Independent Assessor of Complaints for the Crown Prosecution Service: Annual Report 2024-25

• Foreword
• Volume of Complaints Received
• Complaints Considered During the Year
• Types of Complaints
• Outcomes of Complaints
• Timescales
• PHSO Referrals
• Follow-Up
• Other Activity
• Case Studies
• Feedback
• The Year Ahead
• Annex A: About the IAC

1. Foreword

1.1    This is my first annual report as the Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC) for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and I am reporting on a year largely covered by my predecessor Moi Ali, who fulfilled the role successfully since 2019. I am grateful to Moi for the work she did during 2024-25 and for her handover to me in March 2025.

1.2    The 2024-25 year saw the number of complaints referred to the IAC increase by 25% compared with the previous year. There was, unfortunately, a short gap between Moi Ali’s departure and me taking up the role, and that coupled with the 2024-25 workload including some very complex complaints, has resulted in there being longer delays than there should have been in complainants receiving the IAC’s response.

1.3    I am grateful to Lauren Fensome, Assistant to the IAC, and Mercy Kettle, Manager of the Public Correspondence and Complaints Team, for their invaluable help and support since I started in this role. I also recognise and appreciate the cooperation and openness I have received from staff of the CPS areas in the course of my work.

1.4    It is important for any organisation to recognise and acknowledge that things can go wrong and to learn from them. The CPS handles hundreds of thousands of cases each year, and the number of complaints should be seen in that context. However, when things do go wrong, the consequences for victims and for justice can be severe, and it is therefore right that service failings are investigated, acknowledged and addressed. The CPS complaints process provides a route for complaints to be considered and investigated, with lessons identified and learnt where appropriate.

1.5    This report provides details of the complaints made at Stage 3 of the complaints process - the independent review stage. The report sets out the numbers of complaints and their outcomes, as well as highlighting key findings and recommendations made for improvement. I hope this report is helpful in providing a public record of the work to provide answers for individual complainants as well as publishing the findings of these independent reviews. The report aims to contribute to the overall accountability of the Crown Prosecution Service and to ongoing learning and service improvement.

Chris Vinestock, June 2025

2. Volume of Complaints Received

2.1    The 2024-25 financial year saw the highest ever number of complaints made to the IAC, with 99 new complaints received (79 in 2023/24). (In addition, there were 49 complaints received in previous years and brought forward to 2024-25.)

Chart 1: Annual number of complaints received by the IAC

2.2    To put this in context, the chart below shows the number of complaints received at each stage of the CPS complaints process over the last four years. The number of Stage 1 complaints has increased by 11% since 2021/22 whilst the number of Stage 2 complaints has fluctuated year to year but increased by nearly 8% in the same period. Stage 3 complaints have increased by 65% since 2021/22.

Chart 2: Complaints received by Stage

2.3    I have also analysed the numbers of complaints received by each area and compared these with the number of complaints that might be expected if complaints across all areas reflected the numbers of prosecutions in their area. Whilst this is a fairly crude approach, it is intended to allow comparisons of complaints numbers adjusted to reflect activity levels in each area.

2.4    The table below shows the numbers of complaints received, by Area, and the number progressing to Stage 3. This shows that Cymru Wales, Thames & Chiltern and Central Casework Divisions generate more Stage 3 complaints than would be expected, with West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humberside generating fewer Stage 3 complaints than expected.

2.5    Cymru Wales, North West and Central Casework Divisions received more Stage 1 complaints than might be expected, with East Midlands and Merseyside & Cheshire receiving fewer Stage 1 complaints than might be expected. The analysis should be treated with some caution, for example because the number of prosecutions is not an exact measure of activity and because different areas may have populations or case types with different propensities to make complaints. However, the analysis suggests areas for further research to understand complaints patterns. This could help identify any additional work required to improve resources, services or complaints handling.

