HAPPENING NOW: Our judicial review against the CPS due to their failure to prosecute rape is being heard in the court of appeal. We will be live tweeting here

Phillipa Kaufmann, QC: this is a case about rape and the prosecution of rape. It is a crime historically under prosecuted, few convictions

Difficult to get a conviction - very often a situation of one person's word against another. but then to make it worse, it is an area where myths and stereotypes abound about women, 'who've been drinking, short skirts' and so forth...

...This case arises out of the tremendous work the CPS has done up until the 2017/18 period where the changes took place. alongside that work, there were substantial results in improving the volumes of cases, the rate of cases that were prosecuted, and a very respectable...

level of convictions. This had a feedback effect because as women see the cps is taking these offences seriously...their confidence to come forward necessarily grows.

Throughout that time, the merits based appraohc was the term the cps used from induction to refresher training, in its guidance and publications

Everybody was trained and guided to think of the full code test by thinking and applying the merits based approach. They were trained to take an objective approach on the merits of the case the evidence and put aside myths and stereotypes and recognise even when there was...

...no corroboration it was possible to prosecute. It was drummed into prosecutors, to apply the merits based approach to ensure the evidential test in the code was met and not the bookmakers approach.

From 2017 the DPP decided to do away all together with the merits based approach. He did so in 2 ways - 1. train prosecutors way from applying it. 2. remove all references to the merits based approach in training, guidance both privately and then publicly available.

Context in which 60% target for rape convictions implemented - risk that prosecutors end up not prosecuting cases that do meet the full code test and is a grave risk that could undo the work of the last few years.

Our case is that the actions that the DPP took in issuing the instructions in the roadshows, and removing the references to the MBA in the primary guidance was unlawful in multiple ways. We are not asking this court to step across a constitutional boundary...we're asking the...

...court to exercise its constitutional function to hold the DPP accountable to the rule of law.

Our first ground of challenge - in light of the DPP's knowledge of the risk that arose, there was a wholly inadequate evidential base for the DPP to act as he did.

He acted as he did in the way that the DPP was misapplying the MBA in a particular way. That evidence she relied upon did not either rationally support that conclusion or it was wholly irrational to take the steps that were taken without further enquiry