Bar Skill And Advocacy Assignment Answer

• Type Assignment
• Downloads537
• Pages17
• Words4226

Q.1. Letter to the “Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)”

To

The “Crown Prosecution Service” of the “East Midlands Division”
Date: 12.05.2025

[Subject: “R v Sam Smith”, Review for Prosecution Based on the “Full Code Test” Requested]

Dear Crown Prosecutor,

In the interests of my client Mr Sam Smith I submit this letter regarding this charge of Theft under “Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968”. Mr Smith has been allowed unconditional bail and he will appear before “Derby Magistrates’ Court” on 29 September 2025. I submit this correspondence, formally requesting that you review and cease prosecution, in that, from my professional experience, the “Full Code Test” as set out by the “Code for Crown Prosecutors” is not discharged in this case[1]. The “legal, factual, and public policy grounds” on which our request for a review and discontinuance of the charges against Mr Smith is predicated, I shall briefly outline below.

Don’t let deadlines overwhelm you-choose Rapid Assignment Help UK for reliable academic support and top-quality assignments every time.

The key “Factual Background”

The only allegation is in relation to an incident on 1 June 2025, “23 Gedling Grove, Derby, with Mr Smith. Mr Dexter Lacey” has made the allegation and Mr Smith is the one being charged all residing at the same address. The pair save in a “common jar” to cater for their monthly home expenses, and they both put aside £75 at the start of every month[2]. Mr. Lacey asserts that he put £75 coin in the jar on 1 June and after that people discovered that the money was gone. When Mr Lacey investigated his flat, he discovered that on the same day Mr Smith had bought himself a suit.

Bar Skill And Advocacy Assignment Answer

Liked This Answer? Hire Me Now

Emily Johnson 6 Years | LLM in Human Rights Law

Mr. Smith was “(Derby) Police Station” on 20 July 2025 and was interviewed under caution. Smith denied guilt until later he admitted taking the sum. Smith said he required the suit for a job interview and considered it important to help solve his tight “financial situation”. Smith apologized and confirmed he was going to return the money, he has since repaid this. In a witness statement dated 3 September 2025 Mr Lacey states that the funds have been repaid, that relationship has been restored the complainant has no longer asked for prosecution.

Legal Framework: The “Full Code Test (applying)”

The “Code for Crown Prosecutors (2023)” tells “The Crown Prosecution Service” to use the “Full Code Test” to determine if an offence is to go forward. The “Full Code Test” has two important sections.

The 1st stage of the “evidential Stage”: The evidence needs to show a real possibility of a conviction in this stage. This would mean that, and given the evidence, and directed appropriately by the judge, a competent and reasonable jury or magistrate is far more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged crime.

The “Public Interest Stage”: Where the evidential criteria has been met, then the CPS would have to consider whether pursing the case in public interest is in the public interest. Elements for assessing a case to be considered for prosecution to the point of full code[3]. The full code test consists of two separate but integrated limbs.

Mr Smith has recorded admission in his police interview which if found would be taken to the “evidential stage” as being technically satisfactory. This is submitted with respect, the public interest does not lend any support to the initiation of prosecution in this case[4]. In view of that relatively “minimal financial consequence”, the defendant’s prior good conduct, his “mental health differences”, how the problem was quickly solved, his reconciliation in the eyes of the complainant, and positive changes after the incident, it is submitted that charging Mr Smith would not further justice or discretion as they were stipulated in To pursue a case against Mr Smith on the face of these reasons would go against the principles of justice and the reasonable use of prosecutorial discretion as articulated by the CPS.

III. Issue for Consideration

The key issue is to identify is it appropriate for Mr Smith who is a “first offender” being compelled by “personal and financial pressures” to commit a small theft to be prosecuted after having paid the full amount, received victim’s withdrawal and undergone rehabilitation for the public interest’s benefit?

Change in Position of the Complaint

Following a complaint against Mr Smith, the complainant, Mr Lacey caused his formal charge with theft. Mr Lacey explained how he was angered and betrayed, after his £75 added to the “communal jar” went missing. Mr Lacey however official turned around on 3rd September 2025 after submitting a formal declaration stating how he wanted to withdraw his charge[5]. In the new declaration Mr Lacey declared that Mr Smith had completely repaid him, expressed sincere regret, and lived up to a most exemplary standard of behaviour ever since the incident.