Table 1: Complaints received by Area, with ‘Expected’ figures to reflect activity

*CPS data summary

3. Complaints Considered During the Year

3.1    There were 148 Stage 3 complaints for consideration in 2024-25 (whether received during the year or brought forward from the previous year). 81 were considered during the year, with the remainder awaiting consideration. The position at the end of 2024-25 is shown in the chart below:

Chart 3: Complaints considered during year and awaiting consideration at year-end

3.2    62 cases were rejected in the year. This is significantly more than rejected in 2023-24 when 15 were rejected, reflecting an increase in the number of complaints received and, in view of the number of cases awaiting detailed consideration, referring cases to the IAC only where there are more serious service failings and where review by IAC could achieve more for the complainant. The main increase was in complaints about legal matters that are not within the IAC’s remit. The reasons for rejection were:

• 41 – fully/mainly about legal matters outside the IAC’s remit
• 9 – smaller issues, further consideration by IAC disproportionate (for example where a minor service issue, such as correspondence not responded to promptly, has been acknowledged and apologised for by Area at Stages 1 and 2.)
• 5 – related to police, courts, judges etc., not in IAC remit
• 3 – addressed with meeting or further response from Area
• 4 – out of time for Stage 3 escalation or feedback comments rather than stage 3 complaints.

3.3    Section 4 of this report gives more detail of the complaints considered during the year.

4. Types of Complaints

4.1    The analysis in this section relates to complaints concluded during the year – either rejected following assessment (62) or reviews completed by the IAC (18). The chart below shows the category of complainant:

Chart 4: Origins of complaints rejected or reviewed by IAC

4.2    Victims were the principal category of complainants both for complaints received and those reviewed by the IAC. Of these, the majority were victims of domestic abuse and sexual crimes. Defendants were the second largest category, but with only a small number being appropriate for review by the IAC. This was generally because the complaints related to legal matters or actions of the police or the courts.

4.3    Five cases involved potential breaches of the Victims’ Code, including failure to notify victims of the trial, failure to notify the victim promptly of a dropped charge or of a decision to offer no evidence. In one case a Victim Personal Statement was not read in court, contrary to the victim’s wishes. In the remaining case the CPS failed to identify and meet the need for support for the victim, by providing an intermediary, in view of the victim’s mental health.

4.4    Another case involved failings by the CPS in pursuing a Restraining Order to protect the victim.

4.5    Some of the complaints that reached Stage 3 were complex, with two relating to events many years earlier (see 5.4 below).

5. Outcomes of Complaints

5.1    During the 2024-25 year, 81 complaints were determined at Stage 3 – that is they were either assessed but not subject to detailed consideration by the IAC (63) or the IAC considered and responded to the complaint (18). Of the complaints subject to detailed consideration by the IAC:

• Number upheld or partially upheld: 10
• Number not upheld: 8

5.2    The number of cases considered by the IAC (18) was considerably lower than in 2023-24, where 30 cases were considered. This reflects the complexity of the cases considered and the short gap between Moi Ali ending her term of office and the new IAC commencing in March 2025. The 2023-24 IAC Annual Report noted the significant number of complaints awaiting consideration at the year-end, with 49 brought forward to 2024-25. This has increased to 68 complaints to be carried forward to 2025-26. As is noted later in this report, the delays that this creates are a concern and work to address this is needed during 2025-26.

5.3    During 2024-25, recommendations were made at Stage 3 in eight cases. Six recommendations were to offer goodwill payments totalling £2,300 (compared to £4,000 in 2023/24). The remaining two recommendations were to provide further explanation or an apology. No recommendations made by the IAC were rejected by the CPS and all have been implemented.

5.4    The complaints that were upheld show some themes and patterns:

• Communication issues are key features of many of the complaints. Timely and empathetic communication with victims and witnesses is key, and Stage 3 reviews found a lack of timely, clear and empathetic communication in some cases. Whilst the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses were generally sound, in some cases complaints were not properly addressed until Stage 2. In two cases, a lack of detail, accuracy and empathy in the Stage 1 response was noted and, in another case, there were excessive delays in even recognising and acknowledging a complaint in accordance with complaints policy.
• In a number of cases, errors on the part of the CPS resulted in no evidence being offered and acquittal. Where this is for sound legal reasons, this is outside the remit of the IAC. Where it is the result of failings on the part of the CPS, this is of course poor use of court time and CPS resources, but this also has massive impact on victims, leaving them feeling let down by the justice system. Two of these cases involved a failure to secure a video link for a victim, and no timely action to address this, delay the trial or explain to the victim the consequences of not giving evidence in person. In another case, the victim’s frustration with the prosecutor was treated as the victim not being willing to give evidence – and there was no check that this was the victim’s intention, nor any explanation at the consequences of not giving evidence. In another the victim was simply not informed of the trial date, leading to no evidence being presented.
• Many of the complaints involve concerns about the CPS, police and HM Courts and Tribunal Service, all key partners in delivering justice. Whilst all have different roles and responsibilities, CPS responses that note failings on the part of the police or courts (and direct complainants to them) may be accurate but do little to support wider system learning, provide a victims’ perspective on the justice system or give full answers to the matters raised, even if the complainant does go on to make additional complaints to these organisations. As I indicate below, whilst I recognise the complexities here, I consider this is an area for further consideration.
• In 2 cases, the CPS case file had been destroyed in accordance with the normal retention periods, before consideration of the complaint had been concluded. I have, in work I have done during 2025-26, identified a further case where this has occurred. The destruction of case records in such circumstances may prevent full investigation of complaints, but even if it does not, this could erode the complainants’ trust in the CPS’s openness and candour in considering complaints. I have therefore recommended that CPS files are marked and retained beyond the normal retention period where there is a live complaint. To allow time for referral to the IAC, I suggest that this should be in place for 2 months after a Stage 2 response and extended until 2 months after a Stage 3 response is sent where the complaint progresses to Stage 3.
• 2 cases related to events from 2013 and 1990 respectively. Whilst these have very different circumstances, both related to very serious offences and the complainants have endured years of uncertainty and feelings of injustice. The delays in these cases include delays on the parts of the police and the courts, but it is appropriate for the CPS to note the delays and the considerable impact on complainants of such delays.

5.5    The cases considered in 2024-25 (and some of those considered more recently) highlight the importance of good communication with victims and witnesses.

5.6    I welcome the ongoing work to improve work with victims, including the Victim Transformation Programme, and the cases discussed here highlight the importance of this work. I recognise that the CPS must avoid ‘training or coaching ... witnesses in criminal proceedings’ but there does appear to me a gap in communication in the period leading to a trial. Better communication during this period, and clarity as to the respective roles of the CPS and police, could perhaps help avoid some of the cases that progress to court but where no evidence is offered or, at least, would help victims understand the decisions made.

6. Timescales

6.1    Under the IAC’s Terms of Reference, a full response should be provided within 40 working days of the IAC accepting the complaint for consideration. In 2024-25, all responses were sent within 40 working days of acceptance, with an average of 29 working days.

6.2    This does not, however, provide the full picture from a complainant’s perspective, as it does not take into account the time taken to assemble the appropriate documents and undertake an initial assessment. This work is undertaken by the Assistant to the IAC and is time-consuming. Furthermore, the time allowed for IAC detailed review does not commence until the complaint is accepted by the IAC. Whilst this may be appropriate as part of the measurement of the IAC’s performance, it means that any delay in the IAC accepting the complaint is not taken into account. Particularly when there is a queue of cases awaiting assessment and review, this is a significant concern. As can be seen in the chart in paragraph 3.1, there were, at the end of the 2024-25 year, 10 cases awaiting assessment or consideration by the IAC and a further 46 awaiting initial assessment.

6.3    For complaints considered by the IAC during 2024-25, the period for initial assessment and acceptance by the IAC added an average of 79 working days to the time waited by complainants, with the longest delay being 220 working days.

6.4    In the 2025-26 year, I propose to work with the CPS both to develop suggested alternative or additional targets and timescale measures, and to seek to address the unacceptable backlog of cases awaiting initial assessment or full consideration by the IAC.

7. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Referrals

7.1    The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) looks at complaints about UK government departments and other UK public organisations. The PHSO was set up by Parliament to provide an independent complaint handling service for complaints that have not been resolved by UK government departments.

7.2    The PHSO has jurisdiction over the CPS only in respect of the Victims’ Code and therefore can only consider complaints from members of the public if the CPS has not met its obligations under the Victims’ Code. In the five cases involving apparent breaches of the Victims’ Code, complainants were made aware that they could refer the case to the PHSO.

7.3    In the 2024-25 financial year, the PHSO received 17 complaints regarding the CPS, these were concluded at initial checks and primary investigation without an assessment.

7.4    The PHSO has also published a decision (07/07/24) on one complaint made to it. This related to the failure of the prosecuting barrister to read the Victim Personal Statement before sentencing. The PHSO concluded that the CPS had already done enough to address the impact of these events on the victim so closed the case after initial enquiries. The IAC had, in this case, partly upheld the complaint and recommended a goodwill payment. It is positive that the PHSO conclusion suggests that the CPS complaints process has worked appropriately in this case.

