CPS Sussex

Annual Report 2001-2002

Introduction by the Chief Crown Prosecutor

This has been another busy year for the Sussex Area of The Crown Prosecution Service. There have been many changes during the course of this year, both to the structure and the personnel in CPS Sussex, not least of which was my appointment as Chief Crown Prosecutor in April 2001.

It has been an exciting year in which to join Sussex and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all The CPS staff for making me feel so welcome and for all of their hard work over what has been a challenging year. Since my arrival I have been impressed by the hard work and professionalism of all staff in Sussex, as well as their willingness to embrace change in order to improve the standard of service which The CPS provides in Sussex.

As well as my appointment in April of this year, we appointed new Unit Heads in May 2001. They are responsible both for the operational Units within Sussex and for ensuring that not only the day to day business of CPS Sussex is carried out but also for implementing the changes to the structure. Although the Unit Heads were appointed in May 2001, they underwent a transitional phase of planning and setting up their Units which became operational in October.

The setting up of these Units carried through the recommendations from the Glidewell Report. It said we ought to separate the work carried out by CPS staff in relation to magistrates’ and Crown Court cases in order better to direct our resources to the most serious and weighty cases.

This means that we now have five Units across Sussex:

• a Trial Unit based in Brighton which covers the Crown Court at Lewes and Hove;
• a Criminal Justice Unit which deals with the magistrates’ court cases based in Brighton;
• a Criminal Justice Unit which deals with the magistrates’ court cases based in Eastbourne;
• a Criminal Justice Unit which deals with the magistrates’ court cases based in Crawley; and
• a joint Trial Unit and Criminal Justice Unit dealing with the magistrates’ and Crown Court work at Chichester.

The Unit Heads are as follows:

• Gary Perry TU Brighton
• Libby Clark CJU Brighton
• Nigel Knight CJU Eastbourne
• Sally Cole TU/CJU Chichester
• Mark Bishop Crawley

This report contains a summary from each of the Unit Heads, outlining some of the highlights of the year for their Unit and the work which they have been involved in.

Glidewell

During the course of August and September last year we conducted a preference exercise for all lawyers asking them which Unit they would want to work in. As a result lawyers were allocated to Units, mainly in accordance with their preference, in time for the setting up of the Unit in October 2001. This involved a number of staff moves and a separation of Units, which must have been unsettling, but which was accomplished without any major disturbance to the day to day operations of the service as a result of staffs’ hard work and forbearance.

In addition to the splitting of our Units, we have been further working with Sussex Police to implement the recommendation of the Glidewell Report that wherever possible CPS Units should be co-located with police staff. A steering group was set up to oversee this work which is jointly chaired by myself and Assistant Chief Constable Yeo.

This has resulted in an agreement that all CPS Units in Sussex will be co-located with police staff in order to obtain maximum efficiency and to improve the service which The CPS and the police provide to the general public and, in particular, to victims and witnesses in Sussex.

I am pleased that I was able, along with the Chief Constable, to open the first of these co-located Units at Crawley Police Station in February 2001. The CPS staff left our previous office in Horsham to move into the police station in order to be co-located with the police Criminal Justice Unit staff.

Already this has seen the benefit of less paperwork and telephone calls and a shortening in the communication chains, which will go to improve the quality of service we provide as well as the timeliness of that service. Again much hard work and planning went into this move by both police and CPS Staff.

In order to facilitate and ease the production of co-location of CPS and police staff, we held a number of team building days between CPS and police across the Area in the last year. One such example was an extremely productive day between all of The CPS Unit Heads and myself and the police equivalents, where we started the planning process, the purpose of which was to develop closer links and break down any barriers which may have existed.

This has been followed by a number of similar events between Units and their police equivalents. This work has also been further developed in the production of a joint CPS and police newsletter to all staff informing them of developments and decisions of the joint steering group.

At the time of writing, the Brighton Criminal Justice Unit will shortly be moving to Brighton Police Station to colocate with them. Further plans are in place for co-location at our Eastbourne office of police staff and we are still working on proposals for a co-location of the police and CPS Units at Chichester and Worthing. In addition plans are currently being drawn up for the movement of police staff into The CPS Trials Units at Chichester and Brighton.

Direct Communication with victims

During the last 12 months we have levelled a great deal of emphasis and time on developing a better service for victims of crime through the implementation of the Direct Communication with Victims Scheme. Our Horsham office was one of 12 pilots being operated by The Crown Prosecution Service across England and Wales.

