge when hearing an application to end a case because of prosecutorial failings.

The inevitable outcome is a greater proportion of acquittals. Sure enough, official CPS data shows the proportion of adult rape prosecutions which ended in acquittal or dismissal rose from 13.6% in the financial year 2020/21 to 24.5% in the most recent financial year.

The CPS’s stated aim in rape matters is to “promote greater and earlier collaborative work to build strong cases from the outset”. The HMCPSI shows how this laudable ambition has not resulted in better decision making.

This must be improved. If the CPS requires more resources to do this; then this should be provided. But my experience is that a wholesale cultural change is required so that “these sensitive and often evidentially challenging cases” are handled properly from an early stage. It is only then that both complainants and suspects can trust there will be a fair trial for all.