Code for Crown Prosecutors Definition

GLOSSARY

/kəʊd/ /for/ /kraʊn/ /ˈprɒsɪkjuːtə/

Published by a ��Ӱ�� Corporate Crime expert

What does Code for Crown Prosecutors mean?

Issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when making decisions about prosecutions including the Full code and Threshold Tests for deciding whether to charge a suspect in specific circumstances.

Corporate Crime

Issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when making decisions about prosecutions including the Full Code and Threshold Tests for deciding whether to charge a suspect in specific circumstances.

View the related checklists about Code for Crown Prosecutors

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent tax evasion—checklist

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent tax evasion—checklist This Checklist explains the issues which should be considered when advising on and undertaking an internal investigation into whether the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion has occurred. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: Failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion—the offences and Self-reporting corporate offences as well as the Failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion toolkit. Initial considerations Oversight The top-level management of an organisation should be committed to preventing persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with it from engaging in criminal facilitation of tax evasion. They should foster a culture within the organisation in which tax evasion facilitation is never acceptable. Consider: • has the company appointed an officer of sufficient seniority responsible for compliance and oversight of the company’s risk assessment, and policies and procedures in respect of preventing the facilitation of tax evasion? Internal reporting/whistleblowing An important aspect of...

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent bribery—checklist

Internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent bribery—checklist The following questions and issues should be at the forefront of a lawyer’s mind when advising in relation to an internal investigation on suspicion of failure to prevent bribery. This Checklist should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: The Bribery Act 2010—an introductory guide, Failure to prevent bribery—the offence and Self-reporting corporate offences. Initial Considerations Oversight The top-level management of an organisation should be committed to preventing associated persons from engaging in bribery. They should foster a culture within the organisation in which bribery is unacceptable. Consider: • Has the company appointed an officer of sufficient seniority responsible for anti-bribery? • Does the Board, or an appropriately constituted sub-committee of the Board, have oversight of the work of the anti-bribery officer and any investigation arising out of reports of suspected bribery? Internal reporting/whistleblowing • Does the company have a defined whistleblowing strategy? • Is it well-known and enforced throughout the company? • Has your company got clear reporting channels for...

The Gambling Commission—compliance and enforcement powers

The Gambling Commission—compliance and enforcement powers Gambling Commission investigations The Gambling Commission (GC) regulates the commercial gambling industry in Great Britain. The GC published a policy statement on Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005 which sets out the GC’s regulatory policies in relation to carrying out compliance activities. The policy is regularly updated and was updated on 21 January 2022. In carrying out its functions, the GC is under a duty to pursue and have regard to the licensing objectives set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005 (GA 2005): • preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime • ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and • protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling Where concerns have been raised about a licensee, the GC may commence an investigation. Where appropriate, in certain specific cases, the GC...

Improvement and Prohibition Notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

Improvement and Prohibition Notices under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Enforcement of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974) is often achieved through the service of statutory Improvement Notices and Prohibition Notices. These notices may be served by inspectors appointed under HSWA 1974, s 19(1). This is one of several options open to enforcing authorities (as defined under HSWA 1974, ss 18(7)(a) and 53(1)). Other enforcement options range from informal advice to prosecution. See Practice Note: Powers of health and safety inspectors under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This Practice Note summarises the main features of Improvement Notices and Prohibition Notices, the consequences to which they give rise and how they might be challenged. The main features of Improvement Notices Improvement Notices are dealt with under HSWA 1974, s 21. An Improvement Notice requires the recipient to remedy a contravention of the ‘relevant statutory provisions’. 'Relevant statutory provisions' is a term used throughout...

Discover our 72 Practice Notes on Code for Crown Prosecutors

When determining the ‘date of discovery by the prosecutor’ of an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277, how is a prosecutor to determine what that date is? Is it the date when Council staff first became aware of the complaint, the date when a Trading Standards investigator considered an offence may have been committed or when the Council’s legal team concluded that the is evidence an offence has been committed?

When determining the ‘date of discovery by the prosecutor’ of an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277, how is a prosecutor to determine what that date is? Is it the date when Council staff first became aware of the complaint, the date when a Trading Standards investigator considered an offence may have been committed or when the Council’s legal team concluded that the is evidence an offence has been committed? For the purpose of this Q&A, we have assumed that this refers to an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277. The Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980) imposes a time limit of six months for commencing criminal proceedings which can only be heard in the magistrates’ court. This time limit, imposed by MCA 1980, s 127, applies unless an alternative limitation period is expressly provided by another piece of legislation. Some legislation enable the prosecution of specific summary only offences to be started within...

On a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, does the transferor’s liability for failing to prevent bribery, to the extent that it is not criminal liability, transfer to the transferee?

On a relevant transfer under TUPE 2006, does the transferor’s liability for failing to prevent bribery, to the extent that it is not criminal liability, transfer to the transferee? Bribery Act 2010 The Bribery Act 2010 sets out four offences: • bribing another person (also known as active bribery) • soliciting or accepting a bribe (also known as passive bribery) • bribing a foreign public official, and • failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery by an 'associated person' for its benefit For further information, see Practice Note: Bribery Act 2010: essentials for employment lawyers. The first three offences above apply to individuals and companies. The offence of failure to prevent bribery applies only to relevant commercial organisations. For information on the offence of failing to prevent bribery, see Practice Note: Bribery Act 2010: essentials for employment lawyers—Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery. See the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) Guidance on adequate procedures facilitation payments and business expenditure and the following documents (referred to in...

See the 6 Q&As about Code for Crown Prosecutors

All eyes on the SFO after LC&F Ponzi scheme ruling

Law360, London: Damning findings in civil litigation that the directors of London Capital & Finance (LC&F) ran the bonds company as a Ponzi scheme could foreshadow the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) parallel criminal investigation into the failed £237m investment business, lawyers say.

Corporate Crime weekly highlights—19 September 2024

This week's edition of Corporate Crime weekly highlights includes analysis of a High Court decision concerning the relevance of inquest verdicts on the CPS’s decision on whether or not to prosecute, of UK, EU and US cartel enforcement trends and of the daughter of one of ENRC’s founders successfully overturning her SFO conviction for failing to hand over documents during a corruption investigation. Also included is news of the updated Supreme Court Rules 2024, of the upcoming launch of the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI) and of the 2024 Food Crime Strategic Assessment published by FSA and FSS. All this, and more, in this week’s Corporate Crime highlights.

Read the latest 78 News articles on Code for Crown Prosecutors

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"We rely on ��Ӱ�� to give us a definitive answer, quickly and reliable every time so that we can be confident in the advice we use to help our clients."

Shelter

Access all documents on Code for Crown Prosecutors

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��Ӱ��

GLOSSARY