This pilot was deemed to be a success and is in the process of being implemented across the country. I am pleased to say that in Sussex we have implemented the scheme in all of our Units. The scheme involves Crown Prosecution Service lawyers providing explanations to victims about decisions made in their cases, when there was a substantial alteration in the charge or a reduction in the charge or, indeed, if the prosecution was stopped when the case file was reviewed under the terms of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

In more serious cases involving serious sexual assault, racially aggravated crime, cases involving fatalities or child abuse cases, we offer a meeting with the victims or their families to explain why it was decided to reduce, substantially alter or drop charges.

Almost all the prosecutors in Sussex have now been trained on how the scheme works and their role in communicating with victims. This is a three-day course in which prosecutors are taught how to write and talk to victims and how to explain what has happened in a case without using jargon and in plain English. We have also set up systems across Sussex to ensure that letters are sent promptly and that a detailed explanation is provided to victims so that they can appreciate the decisions made in their cases.

This allows victims the opportunity to understand why decisions were taken and be kept informed about their cases. Although a number of meetings have been offered across the county, to date only one has taken place.

This scheme has been welcomed by all staff in CPS Sussex as it has been acknowledged that all too often in the past victims were left uninformed, isolated and frustrated at the lack of information. Often they play a vital role in the prosecution as not only are they victims but often are witnesses also and, therefore, should know why we make the decisions we do.

Disclosure

Other initiatives we have been involved with across the county include assisting the police to develop a force policy on disclosure. This is a vitally important part of the work of The Crown Prosecution Service. Unless there is fair and prompt disclosure to the defence of material which is relevant to them, prosecutions will be undermined and may often fail.

As well as monitoring our own lawyers’ performance in relation to disclosure, we have assisted in training police and also much work has been undertaken to assist them in developing a disclosure policy to be utilised across the Sussex Police Force. It is hoped that this will be further supplemented in the forthcoming year by a joint protocol on disclosure outlining the responsibilities of both the police and The CPS in relation to disclosure.

Domestic violence

We also saw the launch of The Crown Prosecution Service Domestic Violence Policy this year. Again this has been welcomed not only by our own staff but also by others involved in the criminal justice system and, importantly, those involved with the support of victims of domestic violence and, indeed, by victims of domestic violence themselves.

CPS Sussex has wholeheartedly adopted this national policy and there is much work being undertaken by CPS Sussex in this field. We have appointed Domestic Violence Co-ordinators at each of our Units who are responsible for updating other prosecutors in relation to violence in this area and also providing advice to prosecutors who may have to make decisions in domestic violence cases.

The co-ordinators are also responsible for linking with organisations involved in domestic violence initiatives in order to improve the service we provide in this area and also to ensure that others are aware of our policies.

Again there have been strong links made with Sussex Police in relation to this policy and much work on developing agreements between us so that these cases may be better prosecuted.

Community links

During the course of this year both my Unit Heads and I have been keen to improve our links with the community in Sussex. This has taken place in a variety of ways. We have taken part in a number of court open days where we have met members of the public and been able to explain the role of The Crown Prosecution Service, what we do and how we make our decisions.

In addition, prosecutors have attended recruitment fairs or given talks to schools or local community groups, again to explain what The CPS does, how it does it, how it makes its decisions and how it might impact upon the community. Furthermore, we have talked to organisations such as Sompriti, the Brighton & Hove Racial Harassment Forum and the Brighton & Hove Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Forum about our work and how we might better work with the community to improve the service we provide to them and the criminal justice system.

Diversity

Over the last year we have formed a Sussex CPS Diversity Committee. This committee has representatives from all Units who come together to discuss issues relating to diversity both internally and externally. We have also invited a number of people from outside the service to take part in this committee.

This has proved invaluable, allowing us to utilise their expertise and their perspective to challenge our ideas and to highlight areas that we might further work on. This has also resulted in plans for further diversity training and awareness raising and has proved useful in improving our links with the community.

It is certainly my firm hope and belief that this committee will improve the performance of CPS Sussex in relation to diversity issues, both internally and also in the way in which we deal with the local community.

