CPS AND CCRC CORRUPTION IN CROWN PROSECUTIONS THE POLICE AND PROSECUTION SERVICE WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE LACKS IMPARTIALITY IN CRAFTING OF CASES NEVER GETTING TO THE COURT OF APPEAL DUE TO BIAS IN CRIMINAL CASES REVEIW COMMISSION MASONIC INFLUENCE

CPS & CCRC

ATLANTIS STORY MAP & OPERATION HOMEPAGE

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. It is supposed to operate independently of both the police and government, and its core duty is to ensure that justice is served by prosecuting the right person for the right offence.

In practice, the CPS will advise a police force not to investigate a reported crime too well, or at all, to ensure it fails the first test. If the crime is a compliant against the establishment, the cps will say it is not in the public interest to pursue. Hence, in reality, the CPS is far from independent. Only investigating crimes that do not involve the police, councillors, or planning officers. Except, where public scrutiny is high, and they are forced into it. Such as with the Horizon Post Office Scandal.

Impartiality is not optional—it’s fundamental. CPS prosecutors are bound by the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires them to be fair, objective, and independent. Every decision to prosecute must pass a two-stage test:

1. first, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction;

2. second, the prosecution must be in the public interest. If a case fails the evidential stage, it cannot proceed—no matter how serious the allegation.

As for “striking a deal” with the police: the CPS and police do work closely, but the CPS cannot and must not prosecute a case simply to appease investigators. In fact, thousands of cases have collapsed in recent years due to missing or mishandled police evidence—over 30,000 between 2020 and 2024 alone. These include serious offences like homicides and sexual assaults. When key evidence is unavailable, the CPS may record the case as an “E72”—a designation for cases that cannot proceed due to evidential issues 2.

So while cooperation exists, the CPS should not lawfully bypass evidential standards. Doing so would violate its ethical obligations and risk miscarriages of justice. If anything, the current crisis in evidence handling has exposed the need for more prosecutorial scrutiny, not less.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CPS NOT BEING IMPARTIAL?

For example, in theory, failing to take into consideration new advances in medical science and ignoring the fact that only a partial medical examination was made, excluding the proper examination to prove vaginal intactness in a sex allegation. Especially where the hymen was tightly closed, indicating virginity. Would proceeding on such a basis, having done a deal with a Judge to direct the jury to become medical experts, in denial of such medical forensic evidence, that only the state can acquire. Would that tend to lean in the direction of failing the impartiality test?

That’s a deeply important and nuanced question. If the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were to proceed with a prosecution while knowingly ignoring relevant medical science or failing to disclose or consider exculpatory forensic evidence, it could indeed raise serious concerns about impartiality—and potentially breach both legal and ethical duties.

IMPARTIALITY AND THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE

The CPS is legally bound to act fairly and impartially. Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Criminal Procedure Rules, prosecutors must disclose any material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence 2. This includes unused medical or forensic evidence, even if it contradicts the prosecution’s theory.

If, for example, a medical examination was incomplete and omitted critical findings—such as evidence of an intact hymen in a sexual offence allegation—and this was not disclosed or was actively downplayed, that could amount to a failure of disclosure and impartiality. The CPS cannot cherry-pick evidence to support a conviction while ignoring material that may exonerate the accused.

THE ROLE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

Medical experts are brought in precisely because juries and judges are not expected to have specialist knowledge. The law is clear: expert witnesses must be independent, objective, and qualified to give opinions within their field. If a judge were to improperly direct a jury to interpret complex medical findings themselves—especially in the absence of full evidence or expert testimony—that could be seen as undermining the fairness of the trial.

CONSEQUENCES OF BREACHING IMPARTIALITY

If the CPS fails in its duty of impartiality, the consequences can be severe:

Unsafe convictions: The Court of Appeal may quash a conviction if it finds that the trial was unfair or that critical evidence was mishandled. The big problem being cases have to go through the Criminal Cases Review Commission, to get to the Court of Appeal

Professional misconduct: Prosecutors and experts may face disciplinary action or be barred from future cases.

Loss of public trust: The justice system relies on the perception—and reality—of fairness. Any hint of collusion or bias can erode confidence in the rule of law.

