 |
answer text |
<p>It is important to stress that ’administrative finalisation’ is not a prosecutorial
decision. It is an administrative process where cases are closed on CPS’ electronic
case management system. It does not necessarily mean the proceedings are at an end.
Such cases may be reopened, if at a later date, new material is provided to the prosecution
enabling a charging decision to be made.</p><p> </p><p>Proceedings are administratively
finalised when:</p><p> </p><ul><li>The police seek early investigative advice from
the CPS and did not resubmit the case to the CPS for a charging decision. In these
instances, the case enters the CPS records but was never actually referred for a charging
decision.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>The police do refer a case to the police but there
is insufficient evidence to bring a charge, sothe CPS ask the police to complete an
action plan in order to improve the evidence. If the police are unable to respond
to the action plan or decide not to pursue the matter, then the case will be ‘administratively
finalised’ on the CPS system because the police cannot bring forward a case with sufficient
evidence to charge.</li></ul><p>There was a 9% reduction in referrals from the police
between 2016/17 and 2017/18. During this period, the percentage of cases resulting
in no further action remained largely unchanged. There was, however, a significant
increase in both the volume and percentage of cases administratively finalised. This
is largely because of internal CPS administrative processes, reminding users to ‘administratively
finalise’ cases where the police had requested early advice but had not resubmitted.</p><p>This
coincided with an increase in the number of cases where the police have not responded
to early investigative advice or an action plan has resulted in a rise in the number
of administrative finalisations.</p><p>The table below shows the outcome of all referrals
from the police for a pre charge decision, and show both the volume and the rates
of these outcomes</p><p>TABLE KEY:</p><p> </p><ul><li>Decision to charge: Prosecutors
must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of
conviction" against each defendant and that the prosecution is in the public
interest.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Take no further action: This is a prosecutorial
decision based on an assessment that there is insufficient evidence to provide a “realistic
prospect of conviction” or that a prosecution is not in the public interest. The case
may be reopened if the police provide further evidence or the victim successfully
appeals the decision under the victims right to review;</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Out
of Court Disposal: Out of court disposals include a caution, conditional caution or
the recommendation that the offence is taken into consideration with other charges;</li></ul><p>
</p><ul><li>Other: the result of the charging decision is not known or has not been
given for that suspect.</li></ul><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Volumes
& Rates as %</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Charge</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>No
Further Action</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Out of Court Disposal</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Admin
Finalised</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Other</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2010-2011</strong></p></td><td><p>3,387
(42%)</p></td><td><p>4,339 (53%)</p></td><td><p>65 (1%)</p></td><td><p>321 (4%)</p></td><td><p>18
(0%)</p></td><td><p>8,130</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2011-2012</strong></p></td><td><p>3,213
(47%)</p></td><td><p>3,281 (48%)</p></td><td><p>42 (1%)</p></td><td><p>275 (4%)</p></td><td><p>11
(0%)</p></td><td><p>6,822</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2012-2013</strong></p></td><td><p>2,889
(53%)</p></td><td><p>2,195 (41%)</p></td><td><p>34 (1%)</p></td><td><p>281 (5%)</p></td><td><p>5
(0%)</p></td><td><p>5,404</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2013-2014</strong></p></td><td><p>3,621
(62%)</p></td><td><p>1,857 (32%)</p></td><td><p>23 (0%)</p></td><td><p>341 (6%)</p></td><td><p>8
(0%)</p></td><td><p>5,850</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2014-2015</strong></p></td><td><p>3,648
(59%)</p></td><td><p>1,997 (32%)</p></td><td><p>29 (0%)</p></td><td><p>484 (8%)</p></td><td><p>1
(0%)</p></td><td><p>6,159</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2015-2016</strong></p></td><td><p>3,910
(57%)</p></td><td><p>2,271 (33%)</p></td><td><p>24 (0%)</p></td><td><p>645 (9%)</p></td><td><p>5
(0%)</p></td><td><p>6,855</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2016-2017</strong></p></td><td><p>3,671
(56%)</p></td><td><p>2,145 (32%)</p></td><td><p>30 (0%)</p></td><td><p>761 (12%)</p></td><td><p>4
(0%)</p></td><td><p>6,611</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>2017-2018</strong></p></td><td><p>2,822
(47%</p></td><td><p>1,851 (31%)</p></td><td><p>26 (0%)</p></td><td><p>1,307 (22%)</p></td><td><p>6
(0%)</p></td><td><p>6,012</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Data Source: CPS Case Management
Information System</p>
|
|