We have increased the number of Higher Court Advocates (HCAs) in Sussex from five to 12. These are advocates who are able to appear on behalf of The Crown Prosecution Service in the Crown Court as well as the magistrates’ court. Not only have we increased the numbers of these advocates but we have also increased their usage and developed the hearings which they now conduct.

Our HCAs have previously been used in interim hearings and also on appeals from the magistrates’ courts. During the last year we have seen one of our HCAs undertook the role of Junior in a high profile case which was transferred to the Central Criminal Court and another of our HCAs conducted a Jury trial on his own. Again these are welcome initiatives which we hope to build upon in the next year.

In addition there have been many high profile cases across the Area, some of which are highlighted in this report. Many of them reflect the improvement and closer working relationships between The Crown Prosecution Service and the police in Sussex, with lawyers giving advice at early stages of the matters, often before charge. The success in many of these high profile cases also reflects the hard work and professionalism of lawyers within the Service in Sussex.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my first year with CPS Sussex and look forward to many more years of building upon initiatives which we have started and embracing the further change and challenges which will, no doubt, face us over the forthcoming years, particularly in relation to improving our service to victims and witnesses and implementing the recommendations accepted by the government of the report by Lord Justice Auld.

Alison Saunders Chief Crown Prosecutor Sussex

About CPS Sussex and casework

HORSHAM/CRAWLEY CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIT

Mark Bishop Head of CJU Crawley

Mark qualified as a solicitor in 1987 and worked in private practice until he joined The CPS in 1994.

He has worked at The CPS offices in Eastbourne and Horsham and was appointed as Head of the Criminal Justice Unit in Horsham in May 2001.

It has been an eventful year for The Crown Prosecution Service Horsham Office. In May 2001, Mark Bishop was appointed as the Head of what was then the Criminal Justice Unit in Horsham. On 4 February 2002, as part of the implementation of the Glidewell report, the Horsham Criminal Justice Unit moved into Crawley Police Station. This put CPS lawyers and staff with the Police Criminal Justice Unit, making communication between the two services quicker and more efficient.

As Crawley Police Station houses the Police Custody Block for the north of the county, this means that a defendant’s file, once created in the Custody Block, does not have to leave the Police Station until the file is taken to court. In many cases, that court will be Crawley Magistrates’ Court which is across the road from the Police Station.

New file processes, including a single filing system, have been developed to make the most of the efficiency savings that co-location offers us.

In terms of caseload, the Criminal Justice Unit in Horsham/Crawley has continued to deal with a wide and varied caseload. Of particular note in the past year was the case of Regina -v- Williams in which the defence challenged the reliability and accuracy of the breath testing device used by Sussex Police (the EC/IR) in drink drive cases.

A number of these challenges were raised in Sussex and elsewhere in the country. Two cases, including the Crawley case of Williams were appealed to the High Court. Jill Wilson was The CPS lawyer who dealt with this case in which the High Court ruled in favour of the prosecution and accepted the reliability of the EC/IR machine.

R -v- X, Y and Z

Horsham CPS, now based at Crawley, prosecuted this case which was a long-term investigation into the three offenders by the National Crime Squad. The offences involved purchasing and attempting to bring into the UK of £18 million worth of cocaine.

The case was notable for two reasons, firstly because it involved mutual assistance from the Dutch and Belgium prosecuting authorities and secondly because this is now one of the leading cases, following a House of Lords decision, on the use of foreign intercept evidence.

The case resulted in convictions after a full jury trial, the main protagonist receiving 14 years’ imprisonment.

BRIGHTON CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIT

Libby Clark Head of Brighton CJU

Libby was called to the Bar in 1984. She spent two years working as a court clerk in the magistrates’ courts in the north of England before joining The Crown Prosecution Service in Sussex in 1986. She has worked at The CPS offices in Chichester, Crawley and Brighton and was appointed Unit Head for Brighton Criminal Justice Unit in April 2001.

Brighton CPS CJU receives approximately 400-500 new cases each month. These are cases due to be heard at Brighton and Hove Magistrates’ Court.

The Unit currently comprises myself, seven lawyers, a Designated Caseworker and five administrative staff. Although we have been located with the East Sussex Trials Unit, in April 2002 we will move to new accommodation at Brighton Police Station to form an integrated Criminal Justice Unit with the staff of Brighton Police.

Shortened lines of communication and streamlined working practises have the potential to improve greatly the service we can offer to the public, the courts and most importantly the victims of crime.

