,
11 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
A brief thread on the decision not to prosecute the driver involved in a collision on the A149, better known to some as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. [THREAD]
The CPS press release should be read in full by anyone commenting, obvs. But I’d also suggest reading the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which sets out the process by which charging decisions are made: cps.gov.uk/publication/co…
There are two stages to every charging decision (the “Full Code Test”)
1. The evidential test (Is there a “realistic prospect of conviction” based on the available evidence?”
2. The public interest test (Is it in the public interest to prosecute?)
1. The evidential test (Is there a “realistic prospect of conviction” based on the available evidence?”
2. The public interest test (Is it in the public interest to prosecute?)
The press release doesn’t say what offence(s) the CPS were considering, but based on reports I’d imagine the contemplated charges were either careless driving or dangerous driving.
Careless driving = where the driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. (Maximum sentence a fine)
Dangerous = where the driving falls *far* below that standard. (Maximum sentence 2 years’ imprisonment)
More info here: cps.gov.uk/driving-offenc…
Dangerous = where the driving falls *far* below that standard. (Maximum sentence 2 years’ imprisonment)
More info here: cps.gov.uk/driving-offenc…
Ordinarily, the evidential test is first. Only if that is met does the prosecutor go on to consider the public interest. The decision not to prosecute in this case is cited as public interest grounds. Therefore a possible inference is that the CPS were satisfied of the evidence. 
What are the factors to consider when applying the public interest test? Here...
...and here.
The CPS appeared to pay particular regard in this case to the driver’s age, “level of culpability” (which suggests the contemplated charge was careless, rather than dangerous, driving) and the fact that he has voluntarily surrendered his licence.
So has he got off because he’s married to the woman who nominally prosecutes all criminal cases? For what it’s worth, based on what is known I’d say the public interest decision appears reasonable and in line with the Code.
Prosecuting a 97-year old for a minor driving offence (if that is what was contemplated) when he has taken himself off the road is the kind of decision we lawyers would decry in a normal magistrates’ list. Looks to me like common sense, rather than conspiracy. [ENDS]