8. Follow-Up

8.1    Where the IAC makes recommendations, these are followed up to secure confirmation that they have been implemented.

8.2    In one case the recommendation to offer a goodwill payment remained open at the year-end, as the offer has been made but no response had been received.

9. Other Activity

9.1    Moi Ali engaged in a number of activities during the year to help colleagues understand her role and to support improved complaints handling. Her activities included attending a meeting of the Complaints Coordinators Meeting in September to share and discuss her annual report. Moi also presented to the CPS Thames and Chiltern Legal Leadership Forum in June 2024.

9.2    I look forward to engaging with CPS staff in the year ahead.

10. Case Studies

10.1    I set out below summaries of selected cases closed in 2024-25. As in previous years, some details have been removed or been subject to minor alteration to ensure anonymity. The case studies show the impact on victims of service failure on the part of the CPS.

10.2    Ms A’s daughter, Ms B, was a victim of domestic violence. Her partner was arrested and charged. Bail conditions prohibiting contact with Ms A or Ms B were put in place. Ms B had an ongoing mental health condition. On the day before the trial an application for the victim to have an intermediary was granted, but the chosen intermediary was not available for the trial, at such short notice.

On the day of the trial, the defendant approached the daughter at a location near the court, leaving her in a distressed state. The police advised Ms A and her daughter not to attend the trial as a result of this distress. The prosecutor did not address the breach of bail appropriately but did request an adjournment so Ms B could be provided with an intermediary to support her while giving evidence. The requested adjournment was refused. The prosecutor was unable to offer any evidence and the defendant was acquitted, leaving Ms A and Ms B feeling that they had been denied justice.

A Stage 1 response was sent but Ms A remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to Stage 2. The Stage 1 complaint response was later considered, by the IAC, to be ‘insufficiently detailed, and not sufficiently empathetic, and … inaccurate in places’. However, the Stage 2 response acknowledged the failings and addressed the shortcomings of the Stage 1 letter, apologising for the service failures and, in particular, the failure to arrange an intermediary to support Ms B. A goodwill payment was offered.

The IAC review at Stage 3 found the Stage 2 response to be appropriate and noted a number of steps had been taken to share learning from what went wrong in this case. The failure to provide an intermediary to meet Ms B’s needs was a breach of the Victims’ Code and so Ms A was advised that she could raise her complaint with the PHSO.

10.3    Ms C was violently assaulted by her partner. The subsequent trial of the partner was much delayed, through no fault on the part of Ms C. Ms C had moved and wished to give evidence by video link. This was requested through the respective courts but a request for further detail, nearly five months before the trial, was not responded to by the prosecutor. Not until the day before the trial was this addressed, and no video link could be put in place. At the trial, an adjournment was requested but refused. The prosecutor therefore offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.

The Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses acknowledged and apologised for the errors. A goodwill payment of £250 was offered at Stage 1 and this was increased to £500 at Stage 2. The IAC was satisfied that CPS’s complaints responses were appropriate, though that did nothing to lessen the impact of the service failures in this case.

10.4    Ms D was harassed by her estranged husband using social media. He was charged and a trial date was arranged. Three weeks before the trial, the CPS became aware that Ms D was not available on the trial date. Ms D wished to give evidence by video link as a result, and to avoid contact with the husband’s friends. On the day of the trial, an adjournment was requested but this was refused. The prosecutor offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.

The Stage 1 response acknowledged mistakes made by the CPS, in particular in failing to explain Ms D’s unavailability and her wish to give evidence remotely. The Stage 2 response accepted that the request for the trial to be moved to a different date should have been made much earlier. The IAC noted that queries from the court about the reasons for the request for evidence to be given via a video link were not answered promptly, and that Ms D was not notified promptly of the decision to offer no evidence – which is a breach of the Victims’ Code. She recommended a goodwill payment of £400 in recognition of the fact that Ms D was denied the opportunity of justice.

10.5    Ms E was a victim of domestic violence. As a result of failings on the part of the CPS, Ms E was not informed that she was required as a witness at the trial of her ex-partner. At the trial, the prosecutor was therefore unable to offer any evidence and the defendant was acquitted. Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses acknowledged and apologised for errors and offered a £500 goodwill payment. Ms E was concerned for her safety and dismayed that she had been denied justice.