We continue to work with the community via the Brighton and Hove Racial Harassment Forum and Domestic Violence organisations, amongst others.

Eastbourne Criminal Justice Unit

Nigel Knight Head of CJU Eastbourne

Nigel was called to the Bar in 1984. He joined the Sussex Police Authority as a Prosecutor in January 1986 and joined The CPS in October 1986. Nigel was appointed as a Prosecution Team Leader for Horsham in 1985 and was appointed CJU Head for Eastbourne in May 2001.

During the last 12 months lawyers and caseworkers in the Eastbourne Office have handled a number of serious cases. An example is the case of R -v- Turner and Shorter.

These two defendants pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to the manslaughter of their four-week-old baby son by giving him heroin in his milk feed. They were each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The plea was tendered on the day that the defence case was due to start, the Crown having called 50 witnesses including four GPs, three midwives, two social workers and five experts following two days of half time submissions.

Initially the death of the baby was believed to be the result of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The baby was discovered by officers from Avon and Somerset Police at the home of Shorter’s father. He had been wrapped in a jacket with ice cubes and concealed in a rucksack.

Shorter’s father had been contacted, not told why, and travelled from his home in Hastings and collected Turner and Shorter and the rucksack. Routine toxicology tests revealed that the baby had been given a massive dose of heroin.

Both the Unit Head and Unit Business Manager have worked hard to build links with local organisations in the community. Both have attended meetings of Sompriti, a voluntary organisation, in partnership with East Sussex County Council, Sussex Police, Eastbourne Borough Council and Lewes and Wealden District Councils. Sompriti, which is funded by a grant from the National Lottery and the Home Office, has held a series of focus groups with black and minority ethnic residents in Lewes District, Wealden District and Eastbourne.

During the focus groups, members were asked whether they had any contact with the Criminal Justice System and in particular, The Crown Prosecution Service and if so, how The Crown Prosecution Service handled the contact with the member. The results have shown that very few people are aware of The Crown Prosecution Service and in particular the way that racially motivated crimes are handled.

In terms of modern technology, The Crown Prosecution Service in Eastbourne is piloting e-mail links with the Criminal Justice Units at Eastbourne and Hastings. A generic mailbox has been set up which can be accessed at least three times a day. A protocol for the use of the generic mailbox has been agreed by the Unit Head and the Criminal Justice Unit Inspector.

The advances of a generic mailbox are the speed that which communications can be relayed between the police and The CPS and vice versa. Communications which previously took up to three days to reach the other organisation can now be relayed in minutes.

Attorney General’s reference (number 68 of 2001)

Subnon R -v- Stephen Newbury

In this case the defendant had been driving along a single carriageway on 10 January 2000, closely followed by the driver of another car. The defendant overtook the car in front of him at an excessive speed just prior to a blind corner and on the brow of a hill. The defendant lost control of his car, crossed to the other side of the carriageway and collided with an oncoming car containing three adults and one child.

The front seat passenger of the oncoming car was killed and the two adults in the car were seriously injured. The defendant was subsequently convicted on 22 November 2001 at Lewes Crown Court of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and was sentenced to a 180 hours’ Community Punishment Order and ordered to pay £1,500 towards costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for three years and ordered to take an extended re-test. The Attorney General submitted that the sentence was unduly lenient and failed to reflect the seriousness of the offence, the aggravating features, the need to deter others and public concern for offences of this kind.

The Court of Appeal held that a Community Punishment Order was unduly lenient for an offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and this was substituted with a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. A seven-year period of disqualification was substituted in place of the three-year disqualification previously imposed.

R -v- McWilliam and McWilliam

concerned the successful prosecution of two prospective adoptive parents for the cruelty to and ultimate death in their care of a five-year-old boy. The case involved complex issues of joint liability and factual medical evidence from a number of expert witnesses.

Both defendants were convicted after a three-week trial and were sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. An appeal against sentence awaits hearing.

BRIGHTON TRIAL UNIT

Gary Perry Head of Brighton

TU Gary joined The CPS in 1984 and has worked in Merseyside and Hampshire before moving to Sussex in 1995. He started work as a member of the administrative staff and then a caseworker, but qualified as a Barrister via The CPS Legal Trainee Scheme in 1990.

He was appointed as Trial Unit Head in July 2001 and the Unit became fully operational in November 2001. He is also a Higher Court Advocate, which means that he can prosecute cases on behalf of The CPS in Crown Courts.