Reasoning behind his decision to contact the police initially was an anger Mr Laced felt and a massive failure to recognize the “mental health challenges” Mr Smith was struggling with. Now he admits that the offence was not premeditated and was a consequence of “massive financial pressure” and that of great emotional turmoil. Mr Lacey decided to stop his support to believe that Mr Smith stopped being a threat, he put in authentic efforts to correct the misconducts.

The highest court in “R vs CPS, ex parte Pepper (1997)”, decided that the CPS was required to consider CPS does not need to follow the complainant’ point of view, however, in some cases CPS tries to continue a case if the witness withdraws his cooperation.

Consideration of the “Public Interest”

Under “Paragraph 4.12”, “Code for Crown Prosecutors (2023)” provides extensive direction as to how criteria should be evaluated by prosecutors in cases when they consider whether a case promotes the public interest or not. According to the guidelines, in the following manners normally one can support a prosecution[6]. Criminal activities that are so harmful, that take advantage of a person’s confidence or are committed intentionally more than once. In the meantime by way of significance other conditions that are favourable with regard to restraint of prosecution include the fact that the offender has been a first time offender, the offence involved is of minor seriousness and the offender has shown genuine remorse and effective restitution.

All relevant considerations that usually prompt the prosection against taking a case are, as is evident herein, before the prosecutors. At 23 years of age Mr Smith has never been convicted of a “criminal offense”. The theft cost little (£75), resulted in no lasting consequences, and the damage has now been mended by restitution. Further, Mr Lacey, the complainant has come out to publicly oppose prosecution and has promised a resolution to his matter with Mr Smith.

Lecture through this case before a court for prosecution will not procure any significant public benefit. Rather, it would will undue risk to Mr Smith’s future and defeat the primary purpose of rehabilitation in criminal justice[7]. According to the principle enunciated in “R v Bishop [1999] Crim IR 558” prosecution is not merited if rehabilitation is apparent and the crime is trivial. Such kind of reasoning represents the Act’s aim to avoid explained after-effects on the lives of those who have resolved earlier petty misdemeanors and with it, evidence rehabilitation.

Lecture through this case before a court for prosecution will not procure any significant public benefit. Rather, it would will undue risk to Mr Smith’s future and defeat the primary purpose of rehabilitation in criminal justice. According to the principle enunciated in “R v Bishop [1999] Crim IR 558” prosecution is not merited if rehabilitation is apparent and the crime is trivial. Such kind of reasoning represents the Act’s aim to avoid explained after-effects on the lives of those who have resolved earlier petty misdemeanors and with it, evidence rehabilitation.

Finally, there is no justifiable public interest that should undermine the further prosecution of the current case.

Smith has had his “personal struggles, and struggles with mental health”

Mr. Smith was undergoing a serious personal and financial crisis at the time of the offence took place. Graduated the year before this, he had been unsuccessful at finding a job despite constant attempts at job satisfaction[8]. The mix of “uncertainty and social disconnectedness” had a strong impact on his mind and turned out as a diagnosis of depression as well as anxiety. The struggles with his “mental health” reduced him to the point that he would not think properly and steal £75 from the communal expenses jar on June 1.

Mr Smith’s extremist desperation, rather than “self-interest, dishonest purpose or repeat blunders motivated” him. He admitted to the crime during his interview with the police, apologised profusely and returned the money instantly[9]. His later behavior has reflected improvement implying a recovery and the development of a personality.

The “Guidelines on Sentencing,” published by the “Sentencing Council’s”. In the case of “DPP v H [1997] 1 WLR 1406” it was decided that in a situation where mental health influences “cognitive or psychological performance”.

The “CPS Legal Guidance on Prosecuting offensers” with “mental health conditions” or disorders suggests that jurors should not charge a person when mental health is the probable. His case is very similar to cases considered under these guidelines.

VII. Rehabilitation and the Proportionality

Mr. Smith has secured a job as a “Graduate Architect” and is working to correct the world. A reference certifying Mr Smith’s “reliability, dedication and personal development” was published by Mr Andrew Batterham from Cromford Architects[10]. Conversely, thus, a conviction would immediately result in the cancellation of his contract under set company regulations.

