A brief review of British prosecutorial history reveals that criminal prosecution is primarily private rather than public, and therefore a police function. Although some critics of the present system claim that the police cannot remain unbiased and so serve justice in cases they both investigate and prosecute, the example of the U.S. shows that public prosecutors often become too concerned with obtaining convictions and furthering their careers. Moreover, other critics claim that the police lack the legal expertise to ensure that evidenc is explored, demonstrated by the great number of cases that collapse in court. However, since the police already employ solicitors to examine cases, it is unlikely that public prosecutors could do significantly better. Next, although some critics of police of police prosecution claim the police do not exercise proper prosecutorial discretion in bringing cases to court that should be handled differently for humanitarian reasons, evidence contradicts this criticism. Moreover, police officers are closer to the public than prosecutors ever could be, and therefore better able to judge the public interest. Next, while some critics justly claim that lack of uniformity among police areas leads to widely different prosecution policies, it is possible for the police themselves to alleviate this. Moreover, establishing a public prosecution in Britain would seriously conflict with the private right to initiate prosecution. Cases are briefly discussed to show how well private prosecutors have served the nation. An additional discussion of police use of prosecuting solicitors argues the pros and cons of transforming them into public prosecutors and suggests that police make more use of them. A final section recommends police prosecution improvements, such as making prosecution more consistent across police areas. A total of 42 footnotes is provided.