Annual Report 2001-2002

CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE PARTNERSHIP PEOPLE PROFESSIONALISM PERFORMANCE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

for the period April 2001-March 2002 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 ANNUAL REPORT 2001-2002

• Letter to the Attorney General
• Vision and Values
• Section One – Introduction to The Crown Prosecution Service
• Section Two – Delivering Justice
• Section Three – Expenditure and Performance
• Annex A – The Code for Crown Prosecutors
• Annex B
• Annex C

DIRECTORS LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I am pleased to report to you on our performance and activities in the year ending March 2002, a year in which the Service continued to show that it has a critically important contribution to make to the delivery of better justice to local communities.

A prime example was the achievement of the Government’s pledge to reduce the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders from 142 days to 71 days by March 2002 where it was widely recognised that the Service played a vital part at local level to make things happen so that the pledge was delivered. With street crime, the Service has taken an important lead by working quickly with the police to produce a new premium service so that experienced prosecutors are available to give early advice and then ensure the right cases are brought to court effectively, without unnecessary delay. This has the full support and cooperation of the police and of the courts.

The pilot schemes set up in a number of CPS/police Areas to test the proposal in Lord Justice Auld’s review of criminal courts that the Service should take over responsibility for charge are going extremely well. Early indications are very promising in terms of ensuring that suspects are not charged incorrectly, the number of cases that have to be discontinued are reduced and more of the right cases are entering the system so that the chances of persistent offenders being brought to justice increases and attrition reduces on all counts.

The move to collocated joint CPS/police Criminal Justice Units is well under way. Better prepared cases, a reduction in the number of discontinuances, a reduction in unnecessary delay and improved disclosure of material to the defence are among the many improvements being made through closer cooperation with the Service and the police under a single administration. As well as freeing up resources to concentrate on the more serious casework, and improving the service to victims and witnesses.

Good progress has also been made on the national implementation of the Direct Communication with Victims Scheme. In essence, when a case is discontinued or a charge substantially altered, we communicate the decision to victims directly, rather than via the police. The scheme is under constant review to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of victims.

In the drive to improve the service to victims and witnesses, the Service made a significant contribution to the development of plans for the phased implementation, from July 2002, of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“Speaking Up For Justice”) which provides for a number of “special measures” to enable vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children, to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings.

And, November 2001 saw the launch of our revised domestic violence policy statement that aims to address victims’ needs for safety, support and information, and ensure that prosecutions proceed. The statement was revised after extensive consultation with Women’s Aid groups, victim support organisations, academics, criminal justice system agencies and others.

Linked to the needs of victims and witnesses is greater prosecutorial accountability and improved public confidence in local criminal justice. This is a key concern of Chief Crown Prosecutors as they continue to strengthen their role in the local communities they serve, to hear and act upon concerns to build up trust and confidence in ways that fit local circumstances.

As part of our commitment to become a beacon organisation in terms of equality and diversity we developed one of the first Race Equality Schemes in government. The Scheme, developed with the Commission for Racial Equality and with input from members of minority ethnic communities, was published in May 2002.

It incorporates the few outstanding recommendations of the reports of Sylvia Denman’s Inquiry into race relations within the Service, and the investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into the Croydon Branch of the Service, the majority having been implemented. The reports were published in July 2001.

I am confident that the Service is moving in the right direction. Worthwhile improvements to casework performance have been achieved through the extra resources provided by the 2000 spending review. Investment in information technology is playing its part in performance improvement. By March 2002 everyone in the Service had access to office automation facilities and modern communications.

In December 2001 we signed a ten year private finance initiative contract with Logica plc. Working in partnership with Logica we will develop our strategic Compass programme, an electronic case management system. Compass will make considerable improvements to the way we manage prosecution cases and will play a substantial part in delivering the vision of joined up information technology across the criminal justice system.

The achievements of the past year mean that the Service is well placed and eager to take on the new challenges and new responsibilities as may be placed on it by the forthcoming White Paper on criminal justice reform.

Finally, I wish to extend my thanks to everyone in the Service for their commitment and service in an environment of continuous change. They maintain a consistent high level of professionalism and at all times deliver a creditable performance.

Sir 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 fair, firm 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 the 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 2001-2002

• 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 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 are responsible for advising the police on cases for possible prosecution, reviewing cases submitted by the police, preparing cases for court and the presentation of cases at court. 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 (the Code) is central to our core business of prosecuting. Before proceeding with a prosecution, prosecutors must first review each case against the Code, which provides guidance on the general principles to be applied in every case. It is also a public statement of policy on the principles the Service applies when carrying out its work. The Code is reproduced at Annex A.

We work in partnership with the police, the courts, and other agencies throughout the criminal justice system. In 2001-2002, we dealt with 1.36 million cases in the magistrates’ courts, and 115,000 cases in the Crown Court. Examples of our casework during the year appear throughout the Report, and detailed performance information on casework in 2001-2002 is set out in Section Three.

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 responsible to Parliament for the Service.

The post of Chief Executive, created in 1998, enables the Director to concentrate on the prosecution and legal process. In January 2002, Richard Foster was appointed as Chief Executive in succession to John Halliday, who acted for six months as interim Chief Executive, following Mark Addison’s departure in June 2001. The way we organise ourselves as a national prosecution Service is set out in Annex B.

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:

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

The fourth edition of the Code was published in October 2000, and is available in 12 languages, including the most commonly used community languages, and in Braille.

The Crown Prosecution Service is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. In carrying out their role, Crown Prosecutors must apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the Act.

SECTION TWO DELIVERY

AIMS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Crown Prosecution Service plays a major part in assisting in the delivery of the Government’s two overarching aims for the criminal justice system:

• to reduce crime and the fear of crime and their social and economic costs
• to dispense justice fairly and efficiently and to promote confidence in the rule of law

In working towards these aims, we shared a number of performance targets with our criminal justice system partners, including:

• to increase the number and proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice (attrition)
• 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.

This was the third year in which we worked with our partners in the criminal justice system towards these aims, and towards supporting objectives and performance measures and targets. was published in February 2001, which set out the priorities for the criminal justice system. Particular emphasis was placed on attrition the gap between the number of recorded crimes and the number of crimes that result in the offender being brought to justice and youth justice.

Criminal Justice System Priorities, 2001-2002

• crime reduction
• attrition
• reducing delay
• victims and witnesses
• information technology
• making the criminal justice system work
• implementing criminal justice system reforms

CPS STRATEGIC THEMES FOR 2001-2004

The CPS Strategic Plan for 2001-2004 set out a clear vision and way forward for the Service, to enable us to become the sort of organisation we want to become, and to play the role we want to play in the criminal justice system. The strategy is based upon five themes:

• Performance: to create an organisation which constantly improves its performance and thus its contribution to the criminal justice system and the communities it serves
• Public confidence and staff pride: to achieve a significant increase in public confidence and understanding in The CPS
• Professionalism: to increase the professionalism of all staff and The Crown Prosecution Service as a whole CJS Business Plan 2001-2002
• Partnerships: to ensure The CPS plays a full and influential part in the criminal justice system
• People: to create an organisation whose workforce is competent and confident, positive and committed, flexible, open to change, valued and representative of the communities we serve

CPS PRIORITIES FOR 2001-2002

Performance

Our Business Plan for 2001-2002 set out our priorities for the year, and focused delivery against the strategic themes. During the year, we worked with our partners in the criminal justice system to deliver on the Government’s pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence or other disposal for persistent young offenders from 142 days to 71 days by March 2002. By September 2001, the target had been met. The time had been reduced to 70 days.

The problems of attrition and persistent offenders, highlighted in the Government White Paper “Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead”, and in the Government’s Manifesto, have been given the highest Ministerial priority. The Government set targets for 100,000 more cases to be brought to justice in 2003-2004 than in 1999-2000, and for doubling the chance of a persistent offender being caught and brought to justice by 2011. Because the number of crimes brought to justice fell between 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001, a gap of 180,000 needs to be bridged by 2003-2004.

