Review, however is a continuing process, so the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) can take into account any change in circumstances.

Wherever possible, the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) will talk to the client department first, if he/she is thinking about changing the offence to be charged or stopping the proceedings. This gives the client department the chance to provide more information that may affect the decision. The Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) and the client department work closely together to reach the right decision, but the final responsibility for the decision rests with the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services).

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) must consider whether the evidence can be used, is reliable and covers each element of the offence. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. However, there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. The Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) must ask him/herself the following questions:-

(a) Can the evidence be used in court? Is it likely that the court will exclude the evidence? There are certain legal rules, which might mean that evidence, which seems relevant can not be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it was gathered or because of the rule against using hearsay as evidence? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?

(b) Is the evidence reliable? Is it likely that a confession is unreliable, for example, because of the defendant's age, intelligence or lack of understanding?

(c) Is the witness's background likely to weaken the prosecution case? For example, does the witness have any dubious motive that affects his or her attitude to the case or a relevant previous conviction?

(d) If the identity of the defendant is likely to be questioned, is the evidence about this strong enough?

The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed in the public interest. A prosecution is likely to be needed if:

(a) The Council has a duty to prosecute arising out of its statutory powers

(b) There is no civil remedy which would be a suitable alternative to prosecution

(c) There is a need to send a message to other potential offenders that the offence will be prosecuted.

(d) A conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;

(e) The offence was committed against a person serving the public;

(f) The defendant was in a position of authority or trust;

(g) The evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or organiser of the offence;

(h) There was evidence that the offence was pre-meditated;

(i) There was evidence that the offence was carried out by a group;

(j) The defendant's previous convictions or cautions are relevant to the present offence;

(k) There are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by history of occurring conduct; or the offence, although not serious in itself, is wide spread in the area where it was committed.

The prosecution is less likely to be needed if:

(a) The offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);

(b) missing

(c) The loss or harm can be described as minor and was a result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by misjudgement; but this must still be considered in the light of the seriousness of the offence.

(d) There has been a long delay between the offence taking place and the date of the trial unless;

     (i)   The offence is serious;
     (ii)  The delay has been caused in part by the defendant;
     (iii) The offence has only recently come to light;
     (iv) The complexity of the offence has meant that there has been a long investigation;

(e) The prosecution is likely to have a very bad effect on the witness's physical or mental health, (always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence);

(f) The defendant is elderly or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health unless the offence is serious or there is a real possibility that it may be repeated. The Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) must balance the desirability of prosecuting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public;

(g) The defendant has put right the loss or harm that was caused and the offence is not sufficiently serious to continue the prosecution (defendants may not avoid prosecution simply because they can pay compensation);

The Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) should select charges which;

(a) Reflect the seriousness of the offending;

(b) Give the court adequate sentencing powers;

(c) Enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way.

This means that the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) may not always continue with the most serious charge where there is a choice. Further, the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) should not continue with more charges than are necessary.

These reasons include:

(a) Rare cases, where a new look at the original decision shows that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand;

(b) Cases which are stopped so that more evidence which is likely to become available in the fairly near future can be collected and prepared. In these cases, the Assistant Director (Legal & Valuation Services) will tell the defendant that the prosecution may well start again;

(c) Cases which are stopped because of a lack of evidence but where more significant evidence is discovered later.

"This policy is issued by Slough Borough Council and is a public document. Changes to the policy may be made from time to time and these will also be published.

The policy is designed to make sure that everyone knows the principles that the Legal Services Department applies when carrying out its work. Client departments should take account of the principles of the policy when they are deciding whether to recommend a prosecution. By applying the same principles, everyone involved will be helping to ensure that the decision to prosecute is made in a fair, consistent and effective manner.

March 2002"