@msolga,
The most important aspect of the CPS is its power to consider the public interest. Such a power usually works to the benefit of wrongdoers when bringing them to trial might expose other matters.
The Saudi defence contract bribery allegation was a case where I think that was decisive in their being no charges.
A public interest defence is permissable in relation to phone hacking but not in relation to the Data Protection Act. I imagine that Mr Kemp's wife will take the public interest line in her defence.
Then it will be, as in Leveson, two distinct views of what is the public interest. I feel sure great play will be made about an Establishment attempt to cover up their activities by castrating investigative journalism and the Murdoch papers being a scapegoat to frighten the others. The CPS will be portrayed as a government puppet.
Basically, senior journalists claim the right to break the law in certain respects if it is in the public interest that they thereby expose corruption and other malpractice in high places. I suppose that is Mr Assange's position.
It is a very complex matter. Once charges are laid there are restrictions on comment which will affect the Leveson Enquiry.
Announcing that she will be charged rather than actually charging her today might free up the
sub judice rules in the interim. A ploy maybe.