The Government introduced a street crime initiative to tackle a 32% increase in street crime at a time when recorded crime generally has decreased. This initiative has become the major priority for the immediate future. It aims to reduce street crime through concerted action across Government including the criminal justice agencies, health, welfare and education. The role of the criminal justice agencies is to raise the likelihood of offenders responsible for street crime being brought to justice. For these purposes, street crime is taken to involve offences of robbery, snatch thefts, carjacking and unlawful possession of a firearm. The initiative is focused on the 10 Areas across England and Wales where 82% of all street crimes take place.

We have played a leading role at national and local levels to develop the criminal justice system response to this initiative, including local inter-agency protocols. The protocols include a CPS premium service with the police to raise the quality of investigations and prosecutions. This involves the adoption of best and streamlined practice by nominated experienced lawyers and caseworkers to provide early and pre-charge advice to the police and a more robust approach to prosecutions.

We worked closely with the police to develop pilot schemes in a number of CPS/police Areas to test the practicalities of routine pre-charge advice and responsibility for charging being assumed by the Service. These charging pilots follow the proposals in Lord Justice Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales, for the Service to become more involved in cases at the outset to reduce unnecessary discontinuances, adjournments and unsuccessful outcomes. Early indications are that the pilot schemes are leading to a decline in the number of weak cases being charged, an increase in the number of strong cases, and to declining late discontinuances; and, importantly, the procedure has improved working relationships between CPS lawyers and police.

Other key developments have included progress towards establishing our Casework Directorate as the gateway for all cases received from the National Crime Squad, including the establishment of a third site in Birmingham for the Casework Directorate.

CPS National Youth Conference

The second CPS National Youth Conference was held on 12 March 2002 at the Hilton London Olympia Hotel. The conference was attended by eighty delegates, including representatives from external agencies such as the Home Office, Lord Chancellor’s Department and the Youth Justice Board as well as CPS Youth Specialists.

The Director of Public Prosecutions opened the Conference and was followed by the Attorney General who gave the Keynote Speech. Dr. Thomas, the distinguished academic and editor of Current Sentencing Practice, gave a presentation on the challenges of youth sentencing, and the programme contained other important presentations from practitioners and academics on topical issues such as Referral Orders, Mode of Trial and Detention and Training Orders.

Operation Eagle

Five members of a Moss Side gang were jailed last month after being arrested by armed Greater Manchester police officers, under Operation Eagle.

Weapons including a sub-machine gun were seized when officers raided the hide-out where the gang were planning a kidnapping.

The senior investigation officer praised The Crown Prosecution Service, and in particular Senior Crown Prosecutor Karen Brooks, for the hard work involved in presenting “this difficult and complex case” in court.

Sentencing the men at Manchester Crown Court, Judge Michael Henshell said that since the 1990s, there had been a steady and terrifying increase in the carrying of guns in the city, with 81 shooting incidents and eight murders in 1999 alone, half of those in South Manchester. Sentences ranging from 21/2 to 9 years were imposed.

Forensic examination showed that two of the weapons recovered from the gang had been used in incidents last year, one just seven days before the raid.

Making new structures, procedures and partnerships work

All Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables submitted joint plans detailing their strategy to implement the Glidewell recommendations for jointly administered, and where possible collocated, Criminal Justice Units. The Units produce savings and increase efficiency through reducing duplication and unnecessary delay, and more effective working between our staff and police through better communications and improved case management. A joint CPS/Police Working Group ensured that the plans follow the agreed model for joint administration. CPS Areas and their police partners provide regular updates as and when their plans progress

All Chief Crown Prosecutors have reorganised their front line operations into discrete units to deal with Crown Court and magistrates’ court work, although many of these units are not yet collocated.

Trials Units

Chief Crown Prosecutors continued to introduce Trials Units as circumstances permitted. Trials Units deal with the preparation and presentation of the more serious cases at the Crown Court and some magistrates’ courts trials. By March 2002, Chief Crown Prosecutors in 32 Areas had set up 54 Trials Units. There are current plans for a total of 74 Trials Units across all 42 CPS Areas.

R - v - Harry David Burnett

On 8 April 2002 Harry David Burnett appeared for a preliminary hearing at Stoke on Trent Crown Court in relation to a case of escape from the police and a number of other charges.

As he was brought into the dock Burnett leapt over the Perspex barrier, causing damage in the process, and ran out of the jury door. Burnett was then apprehended by security staff and detained in an adjoining room.

The prosecutor, Joanne Cope of the North Staffordshire Trials Unit, immediately contacted the police who took statements, arrested Burnett and charged him with escaping from lawful custody that night. He appeared at Stoke on Trent Magistrates’ Court the following morning 9 April 2002 and was “sent” on the new escape charge to the Crown Court for a preliminary hearing the next day.

Burnett duly appeared at Stoke on Trent Crown Court on Wednesday 10 April, pleaded guilty to the new escape and the matters for which he had originally been brought to court and asked to be sentenced without reports.

On Wednesday 10 April 2002, within two days of the offence, Burnett was sentenced to 6 months at a Young Offenders’ Institution for the Crown Court escape and a total of 27 months detention overall.

Criminal Justice Units

By March 2002, Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables in 20 Areas had established 42 Criminal Justice Units. There are further plans in 38 Areas to establish a total of 131 Criminal Justice Units.

Chief Crown Prosecutors will be investing savings from Criminal Justice Units into Trials Units, delivering locally on the Service’s shift towards the more serious casework.

A Review of Cost and Efficiency Savings within ‘Glidewell’ Collocated Criminal Justice Units

In December 2001, the joint CPS/police Glidewell Working Group reported on the many improvements being made through closer co-operation between CPS staff and police under a single administration. The main findings included:

• potential for wider deployment of staff to more serious and complex casework
• cost savings
• improvement in the timeliness and quality of files
• reduction in the number of hearings per case
• increase in the number of first hearing clearances
• reduction in discontinuance rates in most sites
• improved disclosure

Joint Performance Management – with the police

Joint Performance Management (JPM) continues to be used to address performance issues between the police and The CPS. The latest available data shows that the timeliness and quality of police file submission has remained reasonably constant over the first three quarters of 2001-2002.

The multi-agency JPM Strategy Group has looked at options to refresh the existing JPM arrangements and agreed that a new scheme is required that is more closely aligned to the needs of the new collocated operational units in which the Service and police work together and better suited to making a more positive contribution to reducing attrition in the criminal justice system, a key Government priority. Rather than measure the apparent quality and timeliness of the file at an artificial gateway between police and the Service, a new scheme, focused on the case outcome, will identify reasons for cases not reaching a successful outcome. The Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers supported this approach and a working group has been set up to examine the feasibility of introducing a joint outcome analysis for common application across all forces and CPS Areas during 2002-2003.

Bradford Riots

After large-scale disturbances in Bradford in July 2001, West Yorkshire Police set up an operation which involved CPS Bradford from the outset. The masses of video evidence available means that building cases against offenders is time-consuming, and investigations are ongoing. There have been over 150 arrests so far, and The CPS has provided pre-charge advice in over 100 cases. The final number of offenders prosecuted is expected to rise to over 200. The Area’s excellent relationship with West Yorkshire Police has enabled appropriate guidance and advice to be given consistently and comprehensively, and this will have a beneficial effect on joint working generally in the long term.

Joint Performance Management – with the courts

We continue to operate a JPM arrangement with the Court Service at a number of Crown Court centres to capture reasons for ‘cracked’ and ineffective trials. A similar scheme has been developed to capture management information on cracked, ineffective and vacated trials in magistrates’ courts. The new scheme was piloted across a number of Areas from April 2001 and following positive feedback the JPM Strategy Group agreed to it being rolled out nationally between January and March 2002. 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. It is envisaged that the new scheme will throw useful light on reasons for cases collapsing and hearings being ineffective, and identify positive action that can be taken to reduce the problem. Relations with the Bar In February 2002 the Farquharson Guidelines were introduced following work by the Bar/CPS Standards Group. The Guidelines outline the role and responsibilities of the prosecution advocate, and provide important guidance for all prosecutors. We continue to work closely with the Bar, Legal Services Commission and Lord Chancellor’s Department in the development of Quality Mark. Quality Mark will shortly be made available to all barristers’ chambers that can demonstrate that they meet set criteria, and deliver a quality service to their clients.

