Prosecution Performance Indicators
Prosecution Performance Indicators
In 2014–15 the CDPP met all prosecution performance indicators.
|Prosecutions resulting in a conviction*||90%||98%||2,156 (2,209)|
|Defendants in defended summary hearings resulting in conviction||60%||77%||70 (91)|
|Defendants in defended committals resulting in a committal order||80%||99%||301 (304)|
|Defendants tried on indictment and convicted||60%||70%||76 (108)|
|Prosecution sentence appeals in summary prosecutions upheld||60%||67%||2 (3)|
|Prosecution sentence appeals in a prosecution on indictment upheld**||60%||68%||13 (19)|
|Prosecutions resulting in a conviction*||90%||98%||98%|
|Defendants in defended summary hearings resulting in conviction||60%||68%||77%|
|Defendants in defended committals resulting in a committal order||80%||98%||99%|
|Defendants tried on indictment and convicted||60%||74%||70%|
|Prosecution sentence appeals in summary prosecutions upheld||60%||100%||67%|
|Prosecution sentence appeals in a prosecution on indictment upheld||60%||65%||68%|
* The conviction rate is calculated by taking the number of defendants convicted as a percentage of defendants convicted or acquitted. The calculation does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution in its entirety or where a prosecution has commenced and the defendant failed to appear before a court.
** A prosecution sentence appeal is recorded as not having been upheld if the court finds that the sentence imposed at first instance was too lenient but in the exercise of its discretion declines to allow the appeal. In 2014–15 there were three such cases.
*** The number of cases on which the percentages were calculated is published in our 2013–14 Annual Report.
Prosecution appeals against sentence
The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides that the prosecution right to appeal against sentence should be exercised with appropriate restraint. In deciding whether to appeal, we consider whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be successful. Factors we may consider when deciding to appeal include whether:
- the sentence is manifestly inadequate
- the sentence reveals an inconsistency in sentencing standards
- the sentence proceeded on the basis of a material error of law or fact requiring appellate correction
- the sentence is substantially and unnecessarily inconsistent with other relevant sentences
- an appeal to a Court of Appeal would enable the court to lay down some general principles for the governance and guidance of sentencers
- an appeal will enable the court to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment for crime
- an appeal will ensure, so far as the subject matter permits, uniformity in sentencing
- an appeal will enable an appellate court to correct an error of legal principle.
In 2014–15 a total of 19 prosecution appeals against sentence in indictable matters were decided. Of those, 13 were upheld while six were dismissed. In one of the dismissed appeals, the appeal court found that the non-parole period imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate, however the court elected to exercise its residual discretion not to intervene and dismissed the appeal. In two of the dismissed appeals, the appeal court considered the sentences imposed at first instance, although not manifestly inadequate, were lenient or very lenient. Further information is detailed in the 2014-2015 CDPP Annual Report.