BUDGET PROPOSAL

R v Mó Chara - Appeal Strategy Funding Request
Crown Prosecution Service | Financial Year 2025-26
REFERENCE:
CPS/FIN/2025/MC-APPEAL-001
PROPOSAL DATE:
08 October 2025
FISCAL YEAR:
2025-2026
DEPARTMENT:
Strategic Litigation & Appeals
BUDGET OWNER:
Director of Public Prosecutions
APPROVAL STATUS:
APPROVED (No Questions Asked)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Total Budget Request: £1,847,500

Expected Return on Investment: -£1,847,500 (plus immeasurable reputational damage)

Strategic Objective: Appeal Chief Magistrate's dismissal of terrorism charges against Irish language artist, thereby demonstrating institutional commitment to being demonstrably wrong with confidence.

Success Metrics: Proceeding regardless of outcome. Win or lose, we prove our point (that we're willing to waste money proving our point).

2. DETAILED BUDGET BREAKDOWN

2.1 Legal Costs

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
Senior Counsel Fees Arguing the indefensible requires premium talent 125,000
Junior Counsel Fees Someone needs to take notes while we lose 45,000
Legal Research Finding precedents that don't support us 28,000
Expert Witnesses Experts willing to disagree with Chief Magistrate (hard to find) 75,000
Court Fees & Admin Processing fee for institutional embarrassment 12,500
SUBTOTAL - Legal Costs 285,500

2.2 Communications & Reputation Management

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
Crisis Communications Team 24/7 monitoring of how badly this is going 95,000
Media Training Teaching staff how to defend the indefensible 35,000
Press Release Distribution Ensuring maximum distribution of our humiliation 8,500
Social Media Monitoring Watching ourselves trend for wrong reasons 22,000
International Embarrassment Mitigation Attempting to explain ourselves to world (futile) 250,000
Damage Control Consultants External advisors to tell us what we won't listen to 180,000
SUBTOTAL - Communications 590,500

2.3 Stakeholder Management (Or Lack Thereof)

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
External Stakeholder Consultation £0 - We don't consult people who disagree 0
Irish Government Liaison Ignoring diplomatic correspondence (no cost) 0
Internal Consultation (Ourselves) Extensive meetings where we agree with ourselves 45,000
Dismissing Expert Legal Opinion Free - comes naturally 0
Common Sense Exclusion Protocols Maintaining systems to prevent rational input 0
SUBTOTAL - Stakeholder Management 45,000
Cost Efficiency Note: Significant savings achieved by completely ignoring stakeholders who might provide useful feedback. This innovative approach reduces consultation costs to near zero while maximizing poor decision-making.

2.4 Unintended Consequences

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
Making Kneecap Famous Free publicity transforming defendant into cultural icon 500,000
Note: This represents estimated value of publicity we're providing. Tour revenue increase, album sales, international recognition - all courtesy of CPS prosecution.
Validating Irish Republican Narrative Proving their point about British establishment overreach 150,000
Undermining Future CPS Credibility Long-term institutional damage (amortized) 75,000
Judicial Relations Damage Attacking Chief Magistrate - future relationship costs 85,000
SUBTOTAL - Unintended Consequences 810,000

2.5 Human Resources & Staff Welfare

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
Staff Morale Destruction Counseling services for embarrassed employees 45,000
Retention Bonuses Keeping staff who'd rather work anywhere else 65,000
Recruitment (Replacing Departures) Hiring people willing to be associated with this 55,000
Emergency Ulster Irish Speaker Hiring someone from community we're prosecuting to help us prosecute them 65,000
Note: Irony of hiring Irish speaker to assist in prosecution of Irish speaker not lost on budget committee, but proceeding anyway.
HR Disciplinary Processes Processing staff who suggest this is a bad idea 12,000
SUBTOTAL - HR & Staff 242,000

2.6 Contingency & Risk

Line Item Justification Amount (£)
Appeal Loss Contingency Additional costs when we inevitably lose 125,000
Second Appeal Preparation Because we might double down again 95,000
Parliamentary Inquiry Response Answering awkward questions from MPs 38,000
Freedom of Information Requests Processing requests for documents showing our logic 22,000
Dignity Recovery Fund Attempting to restore institutional dignity (impossible) 0
Note: Dignity deemed unrecoverable. Budget allocation would be wasteful.
SUBTOTAL - Contingency 280,000

3. TOTAL BUDGET SUMMARY

Cost Center Amount (£)
Legal Costs 285,500
Communications & Reputation Management 590,500
Stakeholder Management 45,000
Unintended Consequences 810,000
Human Resources & Staff Welfare 242,000
Contingency & Risk 280,000
TOTAL BUDGET REQUEST £1,847,500

4. RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

Metric Target Actual Expected
Legal Victory 100% 15%
Institutional Credibility Maintained Destroyed
Public Support Positive Universally Negative
International Reputation Enhanced Laughingstock
Staff Morale High Catastrophic
Kneecap's Career Diminished Skyrocketing
Cost-Benefit Ratio Positive -100%
Financial Controller's Note: This represents one of the worst ROI projections in CPS history. However, budget approved on basis that "we're committed to this course of action regardless of financial prudence."

5. RISK ASSESSMENT

Primary Risk: Complete and utter failure

Likelihood: Almost Certain

Impact: Catastrophic

Mitigation Strategy: Proceed anyway with maximum confidence

Fallback Plan: None. We're all in.

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Option Cost Outcome Status
Withdraw Appeal £0 Dignity preserved, sensible decision REJECTED
Accept Chief Magistrate's Ruling £0 Judicial independence respected REJECTED
Consult External Experts £15,000 Informed decision-making REJECTED
Apply Common Sense £0 Reasonable outcome REJECTED
Proceed Regardless £1,847,500 Institutional embarrassment guaranteed APPROVED ✓

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Budget Committee Recommendation: APPROVE FULL BUDGET

Rationale: We've come too far to back down now. Sunk cost fallacy demands we continue throwing good money after bad.

Strategic Value: Demonstrates institutional commitment to being spectacularly wrong with unwavering confidence.

Long-term Impact: Will be used as cautionary tale in public administration courses for decades.

8. BUDGET APPROVAL

The undersigned approve this budget allocation for the Mó Chara appeal, acknowledging that all financial projections indicate catastrophic loss and that proceeding represents poor judgment at every level.

Approved By:

Director of Public Prosecutions

Date: 08/10/2025

"Money well spent on institutional humiliation"

Financial Controller:

Chief Financial Officer

Date: 08/10/2025

"Against my advice, but approved"

FINAL NOTE: This budget represents a masterclass in how to spend nearly £2 million achieving the opposite of your stated objectives. Recommended viewing for anyone studying institutional failure.