The findings indicate that prosecutors manipulated evidence in domestic violence cases to ensure that they remained in the magistrates' court rather than be sent to the Crown Court, which has greater sentencing latitude than magistrates' courts. This was done without consultation with the domestic-violence victim. Although all criminal proceedings are begun in the magistrates' courts in Great Britain, indictable-only offenses are sent to the Crown Court. In assault cases, official guidelines specify that magistrates should consider declining jurisdiction if the sentencing powers of the magistrates' court are deemed insufficient and the defendant used a weapon that was likely to result in serious injury or used a weapon that caused serious injury. Other guidelines for assault cases pertain to the method of the assault, victim characteristics, and the presence of a racial motivation for the assault. The findings of this study indicate that victim input in providing evidence relevant to these guidelines is being manipulated or ignored by prosecutors apparently based on prosecutors' tendency to minimize the seriousness of domestic violence cases while reducing the number of cases sent to Crown Court in the interest of efficiency. This study began in March 2001 and involved a jurisdiction that included an urban city and a small town. The actions of 12 prosecutors in the city court and 9 prosecutors in the county magistrates' court were monitored. Seventy hearings on court venue decisions were observed in the city court, and 30 were observed in the county court. Data were also obtained from the prosecutors' files. Decisions for domestic violence cases (n=17) were compared with those made for offenses against the person (n=37) and public order offenses (n=17). 4 tables and 43 references