The unit reviews and prosecutes all of the criminal cases heard at Lewes and Hove Crown Courts. The unit was set up in November 2001. The aim of the unit is to professionally prepare and present cases in the Crown Court and to allow CPS lawyers the time to have a meaningful impact on this serious casework.

Anyone who attends as a prosecution witness at Lewes or Hove Crown Courts will come into contact with a member of the Trial Unit who will try to answer any questions they have and put them at ease about giving evidence.

We are also assisted in this role by our colleagues in the witness support service, with whom we have close links. They provide invaluable help and assistance to all witnesses.

The unit has approximately 600 live cases at any one time and it is anticipated that by the end of its first year it will have concluded more than 2,000 cases. The Trial Unit comprises 28 CPS staff including lawyers, caseworkers and administrative staff. Its spread of work is varied and includes offences from theft to murder.

At the time of writing this report, the unit was dealing with more than 25 cases where a death was involved. Some of our lawyers are trained as High Court Advocates, and prosecute cases at Crown Court on a regular basis with great success.

During the next year we are undertaking a number of initiatives to try to provide a better quality of service in the criminal justice system, and to victims and witnesses.

We are looking at the reasons why some witnesses do not attend court and working closely with the police and the court to ensure that there is more contact with these witnesses so that help and assistance is available if they need it.

We also believe that the setting up of the Trial Unit will start to bear fruit with improved performance of the timeliness of preparing cases for committal to Crown Court and a more focused legal input to these important cases with nominated Trial Unit lawyers and caseworkers having responsibility for individual cases.

There will no doubt be many challenges facing the unit during the next 12 months, but we are confident that the benefits already gained due to the hard work of the staff on the Trial Unit can be built upon in the next year and the coming years.

CHICHESTER TRIAL UNIT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIT

Sally Cole Head of Chichester CJU and TU

Sally left the Bar to join CPS at its inception in 1986, and worked in Sussex before moving to the Policy Unit at CPS Headquarters in 1994. Sally Cole Head of Chichester CJU and TU

The Chichester combined Trial Unit and Criminal Justice Unit has seen a number of staff changes over the year. In May, Sally Cole was appointed head of the Unit. Following a recruitment drive, a number of new lawyers joined Chichester, many from private practice as defence solicitors. All have adapted quickly and enthusiastically to prosecution work, and have contributed to the building of a strong team.

Three members of staff returned, part-time, from maternity leave, having agreed flexible hours to fit both CPS business needs and their domestic commitments.

Chichester was the second Unit in Sussex to roll out direct communications with victims and witnesses. Since August, lawyers have been writing to explain the reasons why charges have been reduced, or dropped, and offering to Following a recruitment drive, a number of new lawyers joined Chichester meet victims. The first victim meeting in Sussex was held at Chichester in October, in relation to a prosecution decision not to continue with a rape case.

The service to victims and witness will be further improved by the introduction of a witness support service at Worthing Magistrates’ Court from April 2002. We look forward to working with the Witness Service to ensure that witnesses are supported, both before and during their attendance at court.

A case that attracted national interest was R -v- James Lawson, a Worthing case dealt with at Maidstone Crown Court. The defendant was charged with the murder of his daughter Sarah, aged 22. Sarah had a long history of psychiatric illness, which culminated in her taking an overdose.

The defendant helped her with this, and smothered Sarah, with her consent, once the drugs had taken effect. The prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter, and Lawson was sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

We successfully appealed against sentence in the case of R -v- Bolongi, who was convicted of a number of serious robberies and sexual assaults on trains at railway stations. A non-custodial sentence was replaced with three-and-ahalf years’ custody.

We await the outcome of our appeal against sentence in the case of R -v- McGarvie and Large. Gemma McGarvie was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, and Lorraine Large to nine years’ imprisonment, after being convicted of attempting to murder a 13-year-old boy.

Their victim had been subjected to more than 20 stab wounds and left for dead, and has been left with both physical and emotional scars. We worked closely with Sussex Police to secure a conviction in the case, and are supported both by the police and the victim’s family in our appeal.

The new Narey provisions for the immediate sending of indictable only cases to the Crown Court have provided a challenging timetable. The drafting of the legislation, particularly as to the effect of failure to apply for an extension of time within the allowed period for service, has caused procedural difficulties, which we hope will be resolved soon by the Administrative Court.