Besides, Mr Smith has volunteered at a homeless shelter for two consecutive years. Stuabbs, the “Volunteer Coordinator”, said that convictions would be met with his sacking in accordance with the safeguarding regime in the charity.

Such consequences are not just a penalty; they can permanently ruin a person’s career in the future. “R (Brockhill) v DPP [2001] UKHL 28” showed that the “House of Lords” insisted that the use of “criminal law” should be proportionate. In minor thefts dealt with by way of “restitution and victim-support”, such an extended damage is disproportionate to the crime.

VIII. Principles of “Restorative type of Justice”

The case presents the tenets of “restorative justice”, in that it seeks instead to promote healing and reconciliation, rather than punishment. In Mr Smith’s case alone, he has gone beyond taking accountability and he has tried to repair things. The victim has agreed and she has decided to move on. The Court of Appeal in “R v Collins [2016] EWCA Crim 140” established that, informal settlements were recognized; especially those with the complainant support.

The “alternative type of prosecution”

Should a decision not to discontinue proceedings be dissented from, I make the respectful recommendation to institute a conditional caution under the “Adult Conditional Cautioning Guidelines (2021)”[11]. Other approaches such as being well behaved, performing community service, or undergoing “mental health aid” may be more appropriate, and fitting.

“Section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985” providesowing to this that the CPS can under any circumstances before trial bring criminal proceedings to a halt where it can become evident that it is not in the public interest to pursue the case any longer.

Comparison with “Other Judgments and Practices”

In similar circumstances, CPS has determined that application of “section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985”, allowing discontinuance in instances where the prosecution is no longer in public interest, is consequences wise[12]. In the unreported case “R v P (2021)” a university student in financial need, stole a small amount of money from a flat mate, returned it and began “mental health counselling”. CPS officials elected to take the matter no further on account of the minor nature of the offence, lack of previous convictions on the part of the defendant, and definite indications of rehabilitation.

This result accords well with the principles spelled out in “Attorney General’s Reference ( No. 99 of 2015)”, where the court emphasized on the fact that The court explained that appeal to punishment in such cases could endanger chances of recovery as well as social reentry.

These cases demonstrate the idea that not always prosecution is the best way. Even though Mr Smith’s behavior was legally classified as criminal, it was aroused by a minor crisis. The fact that he has compensated and that he has expressed real regrets and has shown evident remorse and rehabilitation coincide with what was achieved in established precedents, so discontinuance is perfectly suitable in his case.

The effect of “criminal records on young people’s lives”

The fact is supported by studies from the “Lammy Review (2017)” and the “2021 Ministry of Justice Guidelines” where young people experience serious consequences of “criminal records” in such matters as work, education and housing[13]. If the prosecution continues Mr. Smith, a 23 year old graduate with no criminal record faces losing all possible opportunities by which he can gain a career.

Conviction for a “minor crime” may become the deterrent to the reintegration of people that have altered their behaviour. Conviction for a minor crime may become the deterrent to the reintegration of people that have altered their behaviour. As stated by Lord Bingham in “R v Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857” the “criminal justice system” is not obliged to punish an individual too much if that individual has changed and remains no longer an imminent threat.

XII. Key Submission and the Conclusion

Summarising, the Mr Smith performed a fairly unimportant, worthless “criminal action” during an “emotionally and financially” demanding period of life. Smith’s action was not “pre-planned”: in fact, it was a product of acute desperation into which were compounded a set of known “mental health problems”[14]. After the incident, Smith has shown real remorse, has repaid the money stolen and has rebuilt a positive relationship with complainant who has backed up his abandonment of case. Mr Smith has been a long way in his rehabilitation, secured long term employment and continues to contribute beneficially to society. If convicted, he would suffer outsize implications in terms of career and further development of his individual self now.

Under the circumstances described above, I respectfully ask the “Crown Prosecution Service” to reexamine the investigations and determine whether a prosecution is really necessary[15]. I thus suggest that a discontinuance or a conditional caution be considered, which are more just, in line, with justice principles than a trial.

If in case you need some other “documents, witness affidavits or additional information” to substantiate your evaluation, I will be willing to serve your request immediately. I would like to thank you once more for your thoughtful consideration and reviewing these representations using the “crown prosecution service” fairness and discretion that crowned prosecution service is known for.

