Investigators and prosecutors, or desperately seeking Scotland: reformulation of the Philips principle

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    Prosecution in England and Wales, traditionally private, was captured by the ‘new police’, creating an ‘English tradition’ unlike those of the rest of the United Kingdom. To overcome consequent problems, the Royal Commission on Criminal recommended the ‘Philips principle’, whereby investigator and prosecutor were separate, but co-ordinate, on which basis the Crown Prosecution Service was set up. However, the principle was in fact compromised by the ‘English tradition’, most obviously permitting continued police prosecution. Moreover, the Serious Fraud Office, set up shortly thereafter contradicted the principle. Yet, HM Customs and Excise addressed its serious problems by applying the principle. The CPS itself encountered difficulties flowing from the compromises. Reports (Runciman, Narey, Glidewell) recommended various devices, straining principle, until the Auld Report recognised that reformulation was necessary, along the lines adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that is, by recognising that there should be investigator subordination to prosecutor
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)143-182
    Number of pages40
    JournalModern Law Review
    Volume69
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2006

    Keywords

    • Criminal investigation
    • Prosecution
    • Police

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Investigators and prosecutors, or desperately seeking Scotland: reformulation of the Philips principle'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this