In short, yes—proceeding with a case while ignoring key medical evidence, or manipulating judicial directions to compensate for evidential gaps, would likely fall short of the impartiality standard. It could also violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We might explore real-world examples where expert evidence—or its absence—played a pivotal role in overturning convictions. Some of them are quite eye-opening.

UNUSED EVIDENCE

In one ongoing investigation, evidence from social services was omitted and denied to the defence. This was because all the persons inteviewed confirmed no sexual activity of any kind. It appears to us, that this evidence may have been crucial to a full and fair defence, but that the CPS knew of such evidence, and denied it to the Jury, so as to steer a prosecution against an innocent party, to an unlawful conviction. Would that be wrong of the CPS, and the police, who worked with the CPS in such matter?

Yes—if what you’ve described occurred, it would represent a serious breach of legal and ethical obligations by both the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the police.

THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE

Under UK law, the CPS and police are under a continuing duty to disclose any material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence. This includes third-party material, such as social services records, especially if they contain statements that contradict the prosecution’s narrative or support the defence’s case.

If social services interviewed individuals who confirmed there was no sexual activity of any kind, and this information was withheld from the defence or the jury, that could constitute a failure of disclosure. The Disclosure Manual and the Code for Crown Prosecutors make it clear: fairness requires that such material be shared, even if it weakens the prosecution’s case 1.

CONSEQUENCES OF WITHHOLDING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

- Miscarriage of justice: A conviction based on incomplete or misleading evidence may be quashed on appeal.

- Professional misconduct: Prosecutors and officers involved could face disciplinary proceedings or be reported to oversight bodies.

- Perverting the course of justice: Knowingly suppressing exculpatory evidence could, in extreme cases, amount to a criminal offence.

REAL WORLD PRECEDENTS

Cases like that of Liam Allan—where police withheld thousands of text messages that undermined a rape allegation—have led to collapsed trials and public outcry. In that case, the CPS admitted the failure and called for urgent reforms.

If the CPS knowingly denied the jury access to crucial exculpatory evidence, and if the police were complicit, it would not only violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights—it would also erode public trust in the justice system.

If you’re exploring this in a real-world context, you may wish to see how such failures are challenged or appealed. There are legal mechanisms for review, and in some cases, criminal convictions have been overturned years later due to disclosure failures. Let us explore a few of those?

What are notable cases involving disclosure failures on the part of the police and/or CPS is sexual assault or rape allegations?

Several high-profile cases in the UK have exposed serious disclosure failures by the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in sexual assault and rape prosecutions. These cases have not only led to collapsed trials but also triggered national reviews and reforms. Here are some of the most notable:

1. Liam Allan (2017)

Perhaps the most widely cited case, Liam Allan was a university student falsely accused of multiple counts of rape and sexual assault. Just days before trial, police finally disclosed thousands of text messages from the complainant that clearly contradicted the allegations—including messages showing she had pestered him for casual sex. The case was dropped immediately, and the incident sparked a national outcry over disclosure practices.

2. Oliver Mears (2018)

An Oxford University student who spent two years on bail before his rape trial was abandoned. A diary that supported his version of events was discovered only days before the trial. Surrey Police admitted serious investigative failings, and the CPS dropped the case.

3. Samuel Armstrong (2017)

A former aide to a Conservative MP, Armstrong was charged with rape and sexual assault. His trial collapsed after crucial evidence—such as CCTV footage and text messages—was disclosed late. He was unanimously acquitted, and later criticised the CPS for what he described as a “culture of failure to disclose evidence”.

4. Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott (2020–2024)

In a rare reversal of roles, this case involved a victim who felt failed by the CPS. She alleged rape, but the CPS dropped the case on the eve of trial after the defence raised the possibility of “sexsomnia.” She was not allowed to challenge the decision at the time, but her campaign led to a new pilot scheme allowing victims to request a second review before a case is dropped 4.

1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42795058
2 https://news.sky.com/story/cps-boss-saunders-criticised-over-rape-case-evidence-failings-11442928
3 https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rape-victims-can-now-challenge-cps-if-criminal-cases-are-being-dropped/ar-AA1G90Rt
4 https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/news/survivors-rape-and-serious-sexual-assault-given-right-have-dropped-cases

In this fictional story, the characters and events are the product of the author's imagination.