There have been recent criticisms of the prosecution of doctors for gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been under the spotlight. The CPS must make decisions to prosecute based on the evidential test and public interest test. There has been much attention on the evidential stage with a focus on how the CPS approach the threshold of GNM and the use of experts in this regard. The public interest stage by comparison has been subject to little scrutiny and it is time to redress that balance. It is not inevitable that the public interest test will be met in all GNM cases; the public interest test must be satisfied to support the decision to prosecute. It will be appropriate to consider the use of offence-specific prosecutorial guidance for assisted suicide and question whether this lends support to the use of such an approach to guide the exercise of discretion in GNM cases or points to a need for caution. If a specific policy was viewed desirable, the feasibility of the undertaking must be evaluated. There is a need to critically consider the circumstances that may lead to a conclusion that it is not in the public interest to prosecute and whether a policy could be constructed to facilitate this task.

中文翻译：

---

严重过失杀人：起诉医生是否始终符合公共利益，是否需要具体的检察指导？

最近有人批评医生因严重过失杀人（GNM）而被起诉，皇家检察署（CPS）一直受到关注。CPS 必须根据证据测试和公共利益测试做出起诉决定。取证阶段受到了很多关注，重点是 CPS 如何接近 GNM 的门槛以及在这方面使用专家。相比之下，公共利益阶段很少受到审查，现在是纠正这种平衡的时候了。在所有 GNM 案例中，公共利益测试并非不可避免；必须满足公共利益测试才能支持起诉决定。考虑对协助自杀使用针对特定罪行的起诉指导是适当的，并质疑这是否支持使用这种方法来指导 GNM 案件中的自由裁量权的行使，或者是否表明需要谨慎。如果认为某项具体政策是可取的，则必须评估该承诺的可行性。有必要认真考虑可能导致起诉不符合公共利益的结论的情况，以及是否可以制定政策来促进这项任务。