Question to the Attorney General:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use by the CPS of the phrase “insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction” in cases where there is no evidence at all against the accused; and what guidance they have given, or intend to give, to the CPS in respect of such use.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) sets out the general principles Crown prosecutors must follow when they make decisions on cases.

The full Code test has two stages. Crown prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect or defendant on each charge. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

The Crown Prosecution Service has adopted the wording recommended in the 2016 report of Sir Richard Henriques for public announcements of decisions not to charge an individual, namely that “the case failed to meet the evidential test”. That terminology is not a comment on the strength or weakness of the evidence in any particular case.

The test applied by prosecutors continues to be that set out in the Code.