R - v - Beart

Beart was charged with the murder of a woman in Cornwall. This was a most traumatic case for all those involved in the investigation and prosecution due to the horrific injuries inflicted on the victim. The case was widely reported in the national press. Beart pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court on 5 November 2001. The Service worked closely with the Devon & Cornwall police and counsel. Beart admitted the facts of the offence and it was important to provide evidence to support murder as opposed to manslaughter by way of “diminished responsibility” argument. This was achieved and Beart was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Relations with other Prosecuting Authorities

We continue to work constructively with other prosecuting authorities, and contribute to the Whitehall Prosecutors’ Group chaired by the head of the legal team at the Department of Trade and Industry.

Interagency work

During 2001-2002 a working group led by Simon Rowlands, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Dyfed-Powys, revised the 1998 National Standard for the provision of Presentence Report Information. Those involved in the initiative included the National Probation Service, Youth Justice Board and the Home Office. The revised Standard was introduced from 1 January 2002 and will improve the local interface between The CPS and National Probation Service, and assist in improving the quality and timelines of pre-sentence reports laid before the court.

Work related deaths - protocol for liaison

During 2001-2002 we chaired the National Liaison Committee established in 1998 to oversee the operation of a protocol between the Health and Safety Executive, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Service. The protocol establishes a framework for liaison and joint decision-making where there is an incident in the work place that results in a fatality. During the period of our chair, the National Liaison Committee commissioned a review of the protocol involving external consultation. A revised protocol is planned for Autumn 2002.

Protocol for the provision of witness statements from hospital and emergency staff for criminal proceedings

During 2001, the Service developed and agreed a protocol with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. The protocol provides an agreed framework for obtaining witness statements from staff at accident and emergency departments for criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.

Achieving success through valuing our people

Staff Survey and Stress Audit 2002

In March 2002, we commissioned a survey to measure current staff attitudes and stress levels. Questions about stress were benchmarked directly against the survey we undertook in 2000. Attitude questions were benchmarked against other government departments. The survey response rate was 64% of staff. Early indications are that both stress and satisfaction levels within the Service have improved since the 2000 survey. Once the results have been considered in more detail, national and locally tailored action plans will be put in place to address key areas for improvement.

Interchange

The Service continues to promote an active programme of Interchange opportunities with other organisations. Good progress has been made against central government targets for members of the Senior Civil Service to acquire experience both outside the Service and Whitehall. Interchange activities in support of these targets have included:

• four lawyers being seconded to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo for a one-year period
• one of our Senior Civil Service staff taking up a nonexecutive position with another organisation
• one member of staff undertaking a full-time secondment to the Prince’s Trust Volunteer scheme for four months
• twenty staff undertaking Prince’s Trust Volunteer activities, and five have been nominated for Civil Service awards

Other development opportunities

Some members of staff obtained places to participate in Cabinet Office sponsored positive action initiatives such as Pathways (to equip minority ethnic staff for roles in the Senior Civil Service); the Elevator Partnership Scheme (to encourage women into senior management roles); and the National Mentoring Consortium scheme to support minority ethnic undergraduates.

Investors in People

During the year we recruited and trained internal Investors in People assessors to assist in a programme of postrecognition assessments of some Areas and Directorates in Headquarters, and an assessment of CPS London, leading to corporate recognition of the Investors in People quality standard for training and development of staff.

All but one Area, and all Directorates in Headquarters, are recognised as meeting the Investors in People Quality Standards.

Training and development

We continued to build up leadership, management and professional skill levels, and to invest in more training and development programmes in pursuit of excellence as a Service.

During 2001-2002, we continued to place emphasis on management training to meet the needs arising from our radical structural change programme, and the findings of the Sylvia Denman Report and those of the Commission for Racial Equality (on which our more general responses are set out below).

The Board has endorsed a three-year management development strategy and work has begun on its implementation. As part of the strategy, 20 CPS managers are currently enrolled for post-graduate diplomas in Leadership and Management with Leeds Metropolitan University.

Members of the first intake of the relaunched legal trainee scheme are close to completing their training contracts. Plans are in hand to extend the scheme into a comprehensive law scholarship programme.

CPS Sports Day

In August 2001, around 700 CPS staff from CPS Areas and Headquarters, and around 300 friends and family members, attended the first ever CPS Sports day at the Civil Service Sports Ground in Chiswick.

The event was one of the largest gatherings of CPS staff in the Service’s history. Events ranged from field athletics, football, cricket, tennis and rounders matches to darts tournaments and novelty races. Winners were presented with trophies from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Taking forward equality and diversity

In July 2001, both Sylvia Denman’s report into race relations within the Service, and a report by the Commission for Racial Equality into the Croydon Branch of the Service, were published. We accepted all the recommendations of both reports, and developed action plans to implement them. The Attorney General set up a Race Advisory Group to help him superintend progress in this area. Most of the recommendations have been implemented. The outstanding recommendations have been incorporated into The CPS Race Equality Scheme.

CPS Race Equality Scheme

In compliance with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, we published a Race Equality Scheme in May 2002, developed in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality, and in consultation with members of minority ethnic communities. The Scheme sets out the key steps we will take over the next three years to ensure our policies, service delivery and employment systems eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good race relations between people of different racial groups.

Diversity training

All staff have undergone diversity training. In addition, two national seminars were held to improve practice and awareness, one on flexible working and one on homophobic attacks. A series of regional seminars on community engagement have been held with the aim of providing skills to Area staff. A national conference on employment was held in March 2002. This was an extremely successful event and helped raise awareness on a range of diversity issues.

Mainstreaming equality

All personnel policies have been reviewed from an equality perspective. The outcomes of this review are being taken forward.

Dignity at Work

In July 2001, we ran a “Dignity at Work” campaign. This included placing posters in all our offices, and the distribution of themed booklets, coasters and postcards to all staff. The aim of the campaign was to ensure, through raised awareness, that all staff are treated with dignity at work and valued in their difference.

Staffing

All Chief Crown Prosecutors and Headquarters’ Directors set staffing targets on diversity for April 2002 and 2005. As an organisation, the Service has already achieved its 2005 targets for employment of minority ethnic staff. Details of our performance against these targets, and also our targets for the employment of women, and disabled staff, are set out in Section Three.

Disability

In May 2001, we held a joint seminar with the Disability Rights Commission. Outcomes from the seminar were incorporated into a CPS Disability Action Plan, which was launched in the Autumn of 2001.

Community engagement

In January 2001, the Board established a Diversity Accountability Committee to ensure accountability on diversity from all 42 CPS Areas, and national Headquarters. In order to identify and spread good practice, the Diversity Accountability Committee asked Chief Crown Prosecutors to provide a note of the extent of their community involvement, including participation in inter-agency domestic violence fora and multi-agency racial harassment panels.

CPS Cheshire: Connecting the communities

“Connecting the Communities” is a project funded by the Home Office as a result of a bid by The Crown Prosecution Service, Police, Probation Service, Fire Brigade, and Prison Service in Cheshire. It aims, through partnership, to make criminal justice and other Home Office services in the Area more representative by increasing the number of minority ethnic staff employed at every level and ensuring that their retention is the same as for staff who are not from a minority ethnic background. A cross service minority ethnic staff support group has been introduced to provide ongoing support.

Funding provides for a Racial Equality Officer, a Careers Advisor, and for publicity material to promote a positive image of the criminal justice system and Home Office and to develop direct links between criminal justice system and Home Office agencies and minority ethnic voluntary organisations.

Diversity Monitoring Project

In 2001 we appointed external consultants to research 15,000 prosecution files - looking at charge, bail, mode of trial, discontinuance, failed cases, plea and plea bargaining by the ethnicity and gender of defendants. The aim of the research is to see if there are any ‘indicators’ of discrimination in any of these stages of the prosecution process. Results will be analysed to see what lies behind emerging patterns. Following this, the Service will, where necessary, review policies or procedures, or train staff to ensure that discrimination does not occur.

Modernising the Service through improved Information Technology

Criminal justice information systems integration

During 2001-2002, we continued to work closely with our partners in the criminal justice system to join-up and coordinate the approach to the development of information technology. We supported the new Criminal Justice Information Technology Unit and the Office of the e-Envoy in the development of an initial demonstrator for a common criminal justice system “Exchange”. In time this will provide a secure means for all criminal justice agencies to exchange common electronic case information and documents. It will provide all criminal justice system professionals, legal practitioners and other parties with an integrated on-line view of the progress and relevant details of cases, subject to the relevant security and access rules.

Connect projects

We made a significant first step in developing the IT literacy of our staff with the successful delivery of the suite of Connect projects in March 2002. This first phase of the modernisation programme of the Service, completed on time and within budget, has given all staff access to a common infrastructure providing modern office automation facilities and secure electronic mail. It has also improved our communication with criminal justice system partners, through secure e-mail to the police via the Police National Network, and to other government departments and agencies via the Government Secure Intranet. All our staff have access to the Internet, as well as, through our own intranet, access to legal reference material and other appropriate information.

Compass Private Finance Initiative project

The Crown Prosecution Service has entered into a longterm partnership arrangement with Logica plc for the provision of IT products and services, with the award of the Compass contract. Through this 10-year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, the Service and Logica plc aim to set new standards of excellence in joint working - to deliver high quality services that meet the needs of practitioners and others who use and rely on our services.

COMPASS case management project

The second phase of the modernisation programme is the development of the Compass case management system. This project, part of the Compass PFI contract, will provide an essential strategic component of a joined-up criminal justice system. This comprises two tranches:

• an initial case management system scheduled to roll out from April 2003
• the full Compass case management system, for implementation in 2004

The Compass case management system will enable lawyers and caseworkers to access information on-line rather than rely on paper files, and will guide users on the actions they are required to undertake on case files.

We ensured that flexibility was a key element of our agreement with Logica, to facilitate future changes in the criminal justice system and wider government environment.

Legal guidance

During 2001-2002, the Prosecution Manual was revised, and made available to staff electronically. The guidance links related issues and draws on the commercially available legal reference material accessible via The CPS intranet. Liaison has taken place with other prosecuting authorities undertaking similar projects ahead of the implementation of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Improving the services to victims and witnesses

Direct Communication with Victims

Last year’s report highlighted the progress made in piloting and implementing recommendations made by Sir Iain Glidewell’s independent review of The Crown Prosecution Service, and Sir William Macpherson’s inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, that the Service should take responsibility for communicating decisions direct to victims, rather than via the police.

Under the scheme, which had been tested in seven CPS Areas, we give victims an explanation when the prosecution decision is to discontinue their case, or alter charges substantially. If a further explanation is required, in cases involving child abuse, sexual offences or racially aggravated offences, we offer to meet victims to explain the basis of the decision. This is in addition to our obligation under the Victim’s Charter to meet families bereaved as a result of crime in order to explain the decision on prosecution.

National implementation of the scheme began in April 2001, and good progress has been made in rolling out the initiative across England and Wales. We aim to achieve full national implementation by October 2002. The rollout programme will include further evaluation of the scheme and an independent victim satisfaction survey to ensure that the service provided meets the needs of victims.

R - v - Gary Hart

Mr Hart was driving a land rover vehicle pulling a trailer with another car on board, which in the early hours of 28 February 2001 left the M62 motorway and came to rest on the south bound main London railway track near Selby. His vehicle was hit by a passenger train heading for London, which then crossed into the path of a northbound freight train. In the resulting tragedy 10 people lost their lives and scores more were severely injured.

On advice from the Service’s Casework Directorate, the police charged Mr Hart with 10 counts of causing death by dangerous driving. The trial lasted over two weeks and at the end Mr Hart was convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment.

The trial and the period leading up to it were extremely traumatic for the families of the deceased victims and for those who survived the crash. However, working closely with the North Yorkshire Police and British Transport Police the Service’s Casework Directorate was able to see that they were given every possible care. A discreet room was set aside at the Crown Court for the families to ensure they had a private refuge from the media and general public; they had full access to the Directorate’s lawyer and counsel; a ticket system was agreed with the court whereby all the deceased’s families were guaranteed a seat in court and the proceedings were relayed by live link to another court room for those of the survivors who could not be accommodated. After the case concluded the reviewing lawyer, with counsel and the police, met all the families again to answer any questions they had as regards what had happened and what would happen next. Speaking Up For Justice The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“Speaking Up For Justice”) provided for a number of “special measures” to enable vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, including children, to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings. The Service made a significant contribution to the development of the guidance for implementing

Speaking Up For Justice.

The guidance was launched on 24 January 2002, when it was also announced that the special measures provided by the Act would be introduced from July 2002.

The Service continues to work closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office to ensure the success of this important range of initiatives.

Staff training is an important aspect of our contribution to the success of the initiatives. We developed innovative training packages, and during April 2002 lead tutors across the Service were trained to deliver classroom training to over 1000 designated staff. Preparations have been made for the provisions of “e-learning” facilities, to deliver supplementary interactive training to the desk-top for all lawyers and caseworkers. This is a first for the Service.

During the year we began working with the Ann Craft Trust to raise the awareness of staff to issues around dealing with victims and witnesses who have a learning disability.

The phased programme of implementation of the various recommendations is likely to extend beyond 2003-2004. The firm foundation established during the year will ensure their successful implementation.

The Ann Craft Trust

The Ann Craft Trust (formerly the National Association for the Protection from Sexual Abuse of Adults and Children with learning difficulties), is a leading organisation working on protecting people with learning difficulties from abuse. As well as undertaking original work, publishing manuals in the field, and providing consultancy, they offer a range of training especially designed for those working in health, police, social services and education.

Pre-trial therapy for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses

Following the successful introduction in February 2001 of guidance for the provision of pre-trial therapy for child witnesses, the Service worked with other agencies to produce similar guidance for vulnerable or intimidated adult witnesses. This guidance was issued by the Home Office in January 2002 alongside guidance in support of the implementation of the wider range of initiatives arising from the report Speaking Up For Justice.

Domestic violence

In November 2001, the Attorney General and the Director launched the new CPS domestic violence policy. The policy, published in 10 languages and on audiotape, was developed after extensive consultation with women’s aid groups, victim support organisations, academics, criminal justice system agencies and others. The policy centres on the need to ensure the safety of victims and their children while holding abusers accountable for their actions, and provides important guidance for all prosecutors responsible for reviewing and presenting such cases before the court.

The policy has been well received by external organisations working in this sensitive area and is part of the drive by the Service to improve care for victims and witnesses.

A national network of prosecutors was also set up in November 2001 to help implement the new policy and to promote the exchange of information and good practice. These Domestic Violence Co-ordinators work closely with colleagues across all CPS Areas and with police and interested groups locally.

Launch of the revised CPS Domestic Violence policy

In November 2001 about 150 people attended the launch of the revised CPS domestic violence policy at Portcullis House, Westminster.

The revised policy was launched by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, with guests including the Solicitor General, Cherie Booth QC, and representatives of many organisations from within and outside Government. There was wide coverage in national, specialist and regional media.

Developing the Service to meet new domestic, European and global challenges of crime

Government reform programme for the criminal justice system

We contributed fully to the Rt. Hon Lord Justice Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. The findings of the review were published in October 2001, and we have since responded to its recommendations, and are working closely with criminal justice system partners and Ministers in developing proposals for a future reform programme.

Advocacy

Higher Court Advocates

Section 36 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 gave full rights of audience to all employed lawyers who meet the standards of their professional bodies. From 31 July 2000, CPS lawyers who have undertaken the Service’s internal training have been able to exercise full rights of audience as Higher Court Advocates, principally in the Crown Court. During 2001-2002, we received much positive feedback from the judiciary, Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, and other criminal justice system stakeholders about the ability and effectiveness of Higher Court Advocates.

Between 2001-2004 it is our intention to train and deploy 100 additional Higher Court Advocates each year at the Crown Court. And to increase gradually the number of Higher Court Advocates exercising rights of audience in higher courts. By the end of March 2002, 301 Higher Court Advocates had been trained and a further 27 were part way through the training programme.

A measured increase in the use of Higher Court Advocates will enhance the ability of lawyers to prepare serious cases for trial as well as increasing job satisfaction.

R - v - Renouf

The defendant made an allegation of rape against a man she had met through an internet chatline. The police investigation concluded that the defendant had voluntarily met the alleged rapist and had consented to sex. The police submitted an advice file to our Cornwall office and a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice was advised. The defendant was charged and was sent to Truro Crown Court under Section 51 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998. A Higher Court Advocate prosecuted the case.The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. The case was reported in the national press.

