Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031231
I note you seek access to the following information:
Thank you for your comprehensive response.
I am aware of case law establishing the principle that that statutory offences should take primacy over common law, where the offensive conduct falls within the terms of a statutory provision, for example R v Rimmington, R v Goldstein [2005], but I am aware of no precedent with regards to offensive behaviour that happens alongside the statutory offence.
Can you please identify the precedent which provides the basis for your decision.
Furthermore, the CPS guidelines specifically say that the Common Law offence should be used "Where there is a statutory offence... but the maximum sentence for the statutory offence would be entirely insufficient for the seriousness of the misconduct."
It would seem that this principle applies in spades. What was the reason for deciding to not apply this principle?
In any case, shouldn't decisions about prosecution be a decision for the CPS?
I am sorry, I am just a simple citizen, I assumed that the police look for evidence of wrongdoing, compile it and present it to the CPS to decide what offences to prosecute.
Apparently that is wrong.
Can you please tell us which regulation draws the line here between who is responsible for deciding what?
Have you passed a file to the CPS with regards to the wrongdoings of the disgraced former prime minister and his associates?
Or was it all dealt with by way of fixed penalties?
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.
Please find below information pursuant to your request above.
Police are permitted to issue proceedings or charge offences as detailed within Charging (Directors Guidance) Director of Public Prosecutions under the provisions of Section 37A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The decision to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for breaches of the Health Protection Regulations was a Police decision.
Please find links to relevant legislation below: