THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE ANNUAL REPORT 2000 - 2001

ANNUAL REPORT for the period April 2000 – March 2001 From the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney General

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of section 9 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Chapter 23

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2001

London: The Stationery Office £11.40

CONTENTS

• Letter to the Attorney General
• Vision and Values
• Aim and objectives
• Summary of Priorities 2000-2001
• Section One – Introduction to The Crown Prosecution Service
• Review of the Code for Crown Prosecutors
• The Human Rights Act 1998
• Strategy for the Future
• Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
• Section Two – Delivering Justice
• Criminal Justice Partnerships
• Youth Justice
• Priorities
  • making new structures, procedures and partnerships work
  • achieving success through valuing our people
  • taking forward equality and diversity
  • modernising the Service through improved information technology
  • improving the service to victims and witnesses
  • meeting new domestic, European and global challenges of crime
• Section Three – Expenditure and Performance
  • Expenditure 2000-2001
  • Resource Management
  • Performance 2000-2001
• Annex A – The Code for Crown Prosecutors
• Annex B – Chief Crown Prosecutors, Area Business Managers and Service Centre Managers and map of 42 Areas
• Annex C – Designated Caseworkers

LETTER to the ATTORNEY GENERAL

I am pleased to report to you on our performance and activities in the year to March 2001, a year in which the reorganisation and refocus of the Service gathered pace.

I am pleased to report to you on our performance and activities in the year to March 2001, a year in which the reorganisation and refocus of the Service gathered pace.

Our central position within the criminal justice system, together with our national though devolved structure, enabled us to punch well above our weight both in the development of the criminal justice system and in the process of law reform. Working closely with the Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department and other key bodies such as the Law Commission we have delivered practitioner know how into the programme of change initiated by implementation of the Government’s aims for criminal justice.

Perhaps for the first time it was publicly acknowledged that the Service has been chronically under-resourced since its inception and had suffered as a result ever since. We were able to negotiate an additional £15.8 million funds from the Treasury for 2000-2001 and our budget for 2001-2002 has been substantially increased. We are grateful for the untiring efforts of Lord Williams, and for the support we received from other departments, in particular of the then Home Secretary in releasing £4.6 million from the police modernisation fund as part of the additional funds and, with the Lord Chancellor, in agreeing extra funding from the new criminal justice reserve for 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

We dealt with 1.35 million cases in the magistrates’ courts and 116,000 cases in the Crown Court. Some of the new money we received went towards a performance improvement programme which enabled us to reach and, in some instances, exceed our published casework performance targets.

We expended much effort to deliver the performance targets we share with our criminal justice partners, particularly to improve the timeliness of youth cases, specifically persistent young offender cases. We were pleased to receive Lord Warner’s acknowledgement of our commitment to youth justice and the work done to pull together examples of good practice for sharing more widely in the criminal justice system.

We shared with others too our extensive training programme in preparation for the implementation of The Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000 which ensured smooth implementation of the Act and that human rights principles underpin the prosecution process. The Inquiry being conducted by Mrs Sylvia Denman CBE into race relations in the Service has focused on employment but has also looked at some service delivery issues. Since the preliminary report which concentrated on London (Summer 2000), the Inquiry has been widened to other Areas to get a representative sample of the Service’s work. The final report is expected shortly.

In October 2000 the Commission for Racial Equality embarked on an investigation into the Croydon Branch of the Service which is still ongoing.

We were very pleased to assist the launch of the National Black Crown Prosecution Association in January 2001. The Association will be a powerful voice for minority ethnic staff within the Service. We were also very pleased at the response to three national events on disability, race and gender, held in London, Birmingham and Leeds towards the end of the year. The events enabled us to engage with both national and local community representatives and were very successful in raising awareness of issues.

We are determined to deliver the standard of public service a modern society expects. To deliver this standard and to earn the public confidence we rely on, we shall work more closely with our criminal justice partners and engage more closely with all sections of the public we serve.

There are three areas in which progress has been made this year and where more is needed for us to achieve the standards we want and the public expects.

First, closer working with others, the police in particular. We made a good start implementing Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units. Our work to tackle youth offending and serious, international and organised crime similarly required us to develop closer working relationships.

Secondly, more effective communication with the victims of crime who have a key interest in the cases we prosecute. By doing so we fulfil our professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we respect victims as individuals and that prosecutions proceed with the best possible evidence.

Thirdly, more effective engagement with the many communities we serve, to explain the work we undertake on behalf of society, to hear their concerns and interests, and to build up the trust and confidence on which we depend if offenders are to be brought to justice.

We have made a good start in taking forward these three areas of reform. The changes are not just to practices and procedures; they involve a change of culture from a somewhat remote independence to direct public service. Central to managing the process of change is the reassurance that two fundamental principles on which the Service is based still hold true:

• that there should be a national service with local delivery to promote fair and consistent prosecutions
• that it should be an independent authority

Our Code for Crown Prosecutors was reissued last year after public consultation. It supports both these fundamental principles. The degree of autonomy enjoyed by Areas supports our local delivery within a national Service. Most especially, when it comes to our casework, staff share a strong culture of independence and professionalism.

We are justly proud of this culture. Sir Iain Glidewell commented in his report that among the very real achievements of The CPS was the establishment of a national, independent public prosecution service with a Code for Crown Prosecutors, now widely accepted as an established part of the criminal justice system.

I am confident that every member of staff will continue to undertake their duties with integrity and professionalism, to maintain and safeguard our casework independence while at the same time embracing the changes that we are implementing. I expect all managers to provide leadership and support to their staff as we continue to promote a greater sense of public service.

David Calvert-Smith QC
Director of Public Prosecutions.

Vision and values

OUR VISION : 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 pride, and works in partnership.

OUR VALUES : reflect the sort of attitudes and behaviour we want to encourage in the Service. We want to be open and honest, and to ensure that people have a say before decisions are taken, to work together in partnership with colleagues and other agencies to get the best result, and to be absolutely committed to personal and professional integrity and independent decision-making.

THE AIM : of the Service reflects the Government’s priorities for criminal justice. It is to contribute to the reduction both of crime and the fear of crime and to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system by fair and independent review of cases and by firm, fair and effective presentation at court.

OUR OBJECTIVES : support the Aim. They are

• to deal with prosecution cases in a timely and efficient manner in partnership with other agencies
• to ensure that the charges proceeded with are appropriate to the evidence and to the seriousness of offending by the consistent, fair and independent review of cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors
• to enable the courts to reach just decisions by fairly, thoroughly and firmly presenting prosecution cases, rigorously testing defence cases and scrupulously complying with the duties of disclosure
• to meet the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with the other criminal justice agencies.

OUR PRIORITIES : summary for 2000-2001

• making new structures, procedures and partnerships work
• achieving success through valuing our people
• taking forward equality and diversity
• modernising the Service through improved information technology
• improving services to victims and witnesses
• developing the role of The Crown Prosecution Service to meet new, domestic, European, and global challenges of crime.

What we did to deliver the priorities is set out in Section Two.

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION to the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE

The Crown Prosecution Service is the principal prosecution authority in England and Wales.

We advise the police on possible prosecutions, and take over prosecutions begun by them. We are responsible for the preparation of cases for court, and for their presentation at court. We work in partnership with the police, the courts, and other agencies throughout the criminal justice system. In 2000-2001, we dealt with 1.35 million cases in the magistrates’ courts, and 116,000 cases in the Crown Court.

Examples of the range of casework are given throughout this report, and detailed performance information on casework in 2000-2001 is set out in Section Three.

The role of the Service is to prosecute cases firmly, fairly and effectively, when there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and when it is in the public interest to do so.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, is of fundamental importance to the core business of prosecuting. It provides guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied in every case. It also acts as a public statement of policy, allowing everyone to see and understand the basis upon which those important decisions are made.

The Code is reproduced at Annex A.

The Head of The Crown Prosecution Service is the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Director), David Calvert-Smith QC. The Director is superintended by the Attorney General, who is accountable to Parliament for the Service. A Chief Executive, Mark Addison, was appointed in 1998, to enable the Director to concentrate on the prosecution and legal processes. Five functional Directors, of Casework, Policy, Finance, Human Resources and Business Information Systems; and the Heads of Communication, Equality and Diversity and Management Audit Services, support the Director and Chief Executive.

From April 1999, the Service was re-organised from 13 into 42 Areas, aligned to police force boundaries, each headed by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. Each Chief Crown Prosecutor is responsible for delivering a high quality prosecution service to their local communities. Chief Crown Prosecutors are supported by Area Business Managers, reflecting the greater separation between legal and management processes involved in the re-organisation.

In-house Service Centres provide finance and personnel support to family groups of Areas based on the nine Government Offices for the Regions and Wales. Details of Chief Crown Prosecutors, Area Business Managers and Service Centre Managers are set out in Annex B, together with a map of the 42 Areas.

Each Area published a report setting out its performance during 1999-2000. The reports reflected the Service’s commitment to high standards of casework; key developments such as the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and to delivery on important areas such as improved youth justice and better services for victims and witnesses.

Area reports also demonstrated the commitment of Areas to delivering a local joined up criminal justice system, at strategic and operational level; and to forging closer links with the wider local community.

The Crown Prosecution Service Board (the Board) reflects the collegiate style of management adopted by the Director and Chief Executive. Board members are responsible corporately for all decisions taken at Board meetings.

In addition to the Director and Chief Executive, Board membership comprises the five functional Directors, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London, and nine other Chief Crown Prosecutors on a rotating basis (each representing a family group of Areas). The Heads of Communications, the Equality and Diversity Unit, and the Strategic Planning Unit also sit on the Board.

The Board also includes two non-executive Directors, who bring with them invaluable experience from outside the Civil Service, particularly on issues of diversity and management of change; Mike Pitt, Chief Executive of Kent County Council, and Sukhvinder Stubbs, former Chief Executive of the Runnymede Trust. HM Chief Inspector of The Crown Prosecution Service attends Board meetings as an observer.

The relationship between Areas and Headquarters, and the accountabilities of both, are set out in a Framework Document, which allows Areas considerable freedom to decide how their objectives should be met while maintaining a national Service.

Senior Management Conferences are held twice yearly, in April and October. The conferences provide a forum for Chief Crown Prosecutors, Area Business Managers and senior managers in Headquarters to discuss strategic and key operational issues facing the Service.

Review of the Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Director of Public Prosecutions is under a statutory duty to publish the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The key principles of the Code to be applied in every case are:

• is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge and, if so,
• is a prosecution needed in the public interest.

During the year, the Code was revised in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other key criminal justice developments. A revised edition (the fourth) was published on 11 October 2000 at a press conference chaired by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Publication followed widespread public consultation, held for the first time in the history of the Code. The Code was published in 22 languages, including the most commonly used minority ethnic languages, and is available in Braille.

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act came into force in October 2000. The Crown Prosecution Service is a public authority for the purposes of the Act. In carrying out their role, Crown Prosecutors must apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the Act.

We received very positive feedback on the work we did to ensure smooth implementation of the provisions of the Act, which included the issue of a Manual of Guidance and an intensive training programme for lawyers and caseworkers.

The Service’s training material was widely used within the criminal justice system, as the basis for the development of other specialist training courses. Many external agencies, including the Royal Air Force Legal Services, the College of Law, British Telecom and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, attended our internal training, at their own request.

The previous Attorney General, appearing before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in March 2001, praised the Service’s training programme and the way in which we had included other prosecutors and criminal justice agencies in the programme, allowing others to use it freely.

We continue to keep our people up to date with cases and other developments via a quarterly European Court of Human Rights Newsletter.

Strategy for the future

In October 2000, the Senior Management Conference considered five strategic themes drawn from the Service’s vision, and agreed they provided a sound basis for the way forward. The Board subsequently endorsed this view. The themes are:

• Performance
• Partnership
• People
• Public confidence and staff pride
• Professionalism

The Service’s Strategic Plan for 2001-2004 sets out the themes, together with goals and supporting programmes aligned to each

HER MAJESTY’S CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE INSPECTORATE

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate was placed on an independent statutory basis on 1 October 2000, following implementation of The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, with a duty to inspect each CPS Area on a two-year cycle.

During 2000-2001, the Inspectorate published reports of its inspections on seventeen CPS Areas, identifying examples of good practice, and also areas for improvement. In each case recommendations and suggestions for performance improvement, agreed by the Director and Chief Executive, were incorporated into action plans produced by the Areas with targeted measures to deal with areas for improvement identified by the Inspectorate’s findings.

The Inspectorate also undertook a thematic review of performance indicator compliance and case outcomes; and joint inspections with other criminal justice system Inspectorates on case information needs within the criminal justice system; the implementation of section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts’ Procedures Act 1998; and progress made in reducing delay in the Youth Justice system.

A Chief Crown Prosecutor was appointed as champion of each thematic report to advise the Board on appropriate action and to oversee the implementation of agreed recommendations.

SECTION TWO – DELIVERING JUSTICE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE PARTNERSHIPS

The Government has set two overarching aims for the criminal justice system:

• To reduce crime and the fear of crime.
• To dispense justice fairly and efficiently and to promote confidence in the rule of law

In working towards these aims, during 2000-2001, we shared a number of performance targets with our criminal justice partners, for example:

• To halve the time taken from arrest to sentence or other disposal for persistent young offenders from 142 days to 71 days by March 2002.
• To reduce the time taken from arrest to sentence or other disposal for all offenders.
• To improve by 5 percentage points the overall satisfaction level of victims, witnesses and jurors with their treatment in the criminal justice system.

A combined Criminal Justice Business Plan for 2000-2001was published in May 2000, providing a framework of objectives, and performance measures and targets, to support progress across the criminal justice system in meeting the overarching aims, including progress on youth justice and dealing with victims and witnesses.

A longer term, strategic vision for the criminal justice system, ‘Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead’, was published during the year, with considerable input from The Crown Prosecution Service working with colleagues at the Home Office and Lord Chancellor’s Department.

In parallel to ‘Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead’, we contributed to the Review of the Criminal Courts conducted by Sir Robin Auld. This included the Director meeting and corresponding with Sir Robin; staff attending seminars and conferences, and submission of papers on issues raised by the review team.

R-v-Mulcahy

On Friday 2 February 2001, after a five month trial, David Mulcahy was convicted of three murders, ten rapes and five conspiracies to rape. Throughout the build-up to the trial, and during the trial itself, The CPS gave the television company Just TV unprecedented access to its work. A one hour Channel 4 documentary, looking behind the scenes at the way the case was put together, including interviews with Alison Saunders, then ACCP for London central; caseworker Bernard Allen and counsel, was broadcast on 6 February. The audience was 1.2 million.

YOUTH JUSTICE

Persistent Young Offenders

The Government’s 1997 election manifesto contained a pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 to 71 days by March 2002.

Meeting the Pledge

Meeting the pledge is high on the agenda of the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney General and their Ministerial teams. Ministers have visited criminal justice areas to encourage greater inter-agency co-operation and to see first hand some of the impediments to progress.

An inter-departmental Pledge Senior Group was established to provide additional impetus to progress. The Director, Policy is a member. Youth justice is a standing item on the agenda of each Board meeting and it featured as a major item at the Senior Management Autumn Conference 2000.

Locally, Chief Crown Prosecutors implemented performance improvement action plans which set out practical steps to improve the timeliness of youth cases. This involved working in close partnership with their criminal justice counterparts. Some Areas formed specialist youth teams, others adopted fast tracking case management procedures. Area youth specialists or co-ordinators were re-introduced during the year and met together at a national seminar to identify and spread best practice.

A new national training package on youth justice was developed and implemented and the Best Practice Guide, introduced in 1999-2000, was revised.

The average time for arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in 1999 was 108 days. In 2000, the average was reduced to 93 days.

Our contribution to reducing overall delay and to improving the services to victims and witnesses can be found in the following section which sets out what we did to deliver our priorities.

Information box: National Youth Conference

We hosted a National Youth Conference in London in April 2001.

The keynote address was given by the then Solicitor General, who stated that ‘this conference marks the importance, which the Service and the wider criminal justice system attaches to reducing youth offending’.

Other speakers included Nicola Padfield of the Institute of Criminology, Chris Stanley of NACRO, and Lord Warner of the Youth Justice Board, who commented on the commitment within the Service and, in particular, the work of Harry Ireland, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Staffordshire, in pulling together examples of good practice for sharing more widely in the criminal justice system.

The presentations were very well received by the delegates who, in addition to the Service’s youth specialists and co-ordinators, lawyers and caseworkers, included representatives from the judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

Case history: R-v-Copeland

On 30 June 2000, a jury at the Central Criminal Court convicted David Copeland of three murders, after a campaign of bombing in busy London locations in April 1999. The conviction followed a series of explosions in places intended to target minority groups in London. After his arrest, Copeland offered a plea of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. The prosecution considered that given the level of premeditation and evidence from the prosecution’s expert as to Copeland’s state of mind, a plea of manslaughter was unacceptable. The prosecution did not accept that the three bomb attacks, which killed and injured so many were the result of an abnormality of mind that seriously impaired his responsibility.

Information box: Local partnerships in action

In Nottinghamshire, the Area Chief Officer Group engaged consultants to help them develop a joint criminal justice Area Business Plan for 2001-2002, in response to the national criminal justice system plan. We are funding implementation of the plan from the performance improvement programme.

During 2000-2001, in consultation with an external consultant, we developed a programme of local Partnership Events. The purpose of the events was to help introduce joined up services in the local criminal justice system. The events brought together representatives from all local criminal justice system agencies to develop plans for delivering improved performance.

Information box: CPS Wiltshire Trials Unit

The benefits of a Trials Unit were demonstrated in CPS Wiltshire where early legal advice and close liaison between police and the Service helped to secure the conviction of eighteen defendants within 6 months of their arrest in connection with drugs offences.

This prosecution followed a three month police operation during which legal advice was provided by the Trial Unit lawyer. After the arrests, the Trials Unit and the Chief Crown Prosecutor consulted with police on the charging strategy and further evidence gathering. They went on to handle all the hearings at the magistrates’ court, including one defendant’s guilty plea and conviction. The Chief Crown Prosecutor in his capacity as a Higher Court Advocate dealt with eight committals for sentence at the Crown Court. The remaining nine defendants pleaded guilty at the Crown Court.

PRIORITIES

Making new structures, procedures and partnerships work We work closely with our criminal justice partners at all levels to improve the delivery of the aims and objectives of the criminal justice system.

• Nationally, through the Criminal Justice Consultative Council, Trials Issues Group, and Strategic Planning Group.
• Locally, through Area Strategy Committees, Area Trials Issues Groups and Area Chief Officer Groups.

There are many other examples of collaborative working, set out throughout this report, including the establishment of Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units, work on reducing delay in the criminal justice system, victims and witnesses, and dealing with persistent young offenders.

Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees

From 1 April 2000, a structure of 42 Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees replaced the former 23 Area Criminal Justice Liaison Committees. Chief Crown Prosecutors played a leading role in establishing the Strategy Committees. The remit of the committees includes securing delivery of the criminal justice system’s aims, objectives and targets.

Trials Units

We are establishing Trials Units in all Areas, to deal with the preparation and presentation of the more serious cases at the Crown Court, and some trials in the magistrates’ courts.

By 31 March 2001, 27 Trials Units had been established. Ten of these include a police presence to undertake a range of functions including police Crown Court liaison duties, witness warning, and in some units, file building for Crown Court cases. This has achieved similar benefits to those being secured in co-located Criminal Justice Units.

A further 24 Trials Units are planned by 31 March 2002.

Criminal Justice Units

We made steady progress in implementing Sir Iain Glidewell’s recommendations, from his independent review of the Service, for the establishment of Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units across all 42 Areas.

Criminal Justice Units are based on a flexible model for joint administration between the Service and the police, approved by Ministers in 1999. The aim is to maximise the benefits of reduced duplication and delay; improve efficiency to release the savings towards the more serious cases in the Crown Court; achieve better working relationships; and provide improved services to victims and witnesses.

By 31 March 2001, 17 co-located Criminal Justice Units in police premises, and three in our premises, had been established. A further 56 Criminal Justice Units are planned by 31 March 2002.

Reducing Delay

Following the main Narey provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 aimed at reducing delay, early first hearings for likely guilty pleas, and early administrative hearings for contested cases, are now a regular feature at all magistrates’ courts, where defendants appear at the next available court after charge.

In January 2001, the provisions of Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for sending indictable only cases to the Crown Court, were implemented nationally. In most instances, the first hearing in the Crown Court is within a couple of weeks of charge.

Statutory time limits pilots

Throughout the period covered by this report, we continued the pilots on statutory time limits, which restrict the time available for various phases of the prosecution process, in seven pilot sites. The pilots, to test the new procedures and the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998, started in November 1999 and will be evaluated in the Summer of 2001.

Information box: Criminal Justice Unit pilot: CPS South Yorkshire

Starting in May 2000, The Crown Prosecution Service and police in South Yorkshire piloted co-location at Barnsley Criminal Justice Unit.

Evaluation of the pilot found that co-located working was a success, achieving good progress against the key Glidewell objectives. In addition, the pilot achieved savings of over £30k across both organisations. The working practices now in place in Barnsley are being used as the basis for other co-located units in the Area, and have been made available to other CPS Areas.

Information box: Criminal Justice Centre: CPS Warwickshire

CPS Warwickshire, working with local criminal justice partners, developed plans for staff from the Service, Warwickshire police, magistrates’ courts, the Probation Service, and the local Youth Offending Team to be co-located in specially developed Criminal Justice Centres. The aim is to provide joined up justice, thereby speeding up justice, and to provide a better service to victims and witnesses.

The initiative is being funded by a grant of £21.7 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund, introduced in 1998 to provide resources for innovative projects that improve key services or public infrastructure.

The members of the criminal justice agencies in Warwickshire will also work together with the National Health Service and voluntary organisations to create new partnership arrangements.

Information box: Expediting forensic evidence

We worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Forensic Science Service to expedite delivery of forensic evidence to the police and the courts, as part of the efforts in support of the Government’s aim of reducing delay within the criminal justice system.

Case history: R-v-Couch

In a good example of the reducing delay initiatives at work, Ian Couch was arrested on 28 January 2001 for attempted robbery at a petrol station in Maidstone, having been caught red-handed. He was sent to the Crown Court from Maidstone Magistrates’ Court on 31 January 2001. On 5 February 2001, he indicated a guilty plea and was sentenced to a total of five years imprisonment on 23 March 2001, barely two months after he committed the offence.

Information box: Case Management Working Group

We took an active part in the inter-agency Case Management Working Group set up to support the Court Service’s Crown Court Programme. This is a significant initiative aiming to modernise the way the Crown Court operates by introducing more effective case management arrangements; electronic presentation of evidence; digital recording of court proceedings; and providing easier access and more information for victims, witnesses and the public.

Information box: Avon & Somerset Criminal Justice System co-ordinator

Avon and Somerset has had an active criminal justice system Chief Executive’s Strategy Group since 1999, chaired by the Chief Crown Prosecutor. The Group includes the Chief Probation Officer, Justices’ Chief Executive and senior representatives from the Court Service and the Prison Service. The agencies worked closely together to develop a set of shared objectives, to identify key problems and develop a range of strategic priorities.

In order to move the joint work forward as quickly as possible, the Group appointed a full time co-ordinator with responsibility for supporting the strategy, monitoring its delivery, identifying areas for improvement and encouraging effective communication across agency boundaries. The co-ordinator has a high profile role helping agencies in Avon and Somerset to achieve their joint aims, working between agencies in a way that an individual tied to their parent agency could not.

Joint Performance Management

With the police Joint Performance Management is now a well established tool applied in all Areas to identify problems in the quality and timeliness of police files. The process captures information on expedited files prepared for the defendant’s first appearance, and on full files prepared both for contested hearings in the magistrates’ court, and for those cases proceeding to the Crown Court.

Results published quarterly by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) show that in 2000-2001, 94% of expedited files met the quality standard, while police performance on both the timeliness and quality of full files has remained broadly constant: 71% met the timeliness target; 55% were fully satisfactory in terms of quality; and 43% met both the timeliness and quality targets.

The gradual establishment of Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units across many Areas, in which CPS and Police staff are co-located, coupled with some related work by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit focusing on reducing unnecessary police bureaucracy, is prompting further development of the current JPM process. While performance will continue to be monitored jointly, it is likely the process will in future focus on case outcomes, rather than the interface between the two agencies, as at present.

With the courts When cases listed for trial unexpectedly ‘crack’, (collapse into a guilty plea, or the prosecution offer no evidence), or have to be adjourned, it is inconvenient and demotivating for witnesses. It is also costly, inefficient and unproductive for the prosecution, defence and the court.

In order to solve this problem we developed, with colleagues in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, a Joint Performance Management mechanism which was introduced in nine Areas from 1 April 2001 for six months, to identify what positive action might be taken to overcome the problem.

Case history: R-v-Oates, Rosser, Talbot and Haines

Oates, Rosser, Talbot and Haines were convicted of the murder of Jan Pasalbessy on 15 February 2001, at Newport Crown Court. Following an earlier altercation Mr Pasalbessy was chased by the assailants who then kicked and punched him to death in front of his daughter. There appeared to be a strong racist element in the attack which provoked a great deal of media interest. The Chief Crown Prosecutor for Gwent took charge of this case and sent instructions to counsel drawing attention to the racist elements of the murder. The trial took place over five weeks. There were a number of young witnesses and special arrangements were made for them to give their evidence. At the end of the trial the jury returned guilty verdicts of murder upon all defendants.

Partnership with other prosecuting authorities

We continued to strengthen our links with other prosecuting authorities during 2000-2001, primarily through the Whitehall Prosecutors’ Group. In April 2001, we assumed the chair of the National Liaison Committee, which oversees the operation of the protocol between the Health and Safety Executive, and the Association of Chief Police Officers and ourselves, in respect of the investigation and prosecution of offences arising out of a work-related death. During our chairmanship of the National Liaison Committee, the protocol will be reviewed to take account of operational feedback (the ‘what works’ principle), and anticipated changes in legislation.

Achieving success through valuing our people

Investors in People

By the end of 2000-2001, we had achieved Investors in People accreditation for all parts of CPS Headquarters, and all CPS Areas except London, where work towards accreditation continues.

Training and development

During 2000-2001, the Service significantly increased management training to complement the structural changes taking place.

We delivered a series of training programmes for the newly appointed Heads (and Team Leaders) of the Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units during the year. A total of 209 managers attended training on effective performance management, the first of a number of modules to be delivered to the Unit Heads. We also held an introductory event for Unit Heads on leadership and managing change.

In 2000, two managers from the private sector led a one to one leadership coaching programme for Chief Crown Prosecutors and some Headquarters staff. This programme informed leadership training planned for the coming year.

Further training programmes on diversity, victim and witness care, and training for Higher Court Advocates and Designated Caseworkers, are described elsewhere in this report.

Information box: Legal Trainee Scheme

In early 2001, we re-launched the Service’s legal trainee scheme. The scheme was open to staff who had completed the Law Society legal practice course or the Bar vocational course. It provides a two-year training contract for trainee solicitors, or for the first time in employed practice, a 12-month pupillage for pupil barristers. Over twenty staff were appointed to the scheme by the end of March 2001.

Case history: R-v-Brushett

This case, involving serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse of children in care, was successfully prosecuted after CPS South Wales established a team of dedicated staff to deal with the case and to liaise with police and prosecuting counsel. Derek Brushett appealed his conviction leading the Appeal Court judges to acknowledge that this had been a difficult and complex case and the prosecution was commended on the thorough and sensitive manner in which they had gone about their task. They said ‘the steps the Crown took were in our judgement, a model which others in a similar situation would be well advised to follow’. Derek Brushett is now serving a sentence of 12 years imprisonment.

Information box: Counselling and Support Service

The Service’s Counselling and Support Service was enhanced; and we introduced an external confidential telephone helpline. Improved training on stress awareness was developed for individuals, and for managers to help them identify stress and assist colleagues suffering from it.

Information box: Local action on stress

Area managers worked with their staff to identify local causes of stress and take forward remedial actions. Examples include developing training courses on effective time management; dealing with conflict; hosting workshops facilitated by the Counselling and Support Service; and developing office action plans to improve business processes.

Delivering Justice continued...

Family friendly policies

We provided a number of family friendly measures aimed at helping staff achieve a work-life balance. These included a flexible working hours scheme, part-time working arrangements, and job-sharing.

In addition, maternity, paternal, special and adoption leave provisions were available and we continued to operate our childcare subsidy and career break schemes.

Staff Attitude Survey and Stress Audit

In May 2000 the report of the Staff Survey and Stress Audit, commissioned in partnership with the Departmental Trade Union Side, found that 24% of staff defined themselves as highly stressed. On a more positive note, the Survey/Audit found that the strengths of the Service were the nature, diversity and importance of the work, the support and friendship of colleagues, and good terms and conditions of service.

In the past year, we made progress against many of the priorities identified by the Survey/Audit, through the provision of more resources, and improved management practices and business processes.

Much of this progress was planned under our change programme at national and local level. For instance, the move towards Criminal Justice Unit and Trials Unit working arrangements which has improved business processes, and the roll-out of our IT improvement programme set out later in the report, delivering more and better support to business processes.

Interchange

In line with the Government initiative for exchanging staff, ideas and good practice between the Civil Service and the wider public/private sectors our flexible programme of greater movement between posts in the Service and interchange with other Government Departments and the private sector included:

• People from Areas, other Government Departments, and members of the Bar spending periods in Policy Directorate.
• Developing a structured cross fertilisation of experience between each CPS Area and the Casework Directorate.
• Appointing people from Areas to high profile projects.
• Appointing people to other Government Departments and other jurisdictions.
• Groups of managers visiting other organisations to see how they deal with issues, including performance management and customer service.

Taking forward equality and diversity

In January 2000, we appointed Sylvia Denman CBE to conduct an Inquiry into race relations within the Service. The Inquiry focused on employment, but also looked at some service delivery issues.

A preliminary report, which concentrated on London, was submitted in June 2000, and made a series of recommendations. The Inquiry has since been widened to other Areas, to get a representative sample of the Service’s work.

The Inquiry is still ongoing and a final report is expected to be published in July 2001.

In September 2000, after submission of the preliminary Denman Report, the Commission for Racial Equality embarked on an investigation into the Croydon Branch of the Service. This investigation started in October and is ongoing. It is anticipated that the outcome will be known during 2001. In order to assess progress in taking forward equality and diversity, we

• set national targets in April 2000, for employment of minority ethnic staff and women, supported by action plans
• set new systems in place to monitor all aspects of employment, by ethnicity, gender and disability, at a national level
• worked with the Bar to develop systems to monitor the way we instruct Counsel by ethnicity and gender.

We also introduced diversity awareness and management as a distinct competency within the core competency framework. In January 2001, we started a completely fresh training programme on diversity, with the main emphasis on race, for all managers and staff. By 31 March 2001, a total of 2,500 staff, including all middle and senior managers, had been through the programme. All staff will have been through the programme by March 2002.

Information box: Crown Prosecution Service Equality Statement

The Crown Prosecution Service Equality Statement, issued in 1999, commits the Service to ensuring that:

• Employment, training and development are appropriate to ability regardless of gender, colour, race, religion or ethnic or national origin, disability, age, marital status, working pattern, political persuasion, sexual orientation or gender re-assignment.
• Prosecution decisions are free from bias or discrimination and that all defendants, victims and witnesses are treated fairly and with respect.

Information box: The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 came into force in April 2001. The Act makes it unlawful for public bodies to discriminate on racial grounds in carrying out any of their functions, which applies to the Service (and those who work on its behalf) with one exception: ‘judicial proceedings and decisions not to prosecute’. The aim of this provision is to preserve the criminal courts’ role as the sole forum for determining defendants’ guilt. In order to meet the Duty to Promote Racial Equality under the Act, we started to draw up an Equality Scheme along the lines of the one required by the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Information box: Diversity Excellence Model

During 2000-2001, we introduced the Diversity Excellence Model, as a pilot in CPS Surrey, CPS Thames Valley and Management Audit Services. The model was developed by the Civil Service College to identify how an organisation manages diversity within all its business activities. The evaluation of the pilots, including a final report, is due in August 2001.

Information box: Diversity events

A conference on disability was held in December 2000 in London. A race conference, ‘Stephen Lawrence – Two Years On’, was held in February 2001 in Birmingham. A gender event, addressing violence against women, was held in March 2001 in Leeds. All three events were successful in raising awareness, enabling staff to share good practice across Areas, and in engaging with community representatives both at a national and at a local level.

Information box: Black Students’ Conference

In February 2001, members of CPS South Yorkshire participated in a ‘Black Students’ Conference’ at Sheffield Hallam University. As a follow up to this event, CPS South Yorkshire and Sheffield Hallam University are collaborating on a new initiative, which involves the Service hosting 24 students (from 12 different schools) on a work experience day.

Information box: Explaining the role of The Crown Prosecution Service

Leaflets explaining what The Crown Prosecution Service does were translated into 12 community languages and given to the 42 Areas in Spring 2001, for local distribution.

Delivering Justice continued...

The National Black Crown Prosecution Association was launched in January 2001. The Association will be a powerful voice for minority ethnic staff within the Service. The Equality Committee, established in 1999, continued to act as an advisory body to the Board on equality and diversity issues. The Board also established a Diversity Accountability Committee in January 2001 to ensure accountability on diversity from the 42 CPS Areas, and HQ Directorates.

The Crown Prosecution Service Racist Incident Monitoring Report for 1999-2000 was published in February 2001. The number of racist incidents received from the police rose by over 50% from 1,603 in 1998-1999 to 2,417 in 1999-2000. Almost half of the offences we prosecuted were new offences of racially aggravated crime brought under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which came into force in September 1999. Careful monitoring of these cases continues, to assess how the new Act is working.

Addressing diversity within the community

CPS Areas have developed Equality and Diversity Action Plans for addressing diversity within the local community. Examples of Area activities include:

• CPS Derbyshire: the Chief Crown Prosecutor and Area Business Manager attended a Black Police Association event.
• CPS Nottinghamshire: regular liaison was maintained with the Nottingham District Racial Equality Council.
• CPS South Wales: Area staff participated in meetings of Race Equality First and Police Open Days on diversity.

Modernising the Service through improved Information Technology

Criminal justice information systems integration

During 2000-2001, we continued to work closely with our partners in the criminal justice system, under the Integrating Business and Information Systems (IBIS) initiative, to produce a joined up and co-ordinated approach to the development of information technology (IT) throughout the system.

In contributing to IBIS, we continued to invest in new information and communications technology to raise our IT capability; to introduce a case management system; and to develop our current infrastructure.

During 1999-2000, we secured £12 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF), to support the introduction of an IT infrastructure throughout the Service.

Connect projects

The suite of Connect 42 projects is the first step in the modernisation programme. It provides access to a modern information technology infrastructure with modern office automation facilities for staff. It provides secure electronic mail throughout the Service, to the Police via the Police National Network and to other government departments via the Government Secure Intranet. It also provides secure access to the Internet for legal reference material and other information.

By March 2001, 13 Areas were connected to the system, giving around 1530 lawyers and caseworkers access to these facilities. All operational staff will have access to Connect by late 2001, compared with the 1 in 5 who had access to IT in November 2000.

Compass project

The second stage is the Compass project, which will provide an essential strategic component of the joined up approach to the criminal justice system. Compass will provide case management support through an electronic prosecution case file. The Compass project will be a new partnership between the Service and a private sector supplier. The award of the contract is expected by late 2001, with the development of the case management system during 2002 and subsequent rollout starting in 2003.

Legal information

In parallel to the Connect and Compass projects, we began to revise our internal casework guidance with a view to placing it on the Service’s developing intranet. This work includes an assessment of which parts of our internal guidance should be made available to the public. Drivers for the project have included the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Modernisation of Public Services, and a wish for greater openness, subject to preserving the proper interests of justice.

Information box: CPS online: the intranet

We have introduced a prototype intranet which runs on the Connect system. The refined system will be launched in January 2002 and it will continue to grow and develop over time. The prototype has a range of information including on-line manuals, legal updates and e-news. In time, the system will allow CPS staff access to an extensive range of information and will help to revolutionise the way the Service does its work. CPS Areas will be able to publish local information, and enhance this with electronic services like locally generated Bulletin Boards.