Designated Caseworkers

Certain casework may be reviewed and presented at magistrates’ courts by non-legal staff, designated under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This casework is governed by criteria issued by the Director, which is set out at Annex C.

During 2001-2002, 25 staff were assessed to become Designated Caseworkers, joining the 222 trained up to March 2001.

Designated Caseworkers continue to perform well in their role, and are well received by the courts before whom they appear.

Survey of Court Satisfaction with CPS advocacy

During the year we appointed the Nottingham Law School to conduct a pilot survey of court satisfaction with advocacy conducted by, or on behalf of, the Service, in South Yorkshire. A report on findings will be made in July 2002. Following an evaluation of the pilot and its findings, a decision will be made on whether to repeat the survey in all CPS Areas during 2002-2003.

Disclosure

Lord Justice Auld’s Review of the Criminal Courts reemphasised the importance of the proper discharge of the prosecution’s duty to disclose information to the defence, not only to ensure fairness in prosecutions, but also as a key element in bringing more offenders to justice.

The Director chairs a joint CPS/police disclosure project board to take forward the recommendations and suggestions in HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s Thematic Review of Disclosure, published in March 2000. The project board is supported by five working groups organised to evaluate the recommendations and suggestions. The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, issued in 2000, and Home Office research are also informing the work of each group.

Proceeds of crime

Much work was done during the year to ensure a high state of readiness in the Service for the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001. The Bill changes significantly the way in which criminal confiscation orders will be obtained, making the Crown Court a “one stop shop” for dealing with applications for restraint and confiscation of assets.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is expected to be implemented from 1 January 2003, by which time the Service will have trained a cadre of specialist prosecutors as well as representatives from other criminal justice system agencies.

R-v- Palmer

The Service’s Central Confiscation Branch obtained the largest confiscation order made to date against Timeshare tycoon, John Palmer, dubbed by the media as “Goldfinger”. Palmer has been ordered to pay £33 million plus a further sum of £2 million in compensation plus approximately £300,000 towards prosecution costs.

The confiscation proceedings concluded almost a year after Palmer’s conviction for Conspiracy to Defraud following a seven day confiscation hearing at the Central Criminal Court. Police worked on more than 5,000 documents in the confiscation investigation and calculated the conversion into sterling of some 4,000 foreign deals.

Police compiled a random sample of 500 victims to ascertain what percentage were deceived by the sales pitch and how much they had lost. This was the first time this method had been used to calculate a defendant’s benefit from his criminal offences in confiscation proceedings.

The result of the random sample produced a figure of £47 million. Following a lengthy hearing the Judge calculated that Palmer’s benefit was 70% of the £47 million that the prosecution had claimed. This resulted in a confiscation order being made against him in the sum of £33 million or to serve a further 11 years imprisonment in default of payment.

Palmer was given 2 years to pay the first instalment of £20 million, the balance to be paid 12 months thereafter. In the event that the confiscation order is unpaid the Central Confiscation Branch will apply to the High Court for a Receiver to be appointed to realise Palmer’s realisable property in settlement of the confiscation order.

Gateway for National Crime Squad Cases

In taking forward the Glidewell recommendations for a greater focus on more serious crime, Casework Directorate made preparations to become the gateway for all cases received from the National Crime Squad. This included the establishment of a third Casework Directorate site in Birmingham.

The Birmingham Branch of Casework Directorate became operational in November 2001, and was formally opened by the Attorney General on 11 March 2002. The Birmingham Branch will pilot arrangements for Casework Directorate becoming the gateway for all National Crime Squad cases. The pilot will be used as the basis of an accord between Casework Directorate and the National Crime Squad, with the aim of implementation throughout the Directorate from October 2002.

“High-tech” Crime

We appointed a “high-tech” crime project manager to develop our national high-tech crime strategy. The aim of the project is to develop and deliver a strategy to ensure that the Service has the requisite levels of specialist expertise to prosecute effectively cases involving high-tech crime. This involves being able to deal with traditional crimes committed using new tools as well as new types of offences. A key part of the project is the design and delivery of training, with assistance from appropriate external experts, to increase our expertise in this area.

CPS European and International work

During 2001-2002, our newly created European and International Division was expanded to ensure we were fully prepared to deal with all European, international, serious and organised crime initiatives across the criminal justice system. As well as developing our staff this process has assisted UK policy making by providing much needed practitioner input into policy formulation. For example, we have commented in detail on consultations covering changes to extradition procedures, the Home Office review of mutual legal assistance legislation including the role of the UK Central Authority, the UK position on the role of the European Public Prosecutor, and the International Criminal Court. This work has been supported by the involvement of Areas, including attendance by the Chief Crown Prosecutors of CPS London, Gwent and Staffordshire, at conferences in Romania, Italy and The Netherlands respectively, on topics concerning the prosecution of international cases.

The events of 11 September 2001 have added even greater impetus to the Service’s international work in relation to tackling cross-border criminality.

Counter terrorism

Following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, a large number of countries were forced to review their legislation as well as their emergency provisions. Very soon after those events, the British Government announced a raft of emergency terrorism legislation to deal with the global threat of terrorist activity, movements and finances. The Service played a pivotal role in advising the Law Officers and the Home Office on the legislative proposals as they emerged. We were able to do so by corralling the expertise of lawyers across the Service and rapidly establishing and maintaining links with the Home Office.

The Service has continued to meet with the Home Office to assist in the continuing review of the legislation.

The Service’s pro-active stance saw its successful application to the European Commission for funding for a pan-European Conference on Human Trafficking. The Conference, involving experts from 12 European countries, took place in May 2002, and was chaired by Ian MacDonald QC.

Cross Border Crime - CPS Kent

The county of Kent occupies a unique position as the gateway to Europe, which has led to a number of challenges for the Service and the police, together with Customs and Excise and the Immigration Authorities. In particular, there is an increasing number of immigrants seeking asylum, a growing involvement in the organised transportation of illegal entrants, and a thriving black market for tobacco and alcohol.

In order to enhance the Service’s ability to respond to this increasingly complicated and fast moving aspect of criminal activity, a specialist Organised Crime Unit has been set up at the Canterbury office to deal exclusively with extra jurisdictional and cross-border crime from the early stages of an investigation. This Unit began functioning in February 2002, and comprises two senior lawyers and a caseworker.

Overseas Liaison Network

Building on the foundation of the position created in Paris, the Service has taken the lead in creating new liaison magistrate positions in Spain and Washington. During the course of 2002 it has also assumed overall responsibility for an existing liaison magistrate in Rome. This will mean that by mid-2002 the UK will have a network of four overseas liaison positions in countries which we deal with most frequently in terms of extradition and mutual legal assistance. Over the course of 2002 the Service will continue to evaluate further opportunities to enhance the overseas network in countries where a business case for such a commitment can be made.

Crown Prosecution Service’s International Profile

During the year the Service laid the groundwork for its facilitation of the seventh Annual General Meeting and Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors, which will be held in London during September 2002. The Conference theme is’The Threat of Global Crime: Trafficking in Humans, Drugs and Money' and will provide a unique forum for between 450 and 500 of the world’s most senior prosecutors, from over 60 countries, to gather together to discuss how best to cooperate and coordinate prosecutions involving cross border offending. This project is part of the wider initiative by the Service to become more closely involved, as the United Kingdom’s largest prosecutor, in driving the process of international liaison in order to break down existing barriers to successful international prosecutions.

Eurojust

Eurojust is a body of prosecutors and magistrates from each of the fifteen member states of the European Community, with the task of coordinating investigations and prosecutions in serious crimes such as terrorism and drug and human trafficking. We provided key practitioner input and made representations in the setting up of the provisional Eurojust. Mike Kennedy, formerly Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Sussex, the UK representative to Eurojust, has been elected as President of Eurojust for a three year period starting in July 2002. The deputy UK representative is Rajka Vlahovic, formerly of the Service’s Casework Directorate.

Visit to CPS Hertfordshire by delegation from the Peoples Republic of China

During 2001-2002, CPS Hertfordshire hosted a group of 16 Chinese judges, prosecutors and academics who were visiting the United Kingdom as part of the EUChina Legal and Judicial Co-operation Programme organised by the University of London’s School of Oriental and Asian Studies.

