G-Foxtrot Oscar 69
I perhaps should have added a bit after vested interest. They arrested/investigated the job, they have a vested interest in making sure its presented properly. Its far better than either having costs awarded against Police (embaressing and lots of paperwork) or being made a fool of in front of a magistrate or jury.
Before the CPS came along I lst one job I prosecuted (as officer in case). After the CPS they were going left right and centre, ignoring the CPS perception of 'Not in the public interest' in procceding which when they first started meant, 'he might plead not guilty and that means we will have to put effort into it' to changing the charge to something totaly inappropriate and thus finding that the charge could not be proved.
The CPS, last time I dealt with them were far too fond of a bind over, which meant that they 'won' with no effort.
As for running round the courts circurt, well hard luck, Police used to have to do it, and lost far fewer jobs as a result.
There is certainly no justification in having a solicitor presenting breif facts in a guilty plea, or being there to ask for a remand in custody. Courts worked much quicker when a Police officer did that.
A few years ago the head of the CPS in London was interviewed on the BBC Local TV news and in his words the best person to present a case in court was the Police Officer in case. One of the few sensible things the CPS have ever said.