Humberside Annual Report 2001-2002 CPS

Introduction by the Chief Crown Prosecutor

I am pleased to present my third annual report as Chief Crown Prosecutor for Humberside. This report covers the year from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

Professionalism

Our aim has been to provide an efficient and professional service to the community.

As well as continuing to improve our efficiency through meeting timeliness targets, a key focus for the Area has been on quality in all areas of our service. We improved the quality of our case preparation, our instructions to counsel and our advocacy.

The Area was inspected by the HMCPSI in May 2001 and the report reflected the hard work that the Area had done on quality and confidence in our decision making. Our decisions are often difficult and it is impossible to please everyone. However our internal checks, and the Inspectorate, tell us that the overwhelming majority of our decisions are right.

Our people are the most important factor in delivering a quality service and we have continued to develop a skilled and professional workforce in which the public can have confidence. During the year we have delivered training in diversity, IT skills, youth justice, leadership, domestic violence, changes to fingerprint evidence and many other key areas.

We have been re-assessed against the new Investors in People Standard and have been recognised as consistently following the principles and continuously improving our practices and procedures.

Structures and partnerships

Our structures have continued to change in line with Glidewell recommendations and we have now reorganised our office in Hull into a Trials Unit to focus on Crown Court work and a Criminal Justice Unit to focus on magistrates’ court work.

In September 2001 we introduced a new computer system called Connect 42. Networked computers for all staff have speeded up our communications and given our lawyers and caseworkers on-line access to the most up-to-date legal information.

We have continued to work closely with all criminal justice agencies to improve our service to the community and modernise the criminal justice system.

Diversity

Diversity has continued to be an important issue for the Area.

Internally we have focused on a Dignity at Work Campaign to ensure that appropriate standards of behaviour are present throughout our organisation.

Externally we have been trying to understand better the needs of vulnerable individuals and minority groups in our community.

We have reached out to the community by giving talks to community groups. We have completed a training programme on diversity delivered to all our managers and staff. The main emphasis of that training has been on race but staff have also attended events on disability, gender and sexuality.

Victims and witnesses

The Area has been working with other agencies to improve the service we provide to victims and witnesses.

A seminar was held with CPS and Police Witness Liaison to discuss the service provided to witnesses attending court and to agree joint actions for improvement.

We have been working with the Area Child Protection Committee to provide better support for female victims of rape and serious sexual offences. The initial results from this initiative show a very positive impact on bringing criminals to justice.

In November 2001 we launched our new Domestic Violence Policy. We have an Area Domestic Violence Co-ordinator, David Cammies, and specialist domestic violence lawyers in each Unit. We are working more closely with the community and other criminal justice agencies.

Looking ahead

There is a lot of work still to be done in modernising the Criminal Justice System and ensuring we give the best service we can to the community.

From June 2002 we will be communicating directly with victims and witnesses. We will be writing directly to victims and witnesses in all cases where a charge is dropped or significantly reduced to explain the decision taken. In certain categories of sensitive cases we will be offering a meeting between the lawyer and the victim to discuss the decision.

New measures to support vulnerable victims and witnesses will start to be introduced from July 2002 including greater use of video evidence and TV links in court. There will be a greater emphasis on the role and needs of victims and we will be working together with other agencies to improve the service we provide.

Bob Marshall Chief Crown Prosecutor

Operation Overlord

Introduction

This was a crime initiative in Hull between February and July 2001 involving an electrical shop and a sports clothing shop manned by undercover Police Officers and covered by video and audio recording devices. Local criminals offered property for sale, much of which the Police were able to trace as stolen. Drugs were also offered as a result of which a linked Operation, code named “Islington”, was set up by the Drug Squad.

CPS Involvement

Prior to commencement, the Chief Crown Prosecutor provided initial advice as to potential legal and evidential pitfalls. The Special Casework Lawyer was designated to co-ordinate prosecutions. Meetings took place with the Police and policies agreed in relation to:

• The disclosure packages handed to the Defence prior to interview to demonstrate the strength of the evidence;
• The way the video/audio evidence would be dealt with bearing in mind the paramount importance of preserving the anonymity of the undercover officers;
• The applications that would be needed for screens and arrangements as to access to the Court for those officers;
• Identification issues;
• The importance of identifying and fully describing all unused material.