The visitors attended presentations given by Charles Ingham, Chief Crown Prosecutor for Hertfordshire, Patrick Fields, Special Casework Lawyer, and Keith Spark, Senior Crown Prosecutor. Visits were arranged to St. Albans’ Crown Court and magistrates’ court, with the assistance of His Honour Judge Cripps, and the Deputy Clerk to the Justices, John Elliott.

The visitors also attended St Albans’ Police Station, and were given a talk on processing prisoners and the rights of suspects by Detective Chief Inspector Adie Tapp.

SECTION THREE - EXPENDITURE AND PERFORMANCE

EXPENDITURE 2001-2002

Our total planned net expenditure within the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) to 31 March 2002 was £392 million:

Administration Costs £298 million

(mainly salaries and accommodation)

Prosecution Costs £94 million

Our outturn on expenditure to 31 March 2002 was £283 million on administration costs and £113 million on prosecution costs. The figure for prosecution costs was offset by £29 million received in costs awarded against convicted defendants. The expenditure includes counsel’s fees, witness expenses and other prosecution costs.

In addition, the Service had a capital budget of £21 million of which £8 million was provided by the Capital Modernisation Fund (see below).

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

2000 and 2002 Spending Reviews

The outcome of the 2000 Spending Review, announced in July 2000, set new budgets for the Service for the three years from 2001-2002 to 2003-2004. As part of the implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the 2000 Review was conducted in resource terms. The spending plans for the Service and for other criminal justice departments recognise the important links between the police, the prosecution and the courts and seek to encourage greater joint planning and management of the criminal justice system. This summer the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review will be known and this will set new budgets and targets for the period 2003-2004 through to 2005-2006.

Criminal Justice Reserve

As part of the 2000 Spending Review plans, the Treasury created a criminal justice reserve worth £100 million in 2001-2002 and £525 million over the three years up to 2003-2004. The reserve was set aside to provide funding for unforeseen pressures and trilaterally agreed new initiatives. The Attorney General, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor must all agree to the use of the reserve and the release of funding has also to be agreed by the Treasury. Ministers agreed to invest an additional £30.4 million from the reserve in 2001-2002 and an additional £61 million in 2002-2003, in order to speed up the reform of the Service. The investment will enable the Service to direct additional resources to the more serious cases, bringing more robbery offences to justice, provide better support for victims and to implement the recommendations of Speaking up For Justice.

The new resource budget for 2002-2003, including Criminal Justice System Reserve funding, is £441 million compared to £392 million in 2001-2002. It comprises:

Administration Costs £ 336 million

(salaries and accommodation)

Prosecution Costs 105

Total 441

The Service also has a capital budget of £12 million (£6 million from CMF and £2 million from the Criminal Justice System Reserve).

Capital Modernisation Fund

The Service is engaged in a two-step Modernisation Programme to raise its level of IT capability and to develop a case management system. This programme included the issue of modern IT equipment to lawyers and caseworkers across the Service and provided staff training opportunities.

CMF contributed £12 million between 2000-2002 and the Service a further £6 million. The project was completed in late 2001.

Step Two, the development of a managed IS service to support prosecution casework and link electronically with the police and others in the criminal justice system, is to be continued into 2002-2003.

Another project started in 2001-2002 and carried on to future years is the development of a secure e-mail system. The Service was given £300,000 in 2001-2002 to begin this project and is due to receive a further £2.8 million by 2003-2004.

In March 2000, we secured £5 million from Round Two 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 Three announced in March 2001 that will provide similar support between 2002-2004.

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.

Following strategic and operational reviews to establish the Service’s governance and control systems, the aim is to provide a fully compliant statement on internal control for the year 2002-2003.

Risk management

During 2001-2002, the Board established a sub-group on planning and risk management. The sub-group identified risks to the delivery of the Service’s strategy and priorities, and proposed appropriate countermeasures. This risk management methodology has been endorsed by the Board, and under Board supervision the sub-group has taken forward risk management to reduce and maintain risk to the Service’s strategy and priorities at an acceptable level.

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)

During the year, we met and exceeded the Cabinet Office’s target to achieve 65% usage of the EFQM Excellence Model (R) in our business units. The Model has been taken up by over 80% of 65 business units at Headquarters, Areas and Service Centres.

We deployed a proactive programme of Assessor training for the Excellence Model, and since July 2000 we have trained 220 staff from across the Service. Of these, some 60% of Area Business Managers and 40% of Chief Crown Prosecutors were trained by 31 March 2002. Since then the figures have increased to nearly 70% and 50% respectively. We also trained staff from magistrates’ courts including Justices’ Chief Executives.

We have gained a high standing in the criminal justice system for the way we have delivered the Excellence Model. We are now developing the Model to link into the Performance Management Framework project and to prepare for 100% coverage in the Service.

Better Quality Services

A review of CPS Headquarters functions has been undertaken and is currently being evaluated. The review forms part of the Service’s current Better Quality Services’ Plan to 2003-2004.

The review was led by a senior executive from Consignia (formerly the Post Office) and looked at the role, structure and size of Headquarters, and its relationship with 42 CPS Areas.

We are evaluating our future approach to the Better Quality Services initiative.

Sustainable Development

We have continued to develop our approach to the incorporation of sustainable development initiatives across the work of the Service. The key objectives of this initiative are:

• promoting the integration of sustainable development within the Service
• encouraging the use of environmental appraisals as part of policy making
• continuing to improve the environmental performance of the Service in managing its buildings and facilities (“greening operations”)

During the year we instructed environmental consultants to conduct surveys of our main sites to identify appropriate actions to reduce energy use and manage our buildings in a more environmentally friendly manner. The reports have been received and are being studied for implementation, commencing in financial year 2002-2003.

We used the Office of Government Commerce buying arrangements to purchase electricity from renewable sources for two of our major sites, including 50 Ludgate Hill. This became effective from April 2002.

Our Central Property Unit and Departmental Procurement Unit are working jointly to ensure that appropriate aspects of sustainable development are included in criteria when evaluating suppliers for the provision of goods and services. Suppliers are actively encouraged to put forward innovative solutions that address sustainable development. The Green Minister for the Service is the Solicitor General.

The Sustainable Development contact for the Service is Tim Dexter, telephone number 01905 825105.

PERFORMANCE

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 Service, either because they are the sole responsibility of the Service or because there is a joint responsibility with another agency.

Standard	Result
‘The Crown Prosecution Service, on request, will meet the family of someone killed as a result of crime, to explain their decision on prosecution’.	In 2001-2002 100% of requests for interview were granted.
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’.	The Victim Personal Statement Scheme was introduced nationally in October 2001.
‘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’.	In 2001-2002 we dealt with 53,506 contested cases in the magistrates’ courts and 18,956 cases in the Crown Court – 18 complaints were received in relation to this 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’.	In 2001-2002 we dealt with 53,506 contested cases in the magistrates’ courts and 18,956 cases in the Crown Court – 18 complaints were received in relation to this standard.
‘The Crown Prosecution Service aims to pay expenses where possible within five days but not later than ten working days from receipt’.	We despatched payment of witness expenses within ten working days in 98.2% of cases.

Performance targets

The following figures show performance against the Service’s key performance targets during 2001-2002. The figures are inclusive of Headquarters Divisions and Casework Directorate. These show that we met and exceeded our targets in three instances, and improved on the previous year’s performance in respect of one other target.

Objective 1: to deal with prosecution cases in a timely and efficient manner in partnership with other agencies

Annual target	Outturn
Committal papers to the defence: meet the time guidelines in 78% of cases	This target was met. Committal papers were served within agreed timescales in 85.6% of cases during 2001-2002 compared with 77.2% of cases during 2000-2001.
Briefs to counsel: meet the time guidelines in 82% of cases	This target was met. During 2001-2002 briefs were sent to counsel within agreed timescales in 84.1% of cases compared with 77.4% of cases in 2000-2001

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

Annual target	Outturn
Cases dismissed on submission of no case to answer in magistrates’ courts which are attributable to failures in the review process: to reduce to 7.5 cases per 100,000	This target was not achieved. Dismissals no case to answer attributable to failings in the review process amounted to 0.011% or 11 per 100,000 in 2001-2002, compared with 0.0085% or 8.5 per 100,000 in 2000-2001.
Non-jury acquittals in the Crown Court which are attributable to failures in the review process: to reduce to 6 cases per 1,000	This target was achieved. Non jury acquittals amounted to 0.5% or 5 per 1,000 in 2001-2002 compared with 0.6% or 6.2 per 1000 of finalisations in 2000-2001.

