*/
Criminal
An internal CPS investigation has confirmed that the so-called ‘tick and star’ allocation guidance was issued to just one part of CPS London – the five Crown Courts of London North – and does not represent CPS policy.
The relevant email, dated 19 January 2013, was leaked on 19 February to the Chair of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association, who published it in redacted form on 25 February, having first informed the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. It urged CPS colleagues to adapt a system devised earlier at Isleworth whereby Crown advocates would put a tick on the right hand corner of their brief backsheet after completion of the PCMH to indicate that they did not want to do the case, for example, because it was “messy, troublesome cases with lots of implications” or a “low earner”. They should, however, put a star if they wanted to keep the case in-house, if it were a “higher earner” or one anticipated to “end up cracking”. The email encouraged “everyone to be proactive in seeking out trials that they want to do in order to develop themselves”.
A Bar Council statement on 25 February stated that this was “incontrovertible evidence that the CPS is deliberately acting against the public interest and the best people are not being used to prosecute serious crimes”. Without this email “we would never have known for certain that this practice was going on”.
In a letter to Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, dated 24 April, Keir Starmer QC confirmed that this was the action of a local manager without approval of the senior management team in CPS London or CPS Headquarters. He pointed out that currently 80% of Crown Court work in value terms in London is done by the self-employed Bar, a greater proportion than in 2011/12.As a result “any targeting of work by value appears to have had no material impact,” he said. In fact, London was the area with the highest proportion of work undertaken by the self-employed Bar.
He was not attracted to the proposal, put forward recently by the Policy Exchange think tank, to bring all prosecution advocacy in-house. “I place a high value on the contribution that the self-employed criminal Bar makes to a successful prosecution service and the flexibility that a mixed economy in advocacy brings,” Starmer clarified.
The allocation of instructions to advocates would not be driven by centrally dictated targets, he said: “They can hinder quality improvement if applied too rigidly.” However, he added that local managers “will of course need to consider how to achieve best value alongside other factors when making local decisions within the wider national framework”.
The Policy Exchange paper, In the Public Interest: Reforming the CPS, reported in December last year that the one-in-10 criminal cases charged, but later dropped, by the CPS in 2011/12 cost the taxpayer over £25m. It identified “strong strategic advantage for the CPS ending its ‘dependence’ on the independent Bar”. A shift to 100% in-house advocacy, it said, would help to attract a higher calibre of recruit, but should not “happen overnight”.
The relevant email, dated 19 January 2013, was leaked on 19 February to the Chair of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association, who published it in redacted form on 25 February, having first informed the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. It urged CPS colleagues to adapt a system devised earlier at Isleworth whereby Crown advocates would put a tick on the right hand corner of their brief backsheet after completion of the PCMH to indicate that they did not want to do the case, for example, because it was “messy, troublesome cases with lots of implications” or a “low earner”. They should, however, put a star if they wanted to keep the case in-house, if it were a “higher earner” or one anticipated to “end up cracking”. The email encouraged “everyone to be proactive in seeking out trials that they want to do in order to develop themselves”.
A Bar Council statement on 25 February stated that this was “incontrovertible evidence that the CPS is deliberately acting against the public interest and the best people are not being used to prosecute serious crimes”. Without this email “we would never have known for certain that this practice was going on”.
In a letter to Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, dated 24 April, Keir Starmer QC confirmed that this was the action of a local manager without approval of the senior management team in CPS London or CPS Headquarters. He pointed out that currently 80% of Crown Court work in value terms in London is done by the self-employed Bar, a greater proportion than in 2011/12.As a result “any targeting of work by value appears to have had no material impact,” he said. In fact, London was the area with the highest proportion of work undertaken by the self-employed Bar.
He was not attracted to the proposal, put forward recently by the Policy Exchange think tank, to bring all prosecution advocacy in-house. “I place a high value on the contribution that the self-employed criminal Bar makes to a successful prosecution service and the flexibility that a mixed economy in advocacy brings,” Starmer clarified.
The allocation of instructions to advocates would not be driven by centrally dictated targets, he said: “They can hinder quality improvement if applied too rigidly.” However, he added that local managers “will of course need to consider how to achieve best value alongside other factors when making local decisions within the wider national framework”.
The Policy Exchange paper, In the Public Interest: Reforming the CPS, reported in December last year that the one-in-10 criminal cases charged, but later dropped, by the CPS in 2011/12 cost the taxpayer over £25m. It identified “strong strategic advantage for the CPS ending its ‘dependence’ on the independent Bar”. A shift to 100% in-house advocacy, it said, would help to attract a higher calibre of recruit, but should not “happen overnight”.
Criminal
An internal CPS investigation has confirmed that the so-called ‘tick and star’ allocation guidance was issued to just one part of CPS London – the five Crown Courts of London North – and does not represent CPS policy.
Barbara Mills KC, the new Chair of the Bar, outlines some key themes and priorities
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the role that drug, alcohol and DNA testing can play in non-court dispute resolution (NCDR)
Casey Randall explores what makes AlphaBiolabs the industry leader for court-admissible DNA testing
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
A family lawyer has won a £500 donation for her preferred charity, an education centre for women from disadvantaged backgrounds, thanks to drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory AlphaBiolabs’ Giving Back campaign
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
What's it like being a legal trainee at the Crown Prosecution Service? Amy describes what drew her to the role, the skills required and a typical day in the life
Barbara Mills KC wants to raise the profile of the family Bar. She also wants to improve wellbeing and enhance equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession. She talks to Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) about her plans for the year ahead
Are Birmingham’s Intensive Supervision Courts successfully turning women offenders’ lives around? Chloe Ashley talks to District Judge Michelle Smith
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC identify good value bottles across the price spectrum – from festive fizz to reliable reds
Governments who play fast and loose with the law get into real trouble, says the new Attorney General. The Rt Hon Lord Hermer KC talks to Anthony Inglese CB about what drew this boy from Cardiff to the Bar, bringing the barrister ethos to the front bench, and how he will be measuring success