Planning for the arrests and court proceedings

The Police intended to arrest large numbers of defendants in batches. Meetings were held between the Police, CPS and the Clerk to the Justices and arrangements made for a number of special court sittings before the District Judge. Regular meetings were held thereafter to monitor the arrangements and make necessary adjustments. All the special courts were covered by the Special Casework Lawyer.

File preparation

An experienced file preparer was designated as the sole File Team and Disclosure Officer for the Operation. A close working relationship with the Special Casework Lawyer proved essential, particularly in relation to:

• The contents of the abbreviated files;
• Expediting requests for full files;
• The format of the full files to enable the evidence to be assimilated quickly and committal bundles prepared in a readily understandable way;
• The problem in some cases of proving property to be stolen;
• Ensuring that all unused material, of which there was a great deal, was properly identified and scheduled;
• Arranging for the Defence to view the videos;
• Identifying and considering any sensitive material;
• Providing an effective channel for discussion on the acceptance of pleas, etc.

There were problems with the timeliness of file preparation for defendants remanded in custody during the initial arrest phase, who tended to be the most prolific offenders. The Police had not anticipated the numbers who would decline to enter a guilty plea, thereby necessitating the preparation of committal files. The work involved in preparing these files and the unused material schedules meant that in some cases the custody time limits could not be met and some defendants had to be released. Priority was given to cases involving dwelling house burglaries and those time limits were met.

Legal issues

• To protect the anonymity of the undercover officers, copies of the video/audio tapes were not supplied, instead the Defence were afforded the opportunity of viewing them. This stance was not challenged in any of the Overlord cases, although in one of the Islington cases copies were ordered to be provided to Defence Counsel;
• Two cases proceeded as “read out” committals, one in relation to the inferences to be drawn in respect of recent possession of goods in dwelling house burglaries and the other in relation to inferring that goods were stolen from the circumstances surrounding the sale of those goods. In both cases the Defendants were committed by the District Judge;
• Only one case proceeded to trial in the magistrates’ court. An application to screen the undercover Officer from public view was unopposed and, in the event, the Defence on the day of trial did not require him to give evidence;
• In only one case was an abuse of process argument raised on the issue of alleged entrapment. The Judge ruled against the Defence application without requiring the Prosecution to respond and a guilty plea was thereafter entered.

Selection of Counsel

One Counsel was briefed to prosecute all the Overlord cases to ensure that he had the overall picture and to ensure consistency. An early conference helped set the parameters for the acceptance of pleas, etc.

Sentencing

In one of the first cases to come before the Crown Court for sentence the Resident Judge, His Honour Judge Mettyear, gave guidance on the approach to sentencing in relation to burglary and handling cases in particular and ordered that a transcript of the comments be passed to the Magistrates and other Judges who would be dealing with these cases. Sentences of two years’ imprisonment for handling were imposed consecutively to two years’ imprisonment for burglary offences, to reflect the serious nature of the handling charges.

Conclusion

By June 2002, 140 defendants had been charged as a result of Operation Overlord. A small number of cases were subsequently not proceeded with, mainly on public interest grounds. One matter proceeded to trial in the magistrates’ court and that resulted in a conviction. One matter is yet to be tried in the Crown Court. The fact that no defendants have been acquitted after trial can be attributed to:

• The professionalism of the undercover officers;
• The quality and integrity of the video/audio recordings;
• The care given to retaining and recording all potentially relevant unused material;
• The early contact between the Police and CPS in relation to such issues as entrapment and identification evidence;
• The co-operation between the Police, CPS and magistrates’ court in relation to the arrests and listing of special courts;
• The allocation of one lawyer within The CPS to coordinate the prosecutions;
• The close working relationship between that lawyer and the Designated File Team Officer;
• The efficiency of the File Team Officer in preparing the files, and in prioritising as necessary;
• The selection of one Counsel to prosecute the cases in the Crown Court.

Certain lessons emerge for future operations:

• The importance of early contact between the Police and CPS before such an Operation is mounted;
• The effectiveness of joint planning and a close working relationship between the Police and CPS in relation to file preparation;
• It cannot be assumed that, even where the evidence appears very strong, Defendants will enter guilty pleas at plea before venue;
• The need on the part of the Police to ensure that sufficient resources, particularly manpower, are made available not just during the course of the Operation itself, but for the file preparation;
• The advantage of having one nominated CPS lawyer to co-ordinate the prosecutions;
• The value of briefing one Counsel to deal with all cases in the Crown Court.