Objective 3: 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

Annual target	Outturn
To increase to 7% the proportion of advocates whose performance is significantly above normal requirements* * independent assessment by HM CPS Inspectorate	HM CPS Inspectorate’s Annual Report for October 2000- September 2001 records that 3.5% of advocates’ observed rated a very good performance, above average in many respects: however 27% of advocates observed were rated as above average in some respects or better.

Objective 4: to meet the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with the other criminal justice agencies

Annual target	Outturn
To pay 100% of correctly completed witness expense claims within 10 days	During 2001-2002, 98.2% of witness expenses were paid within agreed timescales, compared with 97.7% in 2000-2001.
To increase to 93% the proportion of replies to complaints which are made within 10 days	This target was not met. Timely replies were made in 81.9% of cases in 2001-2002, compared with 91.5% in 2000-2001.

Improving productivity

Annual target	Outturn
To increase to 100% the proportion of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days	94.4% of invoices were paid within 30 days in 2001-2002, compared with 95.3% in 2000-2001.

Under our Performance Improvement Programme, we forecast a higher level of performance than our published performance targets, and in this respect we met three out of four targets:

• we forecast sending 80% of committal papers to the defence within 14 days (10 days in custody cases). We met this target;
• we forecast delivering 83% of briefs to Counsel within 14 days (21 days in non-standard fee cases). We met this target;
• we forecast reducing dismissals no case to answer attributable to failures in the review process to 0.007% of finalisations (7 per 100,000). This target was not met;
• we forecast reducing non-jury acquittals in the Crown Court to 5% of finalisations (5 per 1,000). We met this target.

Diversity

We set staffing targets on diversity for April 2002 and 2005. Many of our targets have already been met (set out in bold), and targets for 2006 and beyond will be set in the light of progress against targets.

Staff category	Minority ethnic staff			Women
	2002 target	2005 target	Staff in post April 2002	2002 target	2005 target	Staff in post April 2002
B2	4.5%	6%	6.5	No target, sufficient representation		65.2
B3	1.5%	2.5%	2.8	38%	43%	40.9
D	2.5%	3%	6.4	39%	41%	36.0
E	2%	3%	5.4	17%	18%	16.5
Chief Crown Prosecutor	4%	7%	10.0	22%	29%	17.8
Senior Civil Service	5%	11%	7.1	17%	21%	17.6

Disabled staff

The position for disabled staff is slightly different. Since disability can arise at any point in employment, targets on progression of disabled staff may be misleading. Instead we will be considering the length of time spent in grade compared to able bodied counterparts. Many disabled staff do not choose to declare their disability to their employer, so we cannot be certain that we have the full picture for employment of disabled staff. The Service aims to employ 3% disabled staff, since this reflects the percentage of disabled people in the population, and the figure of 3% is used as a target for each grade, and as the national target. This target has been met for each grade, with the exception of the entrant Legal Trainee grade.

CASEWORK PERFORMANCE

In these statistics, 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.

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

Chart 1 Magistrates’ courts: caseload

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 whose case was completed in 2001-02 and the two preceding years. Both totals include cases in which The CPS advised the police before proceedings began.

Our caseload was almost unchanged over the last year. The number of defendant cases the police sent to us during 2001-02 rose by 1.5% compared with 2000-01 and the number we dealt with rose by 0.3%.

The number of defendants whose case is sent to The CPS depends on several factors, including the number of arrests, the number of offences cleared up by the police, and the number of offenders cautioned by the police.

	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02
Sent by the police	1,420,833	1,353,788	1,373,755
Dealt with by The CPS	1,434,194	1,354,713	1,359,205

Chart 2 Magistrates’ courts: types of cases

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.

There was little change in the make-up of proceedings compared with the previous year:

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Summary	787,461	54.9	754,725	55.7	760,542	56.0
Indictable/either way	580,019	40.4	539,322	39.8	543,643	40.0
Advice	52,625	3.7	47,680	3.5	44,519	3.3
Other proceedings	14,089	1.0	12,986	1.0	10,414	0.8
Total	1,434,194		1,354,713		1,359,118

Chart 3 Magistrates’ courts:

Chart 3 shows how defendant cases were 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: when proceedings had to be discontinued in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors. Circumstances often leave The CPS no choice but to discontinue: for example when witnesses fail to attend court or change their evidence; 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 the defendant in a more serious case was committed or sent for trial in the Crown Court;

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 after the court considered evidence. 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.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Hearings:	998,717	73	942,528	72.8	944,929	72.5
Discontinuances:	166,861	12.2	167,988	13.0	171,381	13.1
Committals:	87,885	6.4	83,400	6.4	86,794	6.7
Other disposals:	114,017	8.3	100,131	7.7	100,260	7.7
Total	1,367,480		1,294,047		1,303,364

Chart 4: Magistrates’ courts: case results

Chart 4 shows the outcome of the 72.5% 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.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Guilty pleas	824,888	82.2	774,453	81.8	781,878	82.3
Proofs in absence	117,396	11.7	116,953	12.4	114,509	12.1
Convictions after Trial	43,852	4.4	38,400	4.1	36,918	3.9
Dismissals	16,780	1.7	16,506	1.7	16,588	1.7
Total	1,002,916		946,312		949,893

Where a defendant pleads guilty to some charges in a set of proceedings, and not guilty to others, the above figures include both the guilty plea and the outcome of the subsequent contested hearing.

Chart 5: Crown Court caseload

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 defendant cases received during 2001-02 rose by 4.2% compared with the previous year, while the number dealt with fell by 0.6%.

	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02
Received	126,013	115,603	120,463
Dealt with by The CPS	124,348	115,732	115,014

Chart 6: Crown court case categories

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.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Committed for trial:	86,831	69.8	82,599	71.4	84,335	73.3
Appeals:	13,586	10.9	12,794	11.1	11,841	10.3
Committed for sentence:	23,931	19.2	20,337	17.6	18,838	16.4
Total:	124,348		115,730			115,014

Chart 7: Crown Court: source of committals for trial

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

defendants’ elections: these are either way proceedings in which the defendant chose Crown Court trial;

indictable only: these are proceedings which can only be tried in the Crown Court.

Indictable only cases are the most serious of all. In 2001- 02, these rose to 38.7% of the total compared with only 18.2% in 1991-92.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Magistrates’ directions:	40,097	46.2	38,914	47.1	36,740	43.6
Defendants’ elections:	18,572	21.4	16,351	19.8	14,956	17.7
Indictable only:	28,162	32.4	27,333	33.1	32,639	38.7
Total:	86,831		82,598		84,335

Chart 8: Crown Court: completed cases

Cases against defendants committed for trial in the Crown Court can be 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 the process of continuous review reveals shortcomings in the prosecution case. Also included are cases where the defendant has serious medical problems; or has already been dealt with for other offences; or when witnesses are missing. In all of these circumstances, The CPS must offer no evidence, and the court will usually enter a formal verdict of not guilty. Cases sent to the Crown Court under s51 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and subsequently discontinued are also included in this total: it is not possible to show the number of these disposals separately;

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 because a Bench Warrant has been issued for the arrest of a defendant who fails to appear; or the defendant has died; or is found unfit to plead. If the police trace a missing defendant, then proceedings can continue.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Trials (including guilty pleas):	74,256	85.5	69,733	84.4	69,459	82.4
Not proceeded with:	9,616	11.1	10,145	12.3	11,825	14.0
Bind overs:	1,533	1.8	1,392	1.7	1,461	1.7
Other disposals:	1,426	1.6	1,329	1.6	1,590	1.9
Total	86,831		82,599		84,335

The increase in the proportion of defendants whose case was not proceeded with was, in part, due 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

Chart 9 shows the outcome of the 82.4% of defendants whose case proceeded to trial. These are divided into guilty pleas, convictions after full trial, and acquittals. 88.8% of defendants were convicted, compared with 87.9% in 2000-01.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Guilty pleas:	55,407	73.3	51,596	72.7	51,824	73.2
Convictions after trial:	11,553	15.3	10,823	15.2	11,000	15.5
Acquittals:	8,658	11.4	8,600	12.1	7,956	11.2
Total:	75,618		71,019		70,780

Chart 10: Crown Court acquittals

11.2% 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 1,471 (7.8% of contested hearings) in 2001-02.