In December, Arundel Magistrates’ Court sat for the last time. Representatives from all criminal justice agencies, including The CPS, attended the closing ceremony, at which Arundel was declared “free from crime”.

The reality is that Arundel justices now sit with their colleagues at Worthing Magistrates’ Court, which has absorbed Arundel’s cases. This change has enabled us to agree a new, more effective listing pattern with the magistrates’ court. However, the efficiency gains are offset by the loss of the pleasure of prosecuting in what must have been the most architecturally and historically interesting court houses in the country.

Caseloads in the magistrates’ courts continue to rise, and more defendants are pleading not guilty. It is to the credit of the Criminal Justice Unit that they have coped with the extra work, and continue to achieve a high conviction rate.

In December, CPS and police staff held an Awayday together, to discuss the challenges that lie ahead with the introduction of co-located working, pursuant to the Glidewell recommendations. Staff and office changes will take place during the next business year, although the location of the Criminal Justice Unit has yet to be agreed.

We are pleased that the police have agreed to co-location of the Trials Unit, as well as the Criminal Justice Unit. This will optimise the efficiency gains that co-located working will bring, and help us to work more closely and effectively with Sussex Police.

The Unit was responsible for the prosecution of Roy Whiting for the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne.

Lawyer Sue Lombard, and caseworker Linda Arnell dedicated significant time and energy to this case, which had nearly 2,300 witness statements, 4,800 reports and vast amounts of unused material. Sue and Linda worked closely with the Sussex Police and prosecution counsel, and Sue also met with the Payne family.

Whiting was convicted after a three-week trial at Lewes Crown Court, and sentenced to life imprisonment in December.

Performance in the Magistrates’ Courts and the Crown Court

All prosecutions start in the magistrates’ courts. These include offences ranging from minor motoring matters to assaults and theft. Usually the more serious cases proceed to the Crown Court. Some cases can only be tried in the Crown Court. Other cases go to the Crown Court either because the defendant chooses to be tried there or because the magistrates decide they are serious enough to need Crown Court trial. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the case will be tried before a judge and jury.

Caseload receipts in the magistrates’ courts continue at a high level, but finalisations have kept pace over the year. There has been an increase in more serious casework and in the number of trials dealt with in the magistrates’ courts. Crown Court caseload receipts have continued at a high level in the year and more cases were finalised in the Crown Court. As a percentage of the whole, more committals for trial, but less appeals were dealt with this year. Committals for sentence remained at a broadly consistent rate. Conviction rates increased, with more defendants being found guilty after trial and less defendants being acquitted.

Caseload in the Magistrates’ Court

• Cases received from the police from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 27,263
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 27,220
• Cases received from the police from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 27,070
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 26,786

The chart shows as received the number of defendants whose cases the Area received from the police and the number of defendants whose cases were finalised in each of the last two years. Our caseload depends on the number of cases the police send to us. Several factors affect this, such as the level of arrest and the number of people the police caution.

Magistrates’ Court Case Categories

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 37,220
• Of which summary only 15,744 (42.3%)
• Indictable/either way 19,807 (53.2%)
• Advice 1,231 (3.3%)
• Other 438 (1.2%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 26,786
• Of which summary only 14,185 (54.1%)
• Indictable/either way 10,896 (40.7%)
• Advice 953 (3.6%)
• Other 452 (1.7%)

This shows the different types of work dealt with in the Area. They are:

Summary – cases which can only be tried in the magistrates’ courts.

Indictable/Either Way – Indictable only offences (such as robbery) must be tried in the Crown Court, but either way offences (such as theft) may be tried in either the magistrates’ courts or in the Crown Court.

Advice – cases in which the police ask for our advice about whether proceedings should be started.

Other – non-criminal matters, such as forfeiture under the Obscene Publications Acts.

Magistrates’ Court Case Results

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total Case Results 16,756
• Of which guilty pleas 14,352 (85.7%)
• Proofs in absence 1,413 (8.4%)
• After Trial 749 (4.5%)
• Other (dismissals) 242 (1.4%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total Case Results 16,606
• Of which guilty pleas 13,808 (83.2%)
• Proofs in absence 1,124 (6.8%)
• After Trial 1,314 (7.9%)
• Other (dismissals) 360 (2.2%)

Caseload in the Crown Court

• Cases received from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 2,464
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 2,329
• Cases received from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 2,419
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 2,466

The chart shows as received the number of defendants who came before the Crown Court and the number whose Crown Court cases were dealt with by the Area between April 1 2001 and March 31 2002 and in the previous year.