Information box: Crown Prosecution Service website

Our website (www.cps.gov.uk) is available in English and Welsh. All members of the public can access this site and we are receiving more and more e-mail correspondence. We have two internet e-mail addresses:

• for enquiries (enquiries@cps.gov.uk)
• and for complaints (complaints@cps.gov.uk).

Case history: R-v-Gray

Nineteen year old student Raphael Gray was convicted of six offences contrary to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and two offences contrary to the Theft Act 1978 after hacking into American corporate databases from his family home in Dyfed Powys. Intending to demonstrate the vulnerability of electronic credit card transactions, Gray made public the details of 23,000 credit cards and used the details of a card belonging to Bill Gates – the founder of Microsoft – to order a course of Viagra. The ensuing criminal investigation involved liaison between Dyfed Powys police and the FBI, and presented a number of novel issues to the dedicated CPS prosecutor and caseworker who helped move the case towards a successful conclusion.

Information box: Victim Information Bureau

In October 2000, as part of the scheme, a Victim Information Bureau was set up at our Wrexham Office in CPS North Wales to send detailed letters of information to, and provide a contact point for, victims and their representatives and local agencies. Independent evaluation found that victims appreciated receiving letters informing them personally of the decisions reached. The Victim Information Bureau was commended for the consistent quality of the information provided.

Information box: Victim’s Charter

The Victim’s Charter, published in 1996, sets standards for each criminal justice agency which are monitored by an inter-agency steering group of which we are a member. The Charter is currently the subject of a wide ranging review in which we have a major role.

Information box: Providing a Better Service to Child Witnesses

CPS South Wales has taken the lead in drawing up a protocol in consultation with paediatricians on the handling of cases involving child witnesses in criminal cases across Wales. Guidance in the protocol covers a wide range of issues such as pre-trial therapy for child victims, providing paediatricians with early access to video recordings of the evidence of child witnesses, ensuring that Crown Prosecutors consult paediatricians on matters requiring expert medical evidence, and obtaining the evidence of paediatricians to supplement that of pathologists in child fatality cases. The protocol has been greatly welcomed by paediatricians.

Information box: International conference on victims and witnesses

In March 2001, Nicola Reasbeck, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Northumbria, addressed a conference on victims and witnesses in The Hague. She explained our plans for greater direct communication with victims; and other developments such as a proposed new procedure allowing victims of crime to make a Victim Personal Statement explaining how the crime has affected them; and special measures provided for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses (including children) to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings.

The conference was organised by the International Association of Prosecutors and attended by state prosecutors from 13 different European jurisdictions.

The conference heard the results of research on the way 26 European countries dealt with victims. Its conclusion was that victims were much better able to accept a decision by the prosecutor to drop a case where the reasons had been properly explained to them.

Information box: Speaking up for Justice

The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides for a number of ‘special measures’ to enable vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings.

Delivering Justice continued...

Improving the Service to Victims and Witnesses

Direct Communication with Victims

The 1999-2000 Annual Report highlighted our commitment, together with our criminal justice partners, to provide the fullest possible support to victims and witnesses. We reported on progress in piloting recommendations made by Sir Iain Glidewell’s independent review of the Service, and Sir William Macpherson’s Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, that we should take responsibility for communicating decisions direct to victims, rather than through the police.

Under the pilot scheme, tested in seven Areas, we wrote to victims explaining why we had decided to discontinue their case, or to alter the charges substantially. The scheme, supported by a comprehensive training programme, involved offering to meet the victim in cases involving child abuse, sexual offences or racially aggravated offences, giving as much detail as was permissible within legal constraints and confidentiality. The scheme complemented our obligation under the Victim’s Charter to meet families bereaved as a result of crime in order to explain the decision on prosecution. Our performance against the existing Charter standards is set out in Section Three.

An evaluation of the pilot scheme included an independent victim satisfaction survey which provided valuable information which enabled us to improve the scheme.

A phased national roll out of the scheme began on 1 April 2001, with full national implementation due by October 2002. The rollout programme will include ongoing evaluation of the scheme, and a further independent victim satisfaction survey, to ensure that the service provided meets the needs of the victim(s).

Pre-trial Therapy

We led a project to develop new national guidance for the provision of pre-trial therapy for child witnesses which we published jointly with the Department of Health, following an extensive consultation exercise.

The guidance, part of the Home Office co-ordinated Action for Justice programme, was launched by the Director and the then Solicitor General on 8 February 2001 at a press conference at the Service’s Headquarters at Ludgate Hill.

The guidance is intended to enable child witnesses to receive the therapeutic help they need at the right time and in a way that will not adversely affect the criminal proceedings. Similar guidance for adult vulnerable or intimidated witnesses is in the course of preparation.

Domestic Violence

We reviewed our policy on prosecuting cases of domestic violence, in consultation with partners in the criminal justice system. We also consulted specialist voluntary agencies that work with victims of domestic violence, for example the Women’s Aid Federation, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters and Victim Support.

The Service’s new public statement aims to address victims’ priorities for safety, support and information within the prosecution framework. We plan to publish the statement in the Summer of 2001.

Meeting new domestic, European and global challenges of crime The Human Rights Act 1998 was a major feature of our work during the year: details of our preparations for its introduction in October 2000 are set out earlier in the report.

Disclosure

In March 2000 The CPS Inspectorate published a thematic review of how the Service discharged its obligation to disclose unused material to the defence. In response to the review’s 33 recommendations and 9 suggestions, we developed a joint action plan with the police to:

• improve compliance with the disclosure regime prescribed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)
• allay concerns about, and increase confidence in, the CPIA
• enhance performance and ensure fairness in the trial process.

The action plan is being implemented by a number of joint working groups. Key outcomes will include revised joint operational instructions to guide frontline staff, and a new joint training package.

Information box: Victim Personal Statements

Victim Personal Statements are a new procedure allowing victims of crime to make a statement explaining how the crime has affected them. The Statement will also provide an opportunity for victims to say what they feel about many other issues important to them; for example, fears about intimidation and concerns about bail, their views on compensation, whether they would like information on the progress of the case, and whether they would like help from the support agencies.

Information box: Pre sentence reports

A working group led by Simon Rowlands, Chief Crown Prosecutor Dyfed Powys, and comprising other representatives of The Crown Prosecution Service, Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the Youth Justice Board and the Home Office reviewed the 1998 National Standard for the provision of pre-sentence report (PSR) information by the Service to the Probation Service. The main changes included:

• The Crown Prosecution Service now has three (rather than two) working days in which to supply pre-sentence report information
• in persistent young offender cases, The Crown Prosecution Service will supply information at court or the next working day
• abolition of the need for the Probation Service to make a written request for information and
• the Service to supply ‘points of contact’ for Probation and Youth Offender Teams to follow up pre-sentence report packages not supplied within the agreed timescale.

Information box: Holmes Project

We continued to work with our criminal justice partners on the Holmes Project, a police initiative to computerise all disclosure forms. The launch is due later in 2001.

Information box: Secondments

We provided the UK’s first permanent representative to Eurojust, a unit of senior prosecutors and judges from each of the EU member states charged with facilitating better co-ordination of prosecutions arising from cross border criminality. We also provided the UK’s first ‘liaison magistrate’. The post holder took up duties in Paris, within the French Ministry of Justice, at the end of April 2001.

At the time this report went to press we were in the process of providing two lawyers to join the Home Office Judicial Co-operation Unit for work on mutual legal assistance and extradition. This is in addition to the lawyer already seconded to the PHARE Programme at the Home Office, dealing with criminal justice issues in respect of pre-accession countries. We are actively involved in the work of the European Judicial Network, Organised Crime Strategy Group and UK Forum on mutual legal assistance.

Information box: Guidance for Higher Court Advocates

During the year we prepared and circulated guidance in relation to the deployment of Higher Court Advocates. The guidance emphasised the importance we attach to grasping the new opportunities offered by full rights of audience. At the same time, it helped to ensure that any advocate representing the Service had the necessary ability, skills and experience, and that by instructing him or her we got both quality and value for money.

Delivering Justice continued...

Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure

We worked with the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers on an extensive consultation exercise aimed at developing good practice guidelines on disclosure of evidence. The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure were published in November 2000. They emphasise the importance of fair and timely disclosure, and provide an important framework for ensuring that prosecutors comply with their duties and obligations under the disclosure regime.

Forging links with Europe to combat organised crime

During 2000-2001, we held bi-lateral meetings on issues of mutual legal assistance with prosecutors and magistrates from Spain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Finland. More of these meetings are planned for 2001-2002. Development work on a comprehensive training programme started during the year. The programme will be delivered over the next two years to our lawyers and caseworkers, and criminal justice partners, to equip them to meet the challenges of the European and international criminal justice agenda. A more intense training programme on cross-border and cyber-crime for a cadre of specialist prosecutors and caseworkers is also in the process of development.

Advocacy

Higher Court Advocates

To become Higher Court Advocates, our lawyers undergo in-house training, regardless of qualifications or experience, including the Director, before appearing on behalf of the Service.