	1999-00	%	2000-01	%	2001-02	%
Acquittal safter trial:	6,881	79.5	6,845	79.6	6,485	81.5
Judge directed acquittals:	1,777	20.5	1,755	20.4	1,471	18.5
Total:	8,658		8,600		7,956

AGENT USAGE

The proportion of half day sessions in magistrates’ courts covered by lawyers in private practice during 2001-02 was 30.1%, compared with 23.9% for 2000-01.

ANNEX A

THE CODE FOR CROWN PROSECUTORS

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 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 of 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 The 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 5 and the public interest test is explained in section 6.

5 THE EVIDENTIAL TEST

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 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 trail. 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 identify 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 of her attitude to the case, or a relevant previous conviction?

f Are there concerns over the accuracy or creditability 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, make 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 prosecute usually depend on the seriousness of the offence or the circumstances of the suspect. Some factors may increase the need to prosecute but others may suggest that another course of action would be better. The following lists of some common public interest factors, both for and against prosecution, are not exhaustive. The factors that apply will depend on the facts in each case.

Some common public interest factors in favour of prosecution.

6.4 The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed in the public interest. A prosecution is likely to be needed if:

1. a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
2. a weapon was used or violence was threatened during the commission of the offence;
3. the offence was committed against a person serving the public (for example, a police or prison officer, or a nurse);
4. the defendant was in a position of authority or trust;
5. the evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence;
6. there is evidence that the offence was premeditated;
7. there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a group;
8. the victim of the offence was vulnerable, has been put in considerable fear, or suffered personal attack, damage or disturbance.
9. the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination
10. against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, sex, religious belief, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics.
11. there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the defendant and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption;
12. the defendant’s previous convictions or cautions are relevant to the present offence;
13. the defendant is alleged to have committed the offence whilst under an order of the court;
14. there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct; or
15. the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed.

Some common public interest factors against prosecution

6.5 A prosecution is less likely to be needed if:

a the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty;

b the defendant has already been made the subject of a sentence and any further conviction would be unlikely to result in the imposition of an additional sentence or order, unless the nature of the particular offence requires a prosecution;

c the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding (these factors must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence);

d the loss or harm can be described as minor and was the result of a single incident, particularly if it was caused by a misjudgement;

e there has been a long delay between the offence taking place and the date of the trial, unless: The offence is serious; The delay has been caused in part by the defendant; The offence has only recently come to light; or The complexity of the offence has meant that there has been a long investigation;

f a prosecution is likely to have a bad effect on the victim’s physical or mental health, always bearing in mind the seriousness of the offence;

g the defendant is elderly or is, or was at the time of the offence, suffering from significant mental or physical ill health, unless the offence is serious or there is a real possibility that is may be repeated. The Crown Prosecution Service, where necessary, applies Home Office guidelines about how to deal with mentally disordered offenders. Crown Prosecutors must balance the desirability of diverting a defendant who is suffering from significant mental or physical ill health with the need to safeguard the general public;

h the defendant has put right the loss or harm that was caused (but defendants must not avoid prosecution solely because they pay compensation); or

i details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security.

6.6 Deciding on the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side. Crown Prosecutors must decide how important each factor is in the circumstances of each case and go in to make an overall assessment.

The relationship between the victim and the public interest

6.7 The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes cases on behalf of the public at large and not just in the interests of any particular individual. However, when considering the public interest test Crown Prosecutors should always take into account the consequences for the victim of the decisions whether or not to prosecute, and any views expressed by the victim or the victim’s family.

6.8 It is important that a victim is told about a decision which makes a significant difference to the case in which he or she is involved. Crown Prosecutors should ensure that they follow any agreed procedures.

Youths

6.9 Crown Prosecutors must consider the interests of a youth when deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. However Crown Prosecutors should not avoid prosecuting simply because of the defendant’s age. The seriousness of the offence or the youth’s past behaviour are very important.

6.10 Cases involving youths are usually only referred to The Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution if the youth has already received a reprimand and final warning, unless the offence is so serious that neither of these were appropriate. Reprimands and final warnings are intended to prevent re-offending and the fact that a further offence has occurred indicates that attempts to divert the youth from the court system have not been effective. So the public interest will usually require a prosecution in such cases, unless there are clear public interest factors against prosecution.

Police Cautions

6.11 These are only for adults. The police make the decision to caution an offender in accordance with Home Office guidelines.

6.12 When deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in the courts, Crown Prosecutors should consider the alternatives to prosecution. This will include a police caution. Again the Home Office guidelines should be applied. Where it is felt that a caution is appropriate, Crown Prosecutors must inform the police so that they can caution the suspect. If the caution is not administered because the suspect refuses to accept it or the police do not wish to offer it, then the Crown Prosecutor may review the case again.

7 CHARGES

7.1 Crown Prosecutors should select charges which: a reflect the seriousness of the offending; b give the court adequate sentencing powers; and c enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way. This means that Crown Prosecutors may not always continue with the most serious charge where there is a choice. Further, Crown Prosecutors should not continue with more charges than are necessary.

7.2 Crown Prosecutors should never go ahead with more charges than are necessary just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a few. In the same way, they should never go ahead with a more serious charge just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious one.

7.3 Crown Prosecutors should not change the charge simply because of the decision made by the court of the defendant about where the case will be heard.

8 MODE OF TRIAL

8.1 The Crown Prosecution Service applies the current guidelines for magistrates who have to decide whether cases should be tried in the Crown Court when the offence gives the option and the defendant does not indicate a guilty plea. (See the ‘National Mode of Trial Guidelines’ issued by the Lord Chief Justice.) Crown Prosecutors should recommend Crown Court trial when they are satisfied that the guidelines require them to do so. 8.2 Speed must never be the only reason for asking for a case to stay in the magistrates’ courts. But Crown Prosecutors should consider the effect of any likely delay if they send a case to the Crown Court, and any possible stress on victims and witnesses if the case is delayed.

9 ACCEPTING GUILTY PLEAS

9.1 Defendants may want to plead guilty to some, but not all, of the charges. Alternatively, they may want to plead guilty to a different, possibly less serious, charge because they are admitting only part of the crime. Crown Prosecutors should only accept the defendant’s plea if they think the court is able to pass a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offending, particularly where there are aggravating features. Crown Prosecutors must never accept a guilty plea just because it is convenient.

9.2 Particular care must be taken when considering please which would enable the defendant to avoid the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. When pleas are offered, Crown Prosecutors must bear in mind the fact that ancillary orders can be made with some offences but not with others.

9.3 In case where a defendant pleads guilty to the charges but in the basis of facts that are different from the prosecution case, and where this may significantly affect sentence, the court should be invited to hear evidence to determine what happened, and then sentence on that basis.

10 RE-STARTING A PROSECUTION

10.1 People should be able to rely on decisions taken by The Crown Prosecution Service. Normally, if The Crown Prosecution Service tells a suspect or defendant that there will not be a prosecution, or that the prosecution has been stopped, that is the end of the matter and the case will not start again. But occasionally there are special reasons why The Crown Prosecution Service will re-start the prosecution, particularly if the case is serious.

10.2 These reasons include: a rare cases where a new look at the original decision shows that it was clearly wrong and should not be allowed to stand; b cases which are stopped so that more evidence which is likely to become available in the fairly near future can be collected and prepared. In these cases, the Crown Prosecutor will tell the defendant that the prosecution may well start again; and c cases which are stopped because of a lack of evidence but where more significant evidence is discovered later.

The Code is a public document. It is available on The CPS Website: www.cps.gov.uk Further copies may be obtained from:

Crown Prosecution Service Publicity Branch 50 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7EX

ANNEX B

A NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DELIVERING QUALITY PROSECUTIONS TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES

The Head of The Crown Prosecution Service is the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Director). The post of Chief Executive enables the Director to concentrate on the prosecution and legal process.

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.

The S