Yours Faithfully,

Defense Solicitor for “Mr. Sam Smith”

Q.2. Discussion on the “oral plea mitigation”

Slide 1: Title

Slide 2: Introduction

• Sam Smith has “pleaded guilty” to a single charge of theft in accordance with “section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968”.
• Smith has acknowledged that he took £75 from a “communal jar” which was his and Mr. Dexter Lacey’s.
• Smith fully blames himself for everything that he has done and apologizes very dearly for what he has done.

Speakers Notes

“Your honor”, I am delighted to present “plea in mitigation” for Mr. Sam Smith. He has shown utter acceptance of guilt and accepted the blame. Smith admits the outcome of what he did and sincerely regrets what he had done[16]. The subject of this plea will be Smith’s “background, mental health potential, and actions” in response to wrongdoing.

Slide 3: Early Guilties from the Plea

• Smith’s “guilty plea” was accepted from the beginning under the “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Guideline (2017)” suggested by Sentencing Council.
• According to the timing of the plea, Sentencing Council’s guidelines entail a reduction in the sentence of up to one-third.
• Mr Smith has been crystal clear, and has not tried to oppose the charges or impede the “legal procedure”.

Speakers Notes

Smith’s decision to “plead guilty” so early states emphatically his regret and willingness to cooperate on the part of Mr. Smith. Instead of accepting involuntary trial, Smith’s cooperation has saved “judicial resources” and reduced the “complainant’s burden”[17]. In “R v Caley & Others [2012] EWCA Crim 2821” the Court of Appeal held that prompt guilty pleas could result in large reductions in sentences and contribute both to the promotion of admissions as well as the reduction of additional trauma to the victim.

Slide 4: Identification of the “mental health” during the offence time

• Smith had clinically diagnosed “depression and anxiety” at the time, which caused a decline in his judgment.
• After graduating, Smith had taken a year off, and what little money he had was running out.
• That morality may be personal mitigation while “mental health” was a factor in the commission of the offence, “Section 166 of the Sentencing Act 2020”

Speakers Notes

 “Your Honor”, the “mental health” difficulties of Mr. Smith played a decisive role in his judgment when he committed this offense[18]. Although this is not a sound legal argument it does not make him responsible for the offence. According to the “Sentencing Guidelines” as espoused above, when such conditions are contributory to the offending behavior then they should be taken on board at the time of sentencing. 

Slide 5: Personal Background

• Smith was “23 years old” and Smith don’t have any past convictions records or the “police involvement” records.
• Smith graduated and began living with the complainant after his graduation.
• The past two years Smith has been volunteering regularly at a shelter for the homeless and was always responsible.

Speakers Notes

Smith is not a “consistent threat” to society and such offence should be regarded as just one of the mishaps without a trace of footing for further offense[19]. Under the “Sentencing Code” first-time offenders are typically seen as suitable for non-custodial sentences because, where possible, rehabilitation rather than criminalization should be the order of the day.

Slide 6: Reconciliation and Restitution

• In his first pay cheese after the incident Mr. Smith returned whole £75 to Mr. Lacey.
• Smith always ensured that the “communal jar” remained full after the incident happened.
• Lacey has refused to “prosecute, positive” on the public interest impact of the “Crown Prosecutors’ Code” in minor offences where parties can resolve conflicts.

Speakers Notes

Restitution is the basic requirement for justice. Mr. Smith paid Lacey the full amount and tried to redeem trust from him. Mr. Lacey’s endorsement of resolution seems an individual resolution to the incident[20]. Such considerations should largely justify withholding a “custodial or punitive outcome”. “The victim’s forgiveness and restitution was significant mitigating for the ‘R v Inwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2419’ court”.

Slide 7: Employment Consequences

• “Cromford Architects” only has “conditional employment” with Mr Smith and it would not be in his best interest to be convicted in his employment at “Cromford Architects”.
• Full requirement of the “Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 143(1)”, is for courts to determine the sentencing’s possibility of achieving rehabilitation of the offender into the society.
• Long-term consequences are possible in case of a conviction for his career in architecture.

Speakers Notes

A “conviction’s repercussions” would seriously change his personal and professional life. Mr Smith can model a successful career[21]. A conviction in that crime done out of fear would be unfair to him and cap his professional growth. The court should take this potential effect into account when making a decision as to punishment.