Section 36 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 came into force on 31 July 2000. The Act gave full rights of audience in all criminal courts to all employed lawyers who meet the standards of their professional bodies. This meant that our lawyers who had undertaken the Service’s internal training were able to exercise their new rights immediately.

There has been steady growth in the numbers, training and use of Higher Court Advocates in the Crown Court. Greater flexibility between running costs and prosecution costs enabled Higher Court Advocates to be freed of some responsibilities in the magistrates’ courts, so that they could appear more regularly in the Crown Court. By the end of March 2001, Higher Court Advocates had undertaken around 4,070 sessions, against a target of 2,900, during which they dealt with over 11,000 Crown Court hearings, and a number contested trials at the Crown Court for the first time.

We remain committed to providing full training for prospective Higher Court Advocates and will be providing a further 100 training places in the coming year. We also trained a further eight Higher Court Advocates assessors which will enable us to deliver a greater number of training courses in the future. At the time this report went to press the Service had 277 qualified Higher Court Advocates.

Designated Caseworkers

At the end of March 2001 a total of 222 specially selected caseworkers had been trained as Designated Caseworkers. The casework that non-legal staff, designated under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, may review and present in magistrates’ courts is governed by criteria issued by the Director. This is reproduced at Annex C. During the coming year we shall be reviewing the criteria to ensure that effective use is made of Designated Caseworkers’ skills.

Advocacy initiatives

There have been a number of advocacy based initiatives during the year. We began with a survey of the Areas to inquire to what extent monitoring and training in relation to advocacy was being undertaken. The objective of the survey was also to identify and share best practice around the Areas. Other initiatives included:

• the appointment of an in-house assessor to monitor the quality of advocates in CPS West Yorkshire on an experimental basis. Other CPS Areas engaged external advocacy assessors to fulfil this role;
• the development of written and other training materials for solicitor and barrister agents employed to prosecute cases on behalf of the Service, currently the subject of consultation;
• the development of induction procedures for counsel who are new to prosecution work;
• the assessment of the feasibility of a survey of court satisfaction with advocacy carried out by, or on behalf of, the Service. The result was in favour of a survey and a pilot survey will start shortly in CPS West Yorkshire

The role and responsibilities of the prosecution advocate

We worked with the Bar to produce new guidelines to complement the recommendations of the 1986 Farquharson Committee that looked at the role and responsibilities of the prosecution advocate. The new guidelines, agreed by the Bar and Law Society, are expected to be launched in the Summer of 2001.

Case history: R-v-Daly

Josephine Daly was convicted at Harrow Crown Court in March 2000 of three counts of controlling prostitution, contrary to section 31 Sexual Offences Act 1956, and fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £50,000 costs. Daly ran a vast enterprise employing over 50 prostitutes from England, Eastern Europe and the Far East. At a later confiscation hearing conservative estimates put Daly’s income at over £1 million a year. In a statement utilising the assumptions available under section 72AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, Daly’s benefit was assessed at over £7 million and the amount that might be realised was set at just over £3 million. The prosecution accepted at court that one third of this was from legitimate income, and the Judge made a confiscation order in the sum of £2 million. Daly was given 1 year to pay, failing which she would go to prison for 5 years.

SECTION THREE – EXPENDITURE and PERFORMANCE

EXPENDITURE 2000-2001

Our total planned net expenditure to 31 March 2001 was £348 million:

Administrative costs (mainly salaries and accommodation) £263 million

Prosecution costs £85 million

Our outturn on expenditure to 31 March 2001 was £261 million on administrative costs, and £109 million on prosecution costs. The figure for prosecution costs was offset by £24 million received in costs awarded against convicted defendants.

Prosecution costs include expenditure on counsel’s fees, witness expenses and other prosecution costs. Early in the 2000-2001 financial year we agreed with the Treasury the need for additional funding of £15.8 million. These additional funds were in recognition of the pivotal role we hold in the criminal justice system, and our contribution to improving its performance. The £15.8 million went towards:

• Implementing the new diversity programme.
• Building on preparations for the introduction of the Human Rights Act in October 2000.
• Further investment in information technology.
• A performance improvement programme.

Performance improvements were targeted towards better working with the police to save police time and money and to ensure that their work in catching suspects was more effectively translated into prosecutions. Because of this some £4.6 million came from the Home Office’s £100 million police modernisation fund.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Spending Review 2000

The outcome of the 2000 spending review was announced in July 2000. It set new budgets for the Service for three years from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. The new budget for 2001-2002 is £416 million compared with £329 million in 2000-2001. It includes:

Administrative costs (salaries and accommodation costs) £304million

Prosecution costs (mainly counsel fees) £100million

Capital £12million

Total £416million

Most of the administrative cost budget is for operational staff (lawyers and caseworkers) in the 42 CPS Areas. The spending plans recognised the important links between the police, the prosecution and the courts and sought to encourage greater joint planning and management of the criminal justice system. New Public Service Agreements for the Service and for the criminal justice system, setting out new targets, were published in July 2000.

Criminal justice system reserve

An unallocated reserve of £100 million is available in 2001-2002, and £525 million over three years was agreed for the criminal justice system as part of the 2000 Spending Review settlement. The criminal justice system reserve will promote joined up working between the three criminal justice system departments. It means that decisions can be made to allocate funds in response to pressures on the system and also help meet the main cross-cutting priorities.

Allocations from the reserve require the joint agreement of the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney General and the release of funds must also be agreed by HM Treasury. Ministers have agreed to invest £30.4 million in the Service in 2001-2002 to deal with additional workload pressures, improve the response to organised and international crime and help address the concerns of victims.

Capital Modernisation Fund

In March 2000, we secured £5 million from Round 2 of the Treasury’s Capital Modernisation Fund. The money, for expenditure in 2000-2002, was provided as springboard funding, without which the current level of implementation of Criminal Justice Units and Trials Units set out in Section Two of this Report would not have been possible. We welcomed the further £10 million from Round 3 announced in March 2001 that will provide similar support between 2002-2004.

Unified graduated fee scheme

The Service has been working with the Bar and colleagues in the Lord Chancellor’s Department on the content and design of a new unified fee scheme which will secure parity between the fees paid to prosecution and defence advocates, unless there is good reason to distinguish between them. Removing the disparity in fees provides better assurance that there will be parity in representation, which in turn will promote more confidence in the criminal justice system. It is intended that the scheme, which will capture all Crown Court cases up to 25 days in length, will be introduced in October 2001.

Key areas of risk

Last year, the Board approved the development of a corporate approach to risk management. It identified a number of areas where failure to deliver would put the Service’s plans at risk. The Board appointed senior managers as owners of these high risk areas. Each owner subsequently developed detailed plans to strengthen the processes to avoid the risk of failure in their particular area. The plans are monitored by the Board on a continuous basis. The plans cover the following areas:

• information technology investment
• casework delivery
• management of change (strategic and operational)
• joined up working in the criminal justice system
• equality policy
• resource allocation
• improved service to victims and witnesses
• communication of long term vision

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)

During the year Management Audit Services was heavily involved in training around 100 managers at all levels in the use of the EFQM Excellence Model. By the end of March 2001 we were well on the way to achieving our target of 65% usage of the Model in our Business Units by March 2002, in line with the commitment to the Cabinet Office.

Information box: Corporate governance

The Director and Chief Executive commended the principle that best practice in accounting requirements in the private sector should be reflected in central government, and are committed to establishing corporate governance and internal control arrangements to meet the standards set by the ‘Turnbull Report’ and the reporting requirements of HM Treasury.

They commissioned strategic and operational level reviews to establish the reliability of the Service’s governance and control systems. The aim is to be able to provide a fully compliant statement on internal control for the year 2002-2003.

Information box: Environmental issues

Ross Cranston QC was, as Solicitor General, the ‘Green Minister’ for the Service during the period of this report. The Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman QC has now assumed this role. It involves:

• promoting the integration of sustainable development within The CPS;
• encouraging the use of environmental appraisals as part of policy making;
• continuing to improve the environmental performance of The CPS in managing its buildings and facilities.

During the year we improved our focus on environmental issues. We established a committee which included outside environmental specialists, to drive forward progress.

One particular example is the work to pilot ISO 14001 Certification (Environmental Management System) at our Exeter office.

Expenditure and Performance continued...

PERFORMANCE 2000-2001

Victim’s Charter

The Victim’s Charter sets out 27 standards of service that victims of crime can expect from criminal justice agencies. There are several standards that impact in some way on The Crown Prosecution Service, either because they are the sole responsibility of the Service or because there is a joint responsibility with another agency.

Standard : ‘The Crown Prosecution Service, on request, will meet the family of someone killed as a result of crime, to explain their decision on prosecution’.

Result : In 2000-2001 100% of requests for interview were granted.

Standard : The police will ask the victim about the effect of the crime on them, including fears about further victimisation and details of loss, damage or injury. ‘‘The police, Crown Prosecutor, magistrates and judges will take this information into account when making their decision’.

Result : A Victim Personal Statement Scheme is to be introduced nationally from October 2001.

Standard : ‘If delays occur, court staff or a representative of The Crown Prosecution Service will explain why there is a delay and tell you how long the wait is likely to be’.

Result : In 2000-2001 we dealt with 54,906 contested cases in the magistrates’ courts and 18,137 cases in the Crown Court – 19 complaints were received in relation to this standard.

