Last week shopkeeper Mukesh Patel was fined after being convicted of spraying CS gas into the face of an armed raider. The case sparked a wave of criticism against the Crown Prosecution Service who decided there was a case to answer. Here the CPS explain in a letter to the BEN why they decided to prosecute. Dear Sir, THE Crown Prosecution Service often finds itself the subject of press criticism in the wake of decisions made in the Criminal Courts. I do not seek to pretend that the Crown Prosecution Service is perfect and sometimes the criticism is justified. However, the Service is often castigated without any justification whatsoever and the opinions expressed or implied in your headline feature and editorial published in the Bolton Evening News on October 30, 1998, concerning Mr Patel do not reflect the whole story. I am certain that your readers will readily appreciate that the Crown Prosecution Service can find itself in an invidious position; on the one hand defendants are frequently aggrieved after they have been convicted while, on the other hand, victims of crime are frequently aggrieved if those whom they believe are guilty are either acquitted or not prosecuted at all.

Your editorial includes a quote from a spokesman of USDAW that "every case should be judged on its own merits". I agree wholeheartedly with that proposition which is in fact included as a fundamental tenet in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the document which sets out the principles upon which Crown Prosecutors reach their decisions either to prosecute or discontinue proceedings.

The problem with your report and editorial, however, is that your conclusions appear to be based entirely on Mr Patel's version of events which, perhaps understandably, does not tell the complete story. I do not propose to furnish you with all the detailed information that was weighed in the balance in deciding whether this case should go ahead. To do so would be to breach confidences and would not be fair to Mr Patel.

However, I suggest that it is not fair either to invite your readers to express their views on the propriety of the prosecution -- and thus to condemn the Crown Prosecution Service -- when you are not in a position to provide them with all the facts. Further, your editorial assertion that the magistrates have less room for manoeuvre than they would like once the incident gets to the court room rather conveniently overlooks the fact that, following Mr Patel's pleas of guilty, they could have reflected their views about the public interest in pursuing the prosecution by giving him an absolute discharge.

As it was, they decided to fine Mr Patel £100 for possessing the CS gas canister and £200 for obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. That the magistrates did not impose a nominal penalty perhaps suggests that they at least had no misgivings about the decision to proceed -- and they were certainly better informed about the case than your readers will have been from reading your report. M J McNeill Branch Crown Prosecutor

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.