Slide 8: Key Character and the Volunteer work

• Smith is always a volunteer at a local shelter, but the conviction may exclude him through “DBS requirements”.
• Smith’s supervisor gives high praise on him as reliable, respectful, and compassionate person.
• “Shelter policy” would eliminate Smith from further volunteer work if he were convicted.

Speakers Notes

Smith’s role is appreciated in the absence of a conviction, but it can undermine his viability to remain a volunteer. The purpose of sentencing is to promote reform and not restrict that which people such as Mr. Smith’s positive impact on society. The “Police Act 1997” allows for expanded “DBS pre-conviction screening”, which is capable of severely impeding access to community service posts for many years hence.

Slide 9: Proposal for the Sentencing

• It is suggested of being kindly, a conditional discharge as allowed by “section 12 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000”.
• Smith is not a threat to the future and has shown “positive signals of rehabilitation”.
• Smith’s future prospects can be protected within a just outcome without a “custodial punishment”.

Speakers Notes

It makes Mr. Smith be held accountable without destroying the prospects of his future improvement. A conditional release will enable Mr. Smith to concentrate on community and development whilst still delivering justice and eliminating further barriers.

Slide 10: Conclusion

• The situation that caused Mr. Smith’s action was unique, Smith responded to temporary difficulties and his mental health.
• Smith demonstrated remorse, he returned all money that he took, and he did those activities that boost his personality.
• This result honors the concept of proportionate justice and motivates him to construct a productive future.

Speakers Notes

“Your Honor”, our position is that Mr. Smith did not represent the public threat, but a bad choice in crisis. Smith has subsequently apologized and he mends things in an adult way. A conditional discharge would allow him to be fully integrated into the social sphere and to live free from the consequences which a conviction for this type of crime would cause him for life.

Slide 11: Reference List

Journals

Tonic, A. and Valdés Kroff, J.R. (2021) ‘Expecting the unexpected: Code-switching as a facilitatory cue in online sentence processing’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), pp. 81–92. doi:10.1017/s1366728921000237.

Shanmugavadivel, K., Subramanian, M. and E., S.V. (2023) ‘Sentiment analysis based offensive language identification system for code-mixed data’, Applied and Computational Engineering, 5(1), pp. 205–210. doi:10.54254/2755-2721/5/20230563.

Levin, B. (2022) ‘Criminal law exceptionalism’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4098101.

Website

(12.05.2025) Sentence reductions for guilty pleas. Available at: https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sentence-Reductions-for-Guilty-Pleas.pdf (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

Caley & Others (guilty pleas) v the queen (no date) vLex. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/caley-others-guilty-pleas-793458325 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

Participation, E. (no date) Sentencing act 2020, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/166 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

