British police may lose their prosecution power

Press, 7 May 1980, Page 19

British police may lose their prosecution power

By

ROBIN LUSTIG,

“Observer,” London

Important reforms in the way criminal suspects are brought to trial in Britain are likely to be recommended by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which is due to report later this year. The commission, which is drawing up a draft of its final report, is understood to believe that the police should cease to have responsibility for the prosection of criminal offences. New locally-based independent prosecutors would make the final decision on whether an accused person should be brought to trial. Other recommendations which the 16-man Commission will make include: —The tape-recording of all interviews which take place in police stations; — No change in the right of potential suspects in police custody to remain silent; — A tightening up of police records on what happens when a suspect is taken into custody; — A slight increase in police powers to obtain search warrants and demand an individual’s name and address. The commission’s report is likely to be received with dismay by senior police officers, who have urged that the, police should be allowed to retain responsibility for instituting prosections. They also urged the commission to alter the present “right of silence,” which they aruged gives the accused an unreasonable advantage. The commission has not yet decided who would appoint area prosecutors, nor to whom they would be accountable. But members are understood to feel that a locally-based system is preferable to a National Prosecution Agency, which would restrict the discretion available to prosecutors over

whether to take court action. According to detailed financial calculations undertaken at the Commission’s request, the establishment of an area prosecutor system would cost about $8 million per year, far less than opponents have suggested. The

reform would also free police officers from timeconsuming paperwork. The commission is expected to emphasise that any decision to remove responsibility for prosecutions from the police should not be used as a justification for reducing police manpower or financial resources. The commission’s report will also say:— Tape-recording: The provision of tape-recorders in all police stations would ensure an objective record of’ what was said during police interviews. The cost could be greatly reduced if transcripts taken from the tapes were made only if a defendant requested one in cases where there was disagreement over what had been said. The annual cost would probably be less, than SlO million. Right of silence: The commission believes the present system, under which an accused person has an absolute right to say nothing, should be retained. This will be welcomed by civil liberties groups, who viewed police demands for a change as a dangerous curtailing of traditional freedom. Reporting provisions: The report is expected to accept the police view that they must retain the right to refuse a suspect access to a solicitor in certain cases. It will probably . recommend that where access is refused, a suspect should be specific-

ally told so. and that this should be recorded in the station log. The police could then be questioned in court about the refusal to grant access. The commission believes that to provide automatic access to a solicitor for all suspects, as has been urged by some civil liber-

ties campaigners, would double the legal aid bill and be unworkable. Police search powers: Existing legislation is riddled with ambiguities and the commission will recommend that police powers be more clearly codified. At present, for example, the police are unable to apply for a search warrant to enter premises to search for a murder weapon. •The commission’s report is also expected to call for an extension of police powers to demand an individual’s name and address in cases where a police officer believes he has witnessed a crime being committed but does not, under present legislation have a power of arrest. This would include offences such as dropping litter, or other offences which carry a maximum sentence of less than five years’ imprisonment. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up in June, 1977. under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips, a former Vice-Chancellor of London University. Its terms of reference are to examine the powers and duties of the police, responsibility for the prosecution of criminal offences, and other aspects of criminal procedure “having -regard both to the interests of the community in bringing offenders to justice and to the rights and liberties of suspects and accused persons.”