Standard : ‘While you are waiting to give evidence a representative of The Crown Prosecution Service will introduce himself or herself to you (wherever possible) to tell you what to expect’

Result : In 2000-2001 we dealt with 54,906 contested cases in the magistrates’ courts and 18,137 cases in the Crown Court – 13 complaints were received in relation to this standard.

Standard : ‘The Crown Prosecution Service aims to pay expenses where possible within five days but not later than ten working days from receipt’.

Result : We despatched payment of witness expenses within five working days in 93.3% of cases and within ten working days in 97.7% of cases.

Performance targets

The following figures show performance against the Service’s key performance targets during 2000-2001.

The figures are inclusive of Headquarters Divisions and Casework Directorate.

Objective 1

To deal with prosecution cases in a timely and efficient manner in partnership with other agencies.

Targets : To send 66% of committal papers to the defence within 14 days (10 days in custody cases) of receipt from the police of a full file for committal certified as trial ready.

Results : This target was met. Committal papers were served within agreed timescales in 77.2% of cases during 2000-01, compared with 62.7% in 1999-00.

Targets : To deliver 73% of briefs to counsel within 14 days of committal or transfer (21 days in non-standard fee cases).

Results : This target was met. During 2000-01 briefs were sent to counsel within agreed timescales in 77.4% of cases, compared with 71.1% in 1999-00.

Objective 2

To ensure that the charges proceeded with are appropriate to the evidence and to the seriousness of the offending by the consistent, fair and independent review of cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Targets : To reduce the percentage of cases dismissed on a submission of no case to answer to 0.009% or 9 per 100,000 which are attributable to failures in the review process.

Results : This target was achieved. Dismissals no case to answer attributable to failings in the review amounted to 0.0085% or 8.5 per 100,000 in 2000-01 compared with 0.01% or 10 per 100,000 during 1999-00.

Targets : To reduce the percentage of non jury acquittals in the Crown Court to 0.7% or 7 per 1,000 which are attributable to failures in the review process

Results : This target was achieved. Non jury acquittals amounted to 0.6% or 6.2 per 1,000 of finalisations in 2000-01 compared with 0.7% or 7.2 per 1,000 in 1999-00.

Objective 3

To enable the courts to reach just decisions by fairly, thoroughly and firmly presenting prosecutioncases, rigorously testing defence cases and scrupulously complying with the duties of disclosure.

Target : To reduce to 2.5% the proportion of advocates who fail to meet Service advocacy standards.*

Results : This target was achieved. The proportion of advocates who failed to meet Service advocacy standards was 0.5%.

*Independent Inspectorate assessment

A study on the feasibility of conducting a survey of court satisfaction with Service advocacy was completed by March 2001. A pilot survey will be conducted in one CPS Area by March 2002.

Objective 4

To meet the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with the other criminal justice agencies.

Targets : To pay 100% of correctly completed witness expense claims within 10 days

Results : During 2000-01, 97.7% of witness expenses were paid within the agreed timescales, compared with 97.5% in1999-00.

Targets : To increase to 89% the proportion of replies to complaints which are made within 10 days.

Results : This target was met. Timely replies were made in 91.5% of cases in 2000- 01 compared with 88.3% in 1999-00.

Improving productivity

Target : To increase to 100% the proportion of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days.

Result : 95.3% of invoices were paid within 30 days in 2000-01, compared with 97% in 1999-00.

Under our Performance Improvement Programme, we forecast a higher level of performance than our published performance targets, in the following respects:

• we forecast sending 72% of committal papers to defence within 14 days (10 days in custody cases) of receipt from police of a full file or committal certified as trial ready: we met this forecast;
• we forecast delivering 79% of briefs to Counsel within 14 days of committal or transfer (21 days in non-standard fee cases): we did not meet this forecast;
• we forecast increasing to 92% the proportion of replies to complaints made within 10 days: we did not meet this forecast.

Although we did not meet the forecast in every instance, the Performance Improvement Programme helped us to meet and in some cases exceed our published performance targets.

Diversity

We set targets to increase the proportion of people we employ from under represented groups by March 2002. Our performance against these targets by 31 March 2001 is as follows:

Staff in post March 2001 - Women

Staff category	2002 target %	31 March 2001 %
B2	No target, sufficient representation.	63.8
B3	38.0	35.7
D	39.0	36.3
E	17.0	21.0 #
CCP	22.0	17.8
SCS	17.0	14.3

# Denotes where targets for 2002 have been exceeded. Where this is the case, the targets will be increased accordingly.

Staff in post March 2001 - Minority ethnic staff

Staff category	2002 target %	31 march 2001 %
B2	4.5	6.0 #
B3	1.5	0
D	2.5	2.6 #
E	2.0	4.2 #
CCP	4.0	4.8 #
SCS	5.0	11.1 #

# Denotes where targets for 2002 have been exceeded. Where this is the case, the targets will be increased accordingly.

Disabled staff

The position for disabled staff is slightly different. Since disability can rise at any point in employment, targets may be misleading. Instead, we consider the length of time spent at a particular level compared to able-bodied peers. Many disabled staff do not choose to declare their disability to their employer, so we cannot be certain that we have a full picture. The Service aims to employ 3% disabled staff and as at 31 March 2001, the figure was 3.3%.

CASEWORK PERFORMANCE

In reporting on casework performance, a defendant represents one person in a single set of proceedings, which may involve one or more charges. If a set of proceedings relates to more than one person then each is counted as a defendant. Sometimes one person is involved in several sets of proceedings during the same year: if so, he or she is counted as a defendant on each occasion. A defendant is also referred to as a case.

The figures comprise cases dealt with by the 42 Areas of the Service, but do not include the specialised casework handled by Casework Directorate.

CHART 1 – MAGISTRATES’ COURTS : CASELOAD

	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01
Sent by the police	1,426,085	1,420,833	1,353,788
Dealt with by The CPS	1,423,200	1,434,194	1,354,713

Chart 1 shows as sent by the police the number of defendants whose case was received from the police during the year, and as dealt with by The CPS the number of completed cases in 2000-2001 and the two preceding years. Both totals include cases in which The CPS advised the police before proceedings began.

Our caseload reduced over the last year. The number of cases the police sent to us during 2000-2001 fell by 4.7% compared with 1999-2000 and the number we dealt with fell by 5.5%.

Several factors may affect the number of cases sent to The CPS, including the number of arrests, the number of offences cleared up by the police, and the number of offenders cautioned by the police.

CHART 2 – MAGISTRATES’ COURTS : TYPES OF CASES

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Summary	784,044	55.1%	787,461	54.9%	754,725	55.7%
Indictable/either way	569,976	40%	580,019	40.4%	539,322	39.8%
Advice	57,351	4%	52,625	3.7%	47,680	3.5%
Other proceedings	11,829	0.8%	14,089	1%	12,986	1%
Total	1,423,200		1,434,194		1,354,713

Chart 2 shows the different types of cases dealt with by The CPS in magistrates’ courts. They are:

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

Indictable/either way indictable only cases can be tried only in the Crown Court, but either way cases may either be tried in magistrates’ courts or in the Crown Court;

Advice these are cases in which The CPS advised the police before proceedings began;

Other proceedings non-criminal matters, such as forfeiture proceedings under the Obscene Publications Acts. While the number of cases reduced there was little change in the make-up of those cases compared with the previous year.

CHART 3 – MAGISTRATES’ COURTS : COMPLETED CASES

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Hearings	985,498	72.8%	998,717	73%	942,528	72.8%
Discontinuances	161,112	11.9%	166,861	12.2%	167,988	13.0%
Committals	93,157	6.9%	87,885	6.4%	83,400	6.4%
Other disposals	114,250	8.4%	114,017	8.3%	100,131	7.7%
Total	1,354,017		1,367,480		1,294,047

Chart 3 shows the breakdown of cases completed during the year. Cases may proceed in a number of ways, depending on the circumstances and on the decisions which The CPS has to make in response:

Hearings cases which proceeded either to a guilty plea or to a not guilty plea and full trial;

Discontinuances indictable only cases can be tried only in the Crown Court, but either way cases may either be tried in magistrates’ courts or in the Crown Court; when defendants wait until the day of the trial before producing documents proving their innocence (such as a driving licence); or when the police are unable to fill gaps in the evidence;

Committals when, after a preliminary hearing in the magistrates’ court, the defendant in a more serious case was sent (committed) for trial in the Crown Court (with effect from January 2001, cases to sent to the Crown Court under the provisions of section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are included in these figures);

Other disposals these comprise cases in which the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, and committal proceedings in which the defendant was discharged. Also included are cases which could not proceed because the defendant could not be traced by the police, or had died; or where proceedings were adjourned indefinitely. These cases are not discontinued. The majority could not proceed because the police could not find a defendant: if the defendant is subsequently traced, then the prosecution may continue.

CHART 4 – MAGISTRATES’ COURTS : CASE RESULTS

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Guilty pleas	811,335	82%	824,888	82.2%	774,453	81.8%
Proofs in absence	113,426	11.5%	117,396	11.7%	116,953	12.4%
Convictions after trial	47,889	4.8%	43,852	4.4%	38,400	4.1%
Dismissals	17,181	1.7%	16,780	1.7%	16,506	1.7%
Total	989,831		1,002,916		946,312

Chart 4 shows the outcome of the 72.8% of cases which proceeded to a hearing, divided into guilty pleas, cases proved in the absence of the defendant, convictions after trial and dismissals. 98.3% of hearings resulted in a conviction, unchanged compared with the previous year.