Crown Court Case Categories

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 2,327
• Committed for Trial 1,650 (70.9%)
• Appeals 276 (12 %)
• Committed for sentence 398 (17.1%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 2,466
• Committed for Trial 1,798 (72.9%)
• Appeals 248 (10.1%)
• Committed for sentence420 (17%)

Committed for trial – Indictable only and some either way cases are sent from the magistrates’ courts for trial to the Crown Court. Since January 2001, indictable only offences have been sent to the Crown Court under section 51, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which, in most cases, means that committal proceedings are not held.

Appeals – Defendants may appeal to the Crown Court against the conviction and/or sentence that they received in the magistrates’ court.

Committed for sentence – Some defendants tried and convicted in the magistrates’ courts are committed for sentence to the Crown Court because the magistrates decide that greater punishment is required than they have the power to impose.

Crown Court Case Results

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 1,348
• Guilty Pleas 932 (69.1%)
• After Trial 239 (17.7%)
• Acquittals 177 (13.1%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 1,642
• Guilty Pleas 967 (58.9%)
• After Trial 483 (29.4%)
• Acquittals192 (11.7%)

About The Crown Prosecution Service

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The CPS prosecutes all cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code is of fundamental importance to the core business of The CPS as it provides guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied in all prosecution decisions, and acts as a public statement of policy allowing everyone to see and understand the basis upon which these decisions are made.

A revised Code for Crown Prosecutors was published in 2000 in order to reflect important developments in legislation, criminal procedure and The CPS’ own structure. As part of that revision process, an extensive programme of public consultation was carried out and almost every aspect of the Code commented upon. New features of the Code include a reference to our position and obligations under the Human Rights act 1998, clarification of the relationship between victims and public interest and a paragraph on youths to reflect new procedures for reprimands and final warnings.

The Auld Review

Lord Justice Auld’s Criminal Courts Review was published in October 2001. It recommends an overhaul of the criminal courts with a unified criminal court in three divisions and a single administration to replace the existing and separate Crown and magistrates’ courts structures. Another proposal is that The CPS rather than the police should decide charges in all but minor, routine offences, or where a holding charge is needed. The change should help improve the quality of files and lead to earlier decisions on when to charge and what charges should be brought. The Home Secretary has agreed that the procedure be piloted for six months in five CPS Areas in advance of the Government’s decision regarding the Auld recommendations.

The Facts

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting people in England and Wales charged by the police with a criminal offence. Nationally we prosecute more than 1.4 million cases every year and our annual planned expenditure for 2001-02 was £416.3 million. This included £30.4 million from the new criminal justice reserve, to speed up the reform of the Service.

Currently we:

• Advise the police on possible prosecutions.
• Review prosecutions started by the police to ensure the right defendants are prosecuted on the right charges.
• Prepare cases for court.
• Prosecute cases at magistrates’ courts and instruct counsel to prosecute in the Crown Court and higher courts. Some CPS lawyers are now qualified to appear in the Crown Court in certain cases.
• Liaise with other agencies and other Government Departments to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system.
• The CPS is headed by Sir David Calvert-Smith QC, Director of Public Prosecutions; the Chief Executive is Richard Foster, who took up post in January 2002.
• The CPS employs around 7,100 staff and has an Equal Opportunities Policy. Parts of the Service have achieved the Investor in People standard while others are pursuing accreditation.
• A Diversity Unit was set up in October 1999. The Unit’s remit is to turn The CPS Equality Statement into a reality. The aim is to ensure that The CPS does not discriminate in either its employment practice or its prosecutions. A Steering Group has been set up to oversee the Service’s commitment to change following reports by barrister Sylvia Denman and also the Commission for Racial Equality that highlighted discrimination against ethnic minority staff in The CPS. It is chaired by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
• The Attorney General’s Race Advisory Group includes representatives from external organisations. It examines and comments on proposals by The CPS to improve equal opportunities in response to the Denman and CRE report recommendations. There is commitment from the top of The CPS to having a Service which is fair and has proper approaches to diversity.
• The CPS continues to develop new electronic information and media. It has an intranet service with an internal website, CPS Online. CPS Online gives staff better access to information, improved internal communications and allows The CPS to manage its information and knowledge better.
• The CPS’ internet website is at http://www.cps.gov.uk and is available in English and Welsh. It provides a considerable amount of information about our business, staff and structures.
• The CPS, and its criminal justice partners, are working together to help realise the Government’s pledge to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders in youth courts and in Crown Court.
• The CPS is taking forward initiatives to speed up justice proposed by Martin Narey in his Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System. These include new Designated Caseworkers — specially trained CPS staff, who are not lawyers, review and present in the magistrates’ courts a limited range of cases involving straightforward guilty pleas.
• CPS Areas are working in partnership with police forces to establish joint and co-located criminal justice units to reduce duplication and delay in bringing cases to court. They are also establishing Trials Units (TUs) to deal with the preparation and presentation of the more serious cases at Crown Court. Most TUs will be located in CPS premises, but some are planned for Crown Court centres.
• The CPS has 42 Areas corresponding to the 43 police forces in England and Wales (London Area covers both City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces). Each Area has a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP) who is responsible for prosecutions. In London the CCP is supported by Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors. Area Business Managers are responsible for the efficient running of the Area.
• The CPS Vision and Strategy is “to be a prosecuting authority of stature, providing the best possible service to society. We want to be a professional organisationwhich values all its people, performs to a high standard inspires public confidence, and works in partnership”.

Where we fit in the criminal justice system

• The Law Officers: The Attorney General is assisted by the Solicitor General. The Attorney General has final responsibility for enforcing criminal law and superintends the Director of Public Prosecutions.
• The police: Police forces investigate crime and arrest or detain suspected offenders. Once a suspect is held they decide whether to caution them, take no further action, issue a fixed penalty notice — in the case of motoring offences — or charge them and send the papers to prosecuting authorities, mainly The CPS.
• The Lord Chancellor’s Department: The Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and responsible for the administration of the court system in England and Wales.This includes the magistrates’ courts.
• The Court Service: Responsible for the High Court and administration of the Crown Court and County Courts in England and Wales.
• The Home Office: Responsible for matters relating to law and order.
• The Prison Service: The Service is responsible for keeping in custody people on remand awaiting trial and those sentenced to imprisonment by the courts.
• The National Probation Service: The Service provides courts with advice and information on offenders to help sentencing decisions and implements community orders made by the courts.
• There are other prosecuting authorities. They include: the Department of Trade and Industry; the Serious Fraud Office; HM Customs and Excise; the Health and Safety Executive; the Department of Social Security; the Inland Revenue; the Department of Food and Rural Affairs; the Intervention Board; the Bank of England; the Army; the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy prosecuting authorities; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
  

Leaflets and publications

The CPS publishes a range of leaflets and publications about its work that are available free of charge to members of the public.

Leaflets currently available include: a description of the work of The CPS (Introduction); the people who work for the Service (People); information about careers with The CPS (Careers); the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) — and an abbreviated version of the Code (Prosecutions); The CPS policy on dealing with Domestic Violence and advice for vulnerable witnesses attending court (Witnesses); and a leaflet on how to make a complaint (Complaints). Most publications are available in alternative formats and in other languages.

For more information, contact The CPS Communications Branch, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7EX; telephone: 020 7796 8442.

Dealing with complaints

Our comprehensive complaints procedure is set out in a leaflet available from Area offices and on our website: http://www.cps.gov.uk

If you have a complaint about our handling of a case you should write to The CPS office which originally dealt with it. Please include as much information as possible such as the defendant’s name, the court where the case was heard, and any hearing dates and reference numbers you may have.

If you are not satisfied with replies you receive you should contact The CPS Area’s Chief Crown Prosecutor. They will look into the complaint.

If you are still not satisfied you can write to the Customer Service Unit Manager, 50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX.

Complaints that cannot be resolved locally are referred through this Unit to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Chief Executive.

CPS Sussex Area

Chief Crown Prosecutor Alison Saunders

3 Clifton Mews, Clifton Hill, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 3HR Tel: 01273 765 600

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMPLAINTS OR WOULD LIKE ANY FREE PUBLICATIONS ABOUT THE CPS please contact the Chief Crown Prosecutor at the above address www.cps.gov.uk