*/
“First and foremost the CPS has created a platform on which it can aspire to a wider range of high quality advocacy in the generality of cases” is a conclusion of the first thematic review of prosecution advocacy in the Crown and magistrates’ courts in nine years.
The review, which was published on 16 July, was carried out by a team included advocacy trainers, recently retired circuit judges and members of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) Inspectorate.
Although the report found that differences between self-employed counsel and Crown advocates were “not so striking” as the authors had been led to expect, there was a discrepancy based on the nature of the hearing. In non-contested matters, “a greater majority of Crown advocates were fully competent in comparison to counsel” but counsel, “with an air of authority and in a more positive manner” performed better in trial hearings and across all individual aspects of trial advocacy apart from the closing speech. The quality of cross-examination by in-house advocates was in particular “found wanting” and was noted as needing particular attention for further development.
29 per cent of counsel were rated “very good or above average” compared to 22.5 per cent of Crown advocates, but 25 per cent of each group were deemed “lacklustre”. The idea that competition would lead to higher standards across the board was “not always made out”. It “certainly provided for a higher proportion of very good advocates but does not eliminate weaknesses at the other end of the scale”, and some counsel seemed ill-prepared or even indifferent, the report found. Because of the complexity of factors, the report declined to make an assessment of the CPS strategy’s value for money.
The review, which was published on 16 July, was carried out by a team included advocacy trainers, recently retired circuit judges and members of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) Inspectorate.
Although the report found that differences between self-employed counsel and Crown advocates were “not so striking” as the authors had been led to expect, there was a discrepancy based on the nature of the hearing. In non-contested matters, “a greater majority of Crown advocates were fully competent in comparison to counsel” but counsel, “with an air of authority and in a more positive manner” performed better in trial hearings and across all individual aspects of trial advocacy apart from the closing speech. The quality of cross-examination by in-house advocates was in particular “found wanting” and was noted as needing particular attention for further development.
29 per cent of counsel were rated “very good or above average” compared to 22.5 per cent of Crown advocates, but 25 per cent of each group were deemed “lacklustre”. The idea that competition would lead to higher standards across the board was “not always made out”. It “certainly provided for a higher proportion of very good advocates but does not eliminate weaknesses at the other end of the scale”, and some counsel seemed ill-prepared or even indifferent, the report found. Because of the complexity of factors, the report declined to make an assessment of the CPS strategy’s value for money.
“First and foremost the CPS has created a platform on which it can aspire to a wider range of high quality advocacy in the generality of cases” is a conclusion of the first thematic review of prosecution advocacy in the Crown and magistrates’ courts in nine years.
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Mental health charity Mind BWW has received a £500 donation from drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs as part of its Giving Back campaign
The Institute of Neurotechnology & Law is thrilled to announce its inaugural essay competition
How to navigate open source evidence in an era of deepfakes. By Professor Yvonne McDermott Rees and Professor Alexa Koenig
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Lyndsey de Mestre KC take a look at the difficulties women encounter during the menopause, and offer some practical tips for individuals and chambers to make things easier
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, says Antony Hodari Solicitors. We are tackling the problem of bad housing with a two-pronged approach and act on behalf of tenants in both the civil and criminal courts