Advanced Search

Consultation on CPS Interim Guidance on Perverting the Course of Justice - Charging in cases involving rape and/ or domestic violence allegations

February 2011

Introduction

On 16 December 2010 Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, announced a series of measures to strengthen rape prosecutions. One of the key elements was to seek the views of interested parties about the factors the Crown Prosecution Service should consider before charging a person involved in rape or domestic violence allegations with an offence of perverting the course of justice. We have drafted Interim Guidance designed to assist prosecutors making decisions in this type of case. We want to know what you think about it.

What is the Interim Guidance on Perverting the Course of Justice about?

Legal Guidance is central to how CPS makes decisions and is regularly updated to reflect changes in the law and procedure. As part of our commitment to open and transparent decision making, it is freely available on our website. The aim of the Interim Legal Guidance is to set out the issues we should consider when deciding whether or not to charge people involved in rape and/ or domestic violence allegations with perverting the course of justice.

We want to make sure that the final version of our Legal Guidance is clear, fair and right.

To help us do this we would like you to read the Interim Guidance and answer some questions.

We would appreciate your comments and views on developing the final version of the Legal Guidance.

Read the Interim Guidance on Perverting the Course of Justice - Charging in cases involving rape and/ or domestic violence allegations.

Download the Interim Guidance on Perverting the Course of Justice - Charging in cases involving rape and/ or domestic violence allegations PDF file.

What are the questions?

  1. Is the description of perverting the course of justice clear?
  2. Do the observations on the evidential stage of the Full Code Test clearly set out the issues we should address when deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution? If not, please suggest how this could be achieved.
  3. Does the section on the public interest stage of the Full Code Test clearly set out factors which we should consider when deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute? If not, please suggest how this could be achieved.
  4. Have we provided sufficient explanation of what we mean by “double retraction” and are the factors to be considered in such cases clearly set out? If not, please suggest how this could be achieved?
  5. Any other comments about the document?

How to respond to the consultation

By email

By post

Welsh language version

What happens next?

Thank you for telling us what you think. We will read all responses and consider them when writing the final Legal Guidance. The information you send us may be passed to colleagues within the CPS, the Government or related agencies.

Find out more about confidentiality of responses

Find out more about Government Consultation criteria