There were no additional findings at Stage 3, but Ms E was advised that she could approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the breach of Right 8 of the Victims’ Code – the right to be given information about the trial, trial process and a victim’s role as a witness.

11. Feedback

11.1    Whilst some complainants were disappointed at the outcome of the IAC review, particularly where the IAC has no ability to address legal issues and legal outcomes, my predecessor’s work prompted a number of positive comments and responses. These recognised Moi Ali’s “full and honest investigation” and her willingness to take the time “to understand and to consider [the] complaint”. Several complainants expressed their appreciation of, and gratitude for, Moi’s work.

12. The Year Ahead

12.1    My focus in 2025-26 will, of course, be to provide an independent review service for complaints about the CPS, with a view to giving complainants answers and helping the Service to put things right and learn from what has gone wrong. I am conscious of the backlog of cases awaiting assessment and detailed consideration, and I will aim, with the support of CPS colleagues, to reduce the backlog so that complaints are assessed promptly.

12.2    As indicated earlier in this report, I consider that the target timescales and measurements for complaints referred to the IAC are in need of review, to make sure that they fulfil the twin aims of ensuring the accountability and measuring the performance of the IAC and being meaningful for complainants and giving them realistic expectations as to how long the IAC review should take. These are set by the CPS, but I will work with the Service to review and, I hope, revise these.

12.3    To reinforce the learning from complaints I will liaise regularly with the Director General Legal Delivery and the Chief Operating Officer on findings, themes and learning points, as well as reporting periodically to the CPS Board.

12.4    The CPS Goodwill Payments Guidance is due for review. I will contribute to that review and seek to ensure that the guidance fully reflects the expectations of the PHSO’s requirements around financial compensation for direct or indirect financial loss, giving CPS staff the ability to put things right for complainants where this is possible.

12.5    A recurring theme, in the complaints I have considered since I took up my role in March, is communication between the CPS and victims of crime. This includes missed communication, ineffective communication and communication that is not made at the appropriate time. I recognise that the CPS is committed to work on this, and I would welcome the opportunity to add my comments to their work in this area, whether as part of the Victim Transformation Programme or otherwise.

12.6    Some of the themes mentioned in this report echo those identified in the recent HMCPSI report, and I will be happy to contribute to and support the preparation of the CPS response to that report and its recommendations.

12.7    Finally, I would like to highlight an area for future consideration. Several complaints to the CPS also involve, unsurprisingly, police forces and the courts. The PHSO expects all organisations included in a complaint that involves several organisations, to work together to investigate and respond. Current practice appears to be for complaints to be made to each organisation and for these to be considered and investigated separately by each. This approach is at odds with PHSO guidance and fails to reflect the victims’ experiences of the justice system as a whole. Whilst this is a complex matter to address, the Victims’ Code identifies a number of organisations that are required to deliver victims’ rights and demonstrates what can be achieved. It would be positive for a more joined-up approach to be pursued by the CPS.

Annex A:  About the IAC

The IAC for the CPS is completely independent of the CPS, providing an impartial service that complainants can have confidence in.

The IAC role is to:

• Investigate service complaints about the CPS following conclusion of its internal complaints process (known as Stage 1 and Stage 2)
• Look at whether the CPS properly followed the Victims’ Code guidance on the services that must be provided to victims
• Check that the CPS has followed its complaints procedure
• Check that the CPS followed its own policies, procedures and guidance.

The IAC’s aim is to:

• right wrongs for complainants where possible and proportionate
• drive improvements in the CPS to reduce the likelihood of similar service complaints arising in the future.

Anyone who has complained to the CPS and remains dissatisfied with the outcome of their service complaint at the end of Stage 2, can escalate the matter to the IAC and request an independent review. Service complaints include, for example: the conduct of CPS staff, such as rudeness or being given incorrect information; poor communication; and service standards such as breaches of its own policy, or of the Victims’ Code.

Legal complaints – such as how the CPS applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors in deciding whether to prosecute; or decisions about witnesses to call at a trial or evidence to be relied upon – cannot be reviewed by the IAC. These are legal decisions that are rightly reserved for independent prosecution lawyers.

The IAC Terms of Reference are published on the CPS website.