Performance in the Magistrates’ Courts and the Crown Court

Caseload

Magistrates court

• Cases received from the police from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 23,312
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 22,942
• Cases received from the police from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 22,255
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 21,879

Crown court

• Cases received from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 2,022
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 1,877
• Cases received from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 1,918
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 1,866

The first 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. The second21q chart shows as received the number of defendants who came before the Crown Court and the number whose case was dealt with there.

Case Categories

Magistrates court

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 22,942
• Of which summary only 11,824 (51.5%)
• Indictable/either way 9,958 (43.4%)
• Advice 941 (4.1%)
• Other 209 (0.9%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 21,879
• Of which summary only 11,573 (52.9%)
• Indictable/either way 9,080 (41.5%)
• Advice 963 (4.4%)
• Other 273 (1.2%)

Crown court

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 1,877
• Committed for Trial 1,168 (62.2%)
• Appeals 116 (6.2%)
• Committed for sentence 593 (31.6%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 1,866
• Committed for Trial 1,216 (65.2%)
• Appeals 142 (7.6%)
• Committed for sentence 508 (27.2%)

Summary only – 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. Cases for Advice – cases in which the police ask for our advice about whether proceedings should be started. Other Proceedings – non-criminal matters, such as forfeiture under the Obscene Publications Acts.

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.

Case Results

Magistrates court

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total Case Results 17,540
• Of which guilty pleas 16,134 (92%)
• Proofs in absence 769 (4.4%)
• After Trial 493 (2.8%)
• Other (dismissals) 144 (0.8%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total Case Results 16,494
• Of which guilty pleas 14,942 (90.6%)
• Proofs in absence 942 (5.7%)
• After Trial 469 (2.8%)
• Other (dismissals) 141 (0.9%)

Crown court

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Total cases dealt with 1,078
• Guilty Pleas 873 (81%)
• After Trial 129 (12%)
• Acquittals 76 (7.1%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Total cases dealt with 1,096
• Guilty Pleas 881 (80.4%)
• After Trial 133 (12.1%)
• Acquittals 82 (7.5%)

Performance in the magistrates’ 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. The number of cases received from the police fell by 5.9% compared to the previous year. The number of defendants whose case is sent to The CPS depends on several factors, including the number of arrests, the number of offences cleared up by the police, and the number of offenders cautioned by the police. The number of finalised defendants was slightly less than the number received which means there is a small backlog of cases waiting to be heard. This is already being addressed with extra court sittings in the magistrates’ courts.

The cases dealt with in Humberside are more serious than the national average. Less serious summary cases make up 52.9% of our caseload compared to 56% nationally and more serious cases make up 41.5% of our caseload compared to 40% nationally. The number of cases where we are asked for advice before charge continues to increase from 4.1% in 2000-2001 to 4.36% this year. This is against a national average of 3.3%. The number of cases where proceedings had to be discontinued in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors was 10.2% this year in this Area, well below the national average of 13.1%. Unsuccessful outcomes (discontinuances, write offs, bind overs, dismissals) were 15.3% of our caseload, well below the national average of 22%. In Humberside 99.1% of hearings resulted in a conviction against a national average of 98.3%.

Performance in 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.

Our Crown Court caseload (cases received) fell by 4.2%, but finalisations remained fairly constant (only 11 cases less than the previous year).

Committals for trial to the Crown Court have increased from 62.2% of Crown Court caseload in 2000/01 to 65.2% of Crown Court caseload this year. However this is a significant variation from the national average of 73.3%.

Committals for sentence, where the defendant is prepared to be dealt with but the magistrates consider their sentencing powers to be inadequate have fallen from 31.6% in 2000/01 to 27.2% this year. But this is still significantly above the national average of 16.4%.

Crown Court case results compare very favourably with the national average. Unsuccessful outcomes (judge ordered acquittals, discontinuance, write offs, bind overs, judge directed acquittals) are 18.1% of our Crown Court caseload as opposed to a national average of 26.7%. In those cases proceeding to trial we win 92.5% of cases as opposed to a national average of 88.8%.

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.

About the Crown Prosecution Service: 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 organisation which 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 Humberside Area

Bob Marshall, Chief Crown Prosecutor

Humberside Area, 2nd Floor, King William House, Market Place, Kingston upon Hull, HU1 1RS Tel: 01482 621000

Caron Skidmore, Area Business Manager

Any questions or complaints should be addressed to the Chief Crown Prosecutor at the above address

Free publications about The CPS and further copies of this report can be obtained from Caron Skidmore at the address above