Evidence discussion paper · Simon Peers · Rev1 · 3 November 2026
Public guidance helps people understand decisions that can change their lives. Its accuracy matters to witnesses, victims, people accused of offences, people who plead guilty and people who are acquitted.
This discussion paper examines selected COPFS guidance against its own detailed publications, legislation and other official sources. It records 11 findings, distinguishing confirmed discrepancies from missing qualifications and questions requiring an explanation.
Read the evidence
Read or download the discussion paper — PDF
Download the editable Word version
What the paper examines
The review covers legal references in the privacy notice, explanations of data rights, appeal guidance following guilty pleas, appeal jurisdiction, alternatives to prosecution, community sentences and release arrangements. Each finding is accompanied by an assessment and source references.
One finding concerns a reference to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in the explanation of COPFS statutory powers. The paper compares that reference with the Act’s territorial extent and the corresponding CPS notice. It identifies a jurisdictional mismatch in the published explanation; it does not conclude that COPFS lacks other lawful powers or that its processing is unlawful.
From a correction to a better process
The engineering question extends beyond whether a sentence has been edited. Who owns the guidance? Who checks its legal authority? When one error is found, are related pages and downloadable documents checked? Who verifies that the correction is accurate and effective?
Rewiring in practice means tracing a claim to its authority, correcting the defect, identifying why verification failed and independently checking that the remedy works.
Scope and publication status
This is an independent discussion paper, not an official finding or a comprehensive legal audit. Sources were inspected on 3 November 2026 and may subsequently change. The paper records limitations, including the absence from this evidence set of a preserved copy of the earlier acquittal wording.
The numerical review of complaints and case-processing data is a separate strand of work. This paper concentrates on published guidance. It makes no adverse inference about the motives of an individual member of staff.
Corrections and contributions
Readers are welcome to identify a correction, provide an authoritative source or offer a substantive response to a numbered finding. Please use Send a Message and read the Privacy and Submissions Notice before supplying personal information.