CHART 5 – CROWN COURT : CASELOAD

	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01
Received	126,014	126,013	115,603
Dealt with by The CPS	124,781	124,348	115,732

Chart 5 shows as received the number of defendants who came before the Crown Court and as dealt with the number whose case was completed. The number of cases received during 2000-2001 was 8.3% lower compared with the previous year, while the number dealt with fell by 6.9%.

CHART 6 – CROWN COURT : CASE CATEGORIES

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Committed for trial	89,638	71.8%	86,831	69.8%	82,599	71.4%
Appeals	13,940	11.2%	13,586	10.9%	12,794	11.1%
Committed for sentence	21,203	17%	23,931	19.2%	20,337	17.6%
Total	124,781		124,348		115,730

Chart 6 shows the categories of cases handled in the Crown Court:

Committed for trial all indictable only cases, and some either way cases, are sent (committed) from magistrates’ courts for trial in the Crown Court;

Appeals defendants tried in magistrates’ courts may appeal to the Crown Court against their conviction and/or sentence;

Committed for sentence some defendants tried and convicted by the magistrates are committed to the Crown Court for sentence, if the magistrates’ decide that greater punishment is needed than they can impose.

CHART 7 – CROWN COURT : SOURCE OF COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Magistrates’ directions	44,269	49.4%	40,097	46.2%	38,914	47.1%
Defendants’ elections	18,391	20.5%	18,572	21.4%	16,351	19.8%
Indictable only	26,918	30%	28,162	32.4%	27,333	33.1%
Total	89,578		86,831		82,598

Magistrates’ direction these are either way cases which the magistrates thought were serious enough to call for trial in the Crown Court;

Defendants’ elections these are either way cases in which the defendant chose Crown Court trial;

Indictable only these are cases which can only be tried in the Crown Court. Indictable only cases are the most serious of all. In 2000-2001, these rose to 33.1% of the total compared with only 18.2% in 1991-92.

CHART 8 – CROWN COURT : COMPLETED CASES

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Trial (including guilty pleas)	78,023	87%	74,256	85.5%	69,733	84.4%
Not proceeded with	8,849	9.9%	9,616	11.1%	10,145	12.3%
Bind overs	1,520	1.7%	1,533	1.8%	1,392	1.7%
Other disposals	1,246	1.4%	1,426	1.6%	1,329	1.6%
Total	89,638		86,831		82,599

Cases committed for trial in the Crown Court can by completed in several ways:

Trials these include both cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty, and cases in which the defendant pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to a contested hearing;

Cases not proceeded with when, for example, the defendant has serious medical problems; or has already been dealt with for other offences; or when witnesses are missing. Also included are cases in which the process of continuous review reveals shortcomings in the prosecution case. In these circumstances, The CPS must offer no evidence, and the court will usually enter a formal verdict of not guilty;

Bind overs when charges do not proceed to a trial, and the defendant is bound over to keep the peace;

Other disposals when the prosecution cannot proceed, for example because a Bench Warrant has been issued for the arrest of a defendant who fails to appear; or when the defendant has died; or is found unfit to plead. If the police trace a missing defendant, then proceedings can continue.

Further increases in the proportion of cases not proceeded are anticipated in response to the implementation of s51 Crime and Disorder Act with effect from January 2001. This introduced a new procedure whereby indictable only cases are sent directly to the Crown Court without a committal hearing. Thus, where consideration of the evidence and the public interest shows that a case cannot continue, no opportunity for discontinuance arises until the case has already reached the Crown Court.

CHART 9 – CROWN COURT : CASE RESULTS

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Guilty pleas	59,374	74.6	55,407	73.3	51,596	72.7
Convictions after trial	11,561	14.5	11,553	15.3	10,823	15.2
Acquittals	8,668	10.9	8,658	11.4	8,600	12.1
Total	79,603		75,618		71,019

Chart 9 shows the outcome of the 84.4% of cases which proceeded to trial. These are divided into guilty pleas, convictions after full trial, and acquittals. 87.9% of cases resulted in conviction, compared with 88.6.% in 1999-2000.

CHART 10 – CROWN COURT : ACQUITTALS

	1998-99	%	1999-00	%	2000-01	%
Acquittals after trial	6,829	78.8%	6,881	79.5%	6845	79.6%
Judge directed acquittals	1,839	21.2%	1,777	20.5%	1,775	20.4%
Total	8,668		8,658		8,600

12.1% of defendants were acquitted in Crown Court trials. Chart 10 shows the number of these acquitted by the jury at the end of the trial, and the number acquitted at the direction of the judge at the conclusion of the prosecution case. Judge directed acquittals fell from 2,532 in 1991-92 (11.9% of contested hearings) to 1,755, (9% of contested hearings) in 2000-2001.

AGENT USAGE

The proportion of half day sessions in magistrates’ courts covered by lawyers in private practice during 2000-2001 was 23.9%, compared with 18.1% for 1999-2000.

AWARDS OF COSTS

When a case results in conviction, the court has the power to order the defendant to pay costs to The CPS. We aim to offset the expense of prosecuting offenders by seeking awards of costs against convicted defendants wherever appropriate. The total amount received in 2000-2001 was £24.2 million. The courts also made awards of costs against The CPS, amounting to £0.3 million.

ANNEX A – the CODE for CROWN PROSECUTORS

The Crown Prosecution Service is a public service for England and Wales headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is answerable to Parliament through the Attorney General.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The decision to prosecute an individual is a serious step. Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order. Even in a small case a prosecution has serious implications for all involved – victims, witnesses and defendants. The Crown Prosecution Service applies the Code for Crown Prosecutors so it can make fair and consistent decisions about prosecutions.

1.2 The Code helps The Crown Prosecution Service to play its part in making sure that justice is done. It contains information that is important to police officers and others who work in the criminal justice system and to the general public. Police officers should take account of the Code when they are deciding whether to charge a person with an offence.

1.3 The Code is also designed to make sure that everyone knows the principles that The Crown Prosecution Service applies when carrying out its work. By applying the same principles, everyone involved in the system is helping to treat victims fairly and to prosecute fairly but effectively.

2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2.1 Each case is unique and must be considered on its own facts and merits. However, there are general principles that apply to the way in which Crown Prosecutors must approach every case.

2.2 Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or the sexual orientation of the suspect, victim or witness influence their decisions. They must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source.

2.3 It is the duty of Crown Prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence. In doing so, Crown Prosecutors must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.

2.4 It is the duty of Crown Prosecutors to review, advise on and prosecute cases, ensuring that the law is properly applied, that all relevant evidence is put before the court and that obligations of disclosure are complied with, in accordance with the principles set out in this Code.

2.5 The Service is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. Crown Prosecutors must apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the Act.

3 REVIEW

3.1 Proceedings are usually started by the police. Sometimes they may consult The Crown Prosecution Service before starting a prosecution. Each case that The Crown Prosecution Service receives from the police is reviewed to make sure it meets the evidential and public interest requirements set out in this Code. Crown Prosecutors may decide to continue with the original charges, to change the charges, or sometimes to stop the case.

3.2 Review is a continuing process and Crown Prosecutors must take account of any change in circumstances. Wherever possible, they talk to the police first if they are thinking about changing the charges or stopping the case. This gives the police the chance to provide more information that may affect the decision. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police work closely together to reach the right decision, but the final responsibility for the decision rests with The Crown Prosecution Service.

4 THE CODE TESTS

4.1 There are two stages in the decision to prosecute. The first stage is the evidential test. If the case does not pass the evidential test, it must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does meet the evidential test, Crown Prosecutors must decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

4.2 This second stage is the public interest test. The Crown Prosecution Service will only start or continue with a prosecution when the case has passed both tests. The evidential test is explained in section 5 and the public interest test is explained in section 6.

5 THE EVIDENTIAL TEST5

5.1 Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case.

5.2 A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A jury or magistrates’ court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant’s guilt.

5.3 When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. Crown Prosecutors must ask themselves the following questions:

Can the evidence be used in court?

a Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court? There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it was gathered or because of the rule against using hearsay as evidence? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?

Is the evidence reliable?

b Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession? Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant’s age, intelligence or level of understanding?

c What explanation has the defendant given? Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does it support an innocent explanation?

d If the identity of the defendant is likely to be questioned, is the evidence about this strong enough?

e Is the witness’s background likely to weaken the prosecution case? For example, does the witness have any motive that may affect his or her attitude to the case, or a relevant previous conviction?

f Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness? Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it? Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness?

5.4 Crown Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

6 THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

6.1 In 1951, Lord Shawcross, who was Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest, which has been supported by Attorneys General ever since: “It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be – that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution”. (House of Commons Debates, volume 483, column 681, 29 January 1951.)

6.2 The public interest must be considered in each case where there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. A prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, often the prosecution should go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.

6.3 Crown Prosecutors must balance factors for and against prosecution carefully and fairly. Public interest factors that can affect the decision to prosecu