Categories
Law Legal Analysis

Victims’ Right to Review – Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) Scheme, established by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales, is a pivotal mechanism designed to ensure transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.

Launched in June 2013 it gives effect to the principles set out in the case of Killick (R v Christopher Killick EXCA 1608 [2011]).

The scheme allows victims of crime to request a review of certain CPS decisions not to prosecute or to discontinue a case.

This article explores the purpose, scope, eligibility, process, and significance of the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme, as outlined on the CPS website.

Purpose of the VRR Scheme

The Victims’ Right to Review (VRR) Scheme was introduced to enhance public confidence in the CPS by providing victims with a clear and accessible way to challenge decisions they believe are incorrect. It reflects the CPS’s commitment to fairness, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard and that decisions not to proceed with a case are thoroughly scrutinized. The scheme aligns with the broader principles of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime emphasising victims’ rights to fair treatment and justice.

Scope of the Scheme

The VRR Scheme applies to specific CPS decisions, including:

  1. Decisions not to bring charges after a police investigation.
  2. Decisions to discontinue or withdraw criminal proceedings in court.
  3. Decisions where no evidence is offered, leading to the case being dropped.

However, the scheme does not cover:

  • Cases where the CPS advises the police against charging due to insufficient evidence early in the investigation.
  • Decisions to accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge or fewer offenses.
  • Cases involving only minor offenses, such as summary-only offenses (unless they involve domestic abuse or hate crimes).
  • Cases where the victim has died or cannot be identified.

Who Can Request a Review?

The VRR Scheme is primarily designed for victims, as defined under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. Eligible victims include:

  • Individuals directly affected by the crime.
  • Close relatives of a deceased victim.
  • Parents or guardians of victims under 18.
  • Businesses or charities, in certain circumstances, if they are victims of the crime.

In some cases, a representative, such as a family member or advocate, may request a review on behalf of the victim, provided they have the victim’s consent or act in their best interests.

The Review Process

The VRR process is structured to be straightforward and transparent, with two main stages:

  1. Local Resolution: The first step involves a review by a prosecutor independent of the original decision-maker, typically from the same CPS area. This stage aims to resolve concerns quickly, often within 20 working days. The reviewing prosecutor examines whether the original decision was correct based on the evidence and the CPS’s legal tests, which include:
    • The evidential test: Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?
    • The public interest test: Is prosecution in the public interest?
  2. Independent Review: If the victim remains dissatisfied with the local resolution outcome, they can request an independent review by the CPS Appeals and Review Unit or another senior prosecutor from a different CPS area. This stage ensures an impartial reassessment of the case.

Victims are informed of the outcome in writing, with clear explanations of the decision. If the review finds the original decision was wrong, the CPS may resume proceedings, provided it is legally possible (e.g., within time limits for certain offenses or before a trial concludes).

How to Request a Review

Victims can request a review by contacting the CPS directly, typically within three months of the original decision. The CPS provides multiple channels for submitting a request, including:

  • Online: Via the CPS website or email.
  • In Writing: By sending a letter to the relevant CPS office.
  • Through the Police: Victims can ask the police to liaise with the CPS on their behalf.

The CPS encourages victims to provide specific reasons for their request, such as perceived errors in the decision-making process, to help focus the review.

Significance of the VRR Scheme

The VRR Scheme plays a critical role in promoting accountability within the CPS. By allowing victims to challenge decisions, it ensures that prosecutorial errors or oversights can be corrected, potentially leading to justice being served. The scheme also empowers victims, giving them a voice in a system where they may otherwise feel marginalized. Since its inception, thousands of victims have used the VRR Scheme, with a small but significant number of cases resulting in overturned decisions and resumed prosecutions.

Moreover, the scheme contributes to continuous improvement within the CPS. Reviews often highlight areas for training or policy refinement, ensuring that future decisions are more robust and victim-centered.

Challenges and Considerations

While the VRR Scheme is a vital tool, it has limitations. Not all decisions can be reviewed, and the scheme cannot guarantee that a case will proceed to prosecution. Victims may also find the process emotionally challenging, particularly if the outcome remains unchanged. The CPS acknowledges these challenges and strives to communicate outcomes sensitively, offering support resources where appropriate.

Conclusion

The Victims’ Right to Review Scheme is a cornerstone of the CPS’s commitment to victim-centered justice. By providing a clear, accessible, and transparent process for challenging prosecutorial decisions, the scheme ensures that victims have a meaningful opportunity to seek accountability. While it is not a guarantee of prosecution, it reinforces trust in the criminal justice system and underscores the importance of victims’ rights. For those seeking to learn more or initiate a review, the CPS website article Victims’ Right to Review Scheme offers comprehensive guidance and resources to navigate the process.

By empowering victims and fostering accountability, the VRR Scheme continues to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in England and Wales.

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.


The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.


Latest Articles


Most Popular


You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent