DPP - Director of Public Prosecutions






FRESH BLOOD - Britain’s terrorism watchdog landed the top role in the Crown Prosecution Service in 2018.

Max Hill QC has pledged to ‘restore public trust’ in the CPS after being named the new director of public prosecutions.

He is a high-ranking barrister who successfully prosecuted the failed 21/7 bombers and appeared in the inquest into the 7/7 attacks, as well as acting in fraud, corporate crime and serious violence cases.

In December 2018 The chief prosecutor for England and Wales has warned that the Crown Prosecution Service can take no further cuts if it is to cope with volumes of digital evidence.

Max Hill, QC, who became director of public prosecutions in 2018, said that the service had a conviction rate of about 85 per cent despite suffering staffing cuts of more than 30 per cent over five years. He told the Commons justice committee that it could “absolutely not” take any more, adding that the CPS has had to deal with a huge rise in evidence and complexity as a “result of the communication revolution”.



The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the third most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales (after the Attorney General and Solicitor General). The DPP is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), with personal responsibility for its 7,000 staff and approximately 800,000 prosecutions undertaken by it every year. The holder of the role is appointed by the Attorney General on the recommendation of a panel that includes the First Civil Service Commissioner.

First created in 1879, the office was merged with that of the Treasury Solicitor five years later, before again becoming independent in 1908. The Director's department and role underwent modernisation from 1944 to 1964 under Sir Theobald Mathew QC, and further expansion with the introduction of the CPS in 1985, which came under the control of the Director. The Director is superintended by the Attorney General, who answers for the CPS in Parliament. The current director is Max Hill QC.




A Director of Public Prosecutions was first recommended by the Criminal Law Commission in 1845, who said that "the duty of prosecution is usually irksome, inconvenient and burthensome; the injured party would often rather forgo the prosecution than incur expense of time, labour and money. When, therefore, the party injured is compelled by the magistrate to act as prosecutor, the duty is frequently performed unwillingly and carelessly." The County and Borough Police Act 1856 allowed the Home Office to ask the Treasury Solicitor's Department to take on cases of particular importance, but this left many cases falling through the net. As a result, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879 was passed, which created a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to advise the police and personally act in cases of importance; an elaboration on the 1856 Act.

The first appointee was Sir John Maule QC, who took up his post in 1880. Maule was a quiet, reserved and cautious man, who interpreted his powers in an unnecessarily restrictive way, feeling that he could do little more than send cases to the Treasury Solicitor's office, and that it was not the job of the DPP to prosecute cases. He came under harsh criticism, which reached a head in 1883 when he refused to authorise prosecution of a pair of blackmailers, who were instead prosecuted privately, convicted and given heavy sentences. As a result of the fallout, the Home Secretary William Harcourt set up a committee into "the present action and position of the Director of Public Prosecutions".

The Committee concluded that the DPP's job, in which he took no practical part in prosecutions, would be best unified into the job of the Treasury Solicitor. This was accepted, and the DPP "vanished in all but name".[citation needed] Successors for the rest of the century held both titles, and both jobs, thanks to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1884. The next few appointees were unimportant and uncontroversial, until Sir Charles Willie Matthews QC, a man Rozenberg describes as "the first real DPP". The Prosecution of Offenses Act 1908 repealed the section of the 1884 Act that unified the DPP and Treasury Solicitor, giving Matthews an office of his own on his appointment in the same year.

The organisation remained rooted in its Victorian origins, still operating under the 1886 Prosecutions of Offences Regulations, until the appointment of Sir Theobald Mathew in 1944. The youngest man (and only solicitor) to be appointed DPP at that time, Matthews modernised the office, updating the Prosecutions of Offences Regulations, introducing trunk dialling and using dictaphones to make up for the small number of shorthand typists. He reorganised and modernised the department as a whole, and many of his modifications are still in place; for example, a provision in many new Acts of Parliament dealing with the criminal law that requires the consent of the DPP for a prosecution. At the same time he battled with the Civil Service for an increase in staff numbers, securing the appointment of three new Assistant Solicitors in the late 1950s; a large leap for a staff which had previously numbered five, excluding secretaries. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 created the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 1986, a dedicated, nationwide prosecution service under the control of the DPP, then Sir Thomas Hetherington QC. This involved the recruitment of 3,000 new staff, which despite difficulties the DPP succeeded in doing. The CPS now handles the vast majority of prosecutions.

In 2011, the DPP was given veto power over arrest warrants following a 2009 warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court.









Sir John Maule QC (1880–1884)
Sir Augustus Stephenson QC (1884–1894; also Treasury Solicitor)
Lord Desart QC (1894–1908; also Treasury Solicitor)
Sir Charles Willie Matthews QC (1908–1920)
Sir Archibald Bodkin QC (1920–1930)
Sir Edward Tindal Atkinson QC (1930–1944)
Sir Theobald Mathew KBE MC (1944–1964)
Sir Norman Skelhorn QC (1964–1977)
Sir Thomas Hetherington QC (1977–1987; first head of CPS)
Sir Allan Green QC (1987–1992)
Dame Barbara Mills DBE QC (1992–1998)
Sir David Calvert-Smith QC (1998–2003)
Sir Ken Macdonald QC (2003–2008)
Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC (2008–2013)
Alison Saunders CB (2013–2018)
Max Hill QC (2018–present)



Giles York chief constable of Sussex


I SEE NO CRIME - It is a criminal offence not to investigate a crime, of which, presumably, Giles York must offer master classes, as to how to turn a blind eye. An investigation must comprise a full investigation, not just an attempt to make it look as though an investigation has taken place such as to pervert the course of justice. Every victim of a crime is entitled to an effective remedy under the European Charter; Article 41.


In Queensland, Australia, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) represents the State in criminal cases. The community’s interest is that the guilty be brought to justice and the innocent not be wrongly convicted. The main function of the ODPP is to prosecute criminal matters in the Magistrates (limited), District, Supreme and Mental Health Courts, the Court of Appeal and the High Court.



Giles York is the chief constable of Sussex Police ....... taking over from a long chain of chief constables, including Paul Whitehouse, who was finally forced to resign after the Home Secretary insisted that he should go following the shooting of Jimmy Ashley by PC Chris Sherwood.


It is possible that Sussex Police is just a bunch of incompetent bunglers, taking our tax dollars and squirting them up the wall as they masquerade in police uniforms and enjoy driving striped cars with sirens and blue flashing lights. Then there is the allure of dark blue uniforms and handcuffs, or even the chance to shoot and kill somebody with complete immunity from conviction. The fact is that their Codes of Conduct and Investigative Procedure Rules are flaunted to craft an investigation to achieve whatever result is on their secret agenda.


The way this works is by manipulating the level of investigation a police officer can almost guarantee a guilty, or a not guilty verdict. You do not need to plant evidence as many believe, simply look that other way when you find something that proves the target is innocent.


Many people will think that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) call the shots, but in fact the real power is downstream, when conducting investigations, though orders to pull punches may come from upstream, it is the sappers on the ground who do all the basic dirty work, where other dirty tricks come from the chiefs and CPS civil servants. The integrity of police investigating officers is therefore of paramount importance, but their jobs and career prospects hinge on pleasing the bosses.


Any investigating officer can bury inconvenient evidence, turn a blind eye to other inconvenient evidence, ask a state witness to lose contradictory evidence or simply fabricate evidence as in the cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, not forgetting the James Ashley murder. That is why there is a Code of Conduct, that unfortunately, and despite several re-issues and re-vamps, is largely ignored by corrupt forces.


Then there is the somewhat inconvenient matter of bias......







Adrian Wain

Aran Boyt

Chris Sherwood

Colin Dowle

Dave Tye

Jane Rhodes

Jo Pinyoun

Joe Edwards

Giles York

Gordon Staker

James Hookway

Jeremy Paine

Kara Tombling

Keith Lindsay

Keith Stoneman

Ken Jones

Maria Wallis

Mark Jordan

Martin Richards

Neil Honnor

Nigel Yeo

Olivia Pinkney

Paul Whitehouse

Peter Coll

Robert Lovell

Sarah Jane Gallagher

Sir Ken Macdonald QC

Timothy Motram





























Paul Whitehouse (1993-2001) Ken Jones (2001-2006) Joe Edwards (2006-2007) Martin Richards (2008-2014) Giles York (2014 >>)





This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.