Slide 12: Thank You

Reference List

Journals

• ‘The CCPA’ (2019) The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), pp. 123–169. doi:10.2307/j.ctvjghvnn.15.
• Choo, J.C. et al. (2024) Evidence: Law and context [Preprint]. doi:10.4324/9781003416098.
• Colman, S. (2023) ‘Crown Prosecution Service decision-making and gangs’, The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Gangs in the UK, pp. 435–455. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99658-1_19.
• Devine, L. et al. (2022) ‘Psy expert evidence in the family courts the potential for corpus-assisted analysis’, Language and Law=Linguagem e Direito, 9(1), pp. 92–119. doi:10.21747/21833745/lanlaw/9_1a5.
• Packard, C.C. (2023) Prosecution for services: How the blending of coercion and care shapes prosecutors’ decisions [Preprint]. doi:10.31235/osf.io/463bk.
• Soubise, L. (2023) ‘Professional identity, legitimacy and managerialism at the Crown Prosecution Service’, Legal Studies, 43(3), pp. 425–442. doi:10.1017/lst.2022.47.
• Soubise, L., 2023. Professional identity, legitimacy and managerialism at the Crown Prosecution Service. Legal Studies, 43(3), pp.425-442.
• Website
• Review, L. (2017) Lammy Review: Final report, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
•  “R vs CPS, ex parte Pepper (1997)”
• (12.05.2025) House of Lords - Regina v. director of public prosecutions ex parte kebeline and others (on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division). Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991028/kabel-1.htm (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• Paragraph 4.12, Code for Crown Prosecutors (2023)
• The code for Crown prosecutors (no date) The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
•  “DPP v H [1997] 1 WLR 1406”
• Mental capacity defences (1970) Law Explorer. Available at: https://lawexplores.com/mental-capacity-defences/#:~:text=In%20DPP%20v%20H%20(1997,the%20Road%20Traffic%20Act%201988. (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
•  “R (Brockhill) v DPP [2001] UKHL 28”
• Colman, S. (2023) ‘Crown Prosecution Service decision-making and gangs’, The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Gangs in the UK, pp. 435–455. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99658-1_19.
•  “Section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985”
• Participation, E. (1985) Prosecution of offences act 1985, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/section/23 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
•  “Lammy Review (2017)” and the “2021 Ministry of Justice Guidelines”
• (12.05.2025) The Lammy Review. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82009040f0b62305b91f49/lammy-review-final-report.pdf (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
•  “Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968”
• Packard, C.C. (2023) Prosecution for services: How the blending of coercion and care shapes prosecutors’ decisions [Preprint]. doi:10.31235/osf.io/463bk.
• [1] ‘The CCPA’ (2019) The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), pp. 123–169. doi:10.2307/j.ctvjghvnn.15.
• [2] Choo, J.C. et al. (2024) Evidence: Law and context [Preprint]. doi:10.4324/9781003416098.
• [3] Colman, S. (2023) ‘Crown Prosecution Service decision-making and gangs’, The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Gangs in the UK, pp. 435–455. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99658-1_19.
• [4] Devine, L. et al. (2022) ‘Psy expert evidence in the family courts the potential for corpus-assisted analysis’, Language and Law=Linguagem e Direito, 9(1), pp. 92–119. doi:10.21747/21833745/lanlaw/9_1a5.
• [5] Packard, C.C. (2023) Prosecution for services: How the blending of coercion and care shapes prosecutors’ decisions [Preprint]. doi:10.31235/osf.io/463bk.
• [6] Soubise, L. (2023) ‘Professional identity, legitimacy and managerialism at the Crown Prosecution Service’, Legal Studies, 43(3), pp. 425–442. doi:10.1017/lst.2022.47.
• [7] Soubise, L., 2023. Professional identity, legitimacy and managerialism at the Crown Prosecution Service. Legal Studies, 43(3), pp.425-442.
• [8] Review, L. (2017) Lammy Review: Final report, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lammy-review-final-report (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [9] (12.05.2025) House of Lords - Regina v. director of public prosecutions ex parte kebeline and others (on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division). Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991028/kabel-1.htm (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [10] The code for Crown prosecutors (no date) The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service. Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [11] Mental capacity defences (1970) Law Explorer. Available at: https://lawexplores.com/mental-capacity-defences/#:~:text=In%20DPP%20v%20H%20(1997,the%20Road%20Traffic%20Act%201988. (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [12] Colman, S. (2023) ‘Crown Prosecution Service decision-making and gangs’, The Palgrave Handbook of Youth Gangs in the UK, pp. 435–455. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99658-1_19.
• [13] Participation, E. (1985) Prosecution of offences act 1985, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/23/section/23 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [14] (12.05.2025) The Lammy Review. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82009040f0b62305b91f49/lammy-review-final-report.pdf (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [15] Packard, C.C. (2023) Prosecution for services: How the blending of coercion and care shapes prosecutors’ decisions [Preprint]. doi:10.31235/osf.io/463bk.
• [16] Tomić, A. and Valdés Kroff, J.R. (2021) ‘Expecting the unexpected: Code-switching as a facilitatory cue in online sentence processing’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), pp. 81–92. doi:10.1017/s1366728921000237.
• [17] Shanmugavadivel, K., Subramanian, M. and E., S.V. (2023) ‘Sentiment analysis based offensive language identification system for code-mixed data’, Applied and Computational Engineering, 5(1), pp. 205–210. doi:10.54254/2755-2721/5/20230563.
• [18] Levin, B. (2022) ‘Criminal law exceptionalism’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4098101.
• [19] (12.05.2025) Sentence reductions for guilty pleas. Available at: https://www.sentencingacademy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sentence-Reductions-for-Guilty-Pleas.pdf (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [20] Caley & Others (guilty pleas) v the queen (no date) vLex. Available at: https://vlex.co.uk/vid/caley-others-guilty-pleas-793458325 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).
• [21] Participation, E. (no date) Sentencing act 2020, Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/166 (Accessed: 12 May 2025).