hm chief inspector's annual report - justice … · in criminal justice hm chief...

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

Promoting improvement

in criminal justice

HM CHIEF INSPECTOR'S ANNUAL REPORT

HMCPSI Annual Report

For the period April 2004 to March 2005

From HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service

to the Attorney General

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 2 (2) of the

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000 (Chapter 10)

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 July 2005

HC129 London: The Stationery Office £16.25

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate 1

Vision

HMCPSI’s purpose is to promote continuous

improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and

fairness of the prosecution services within a

joined-up criminal justice system through a

process of inspection and evaluation; the

provision of advice; and the identification of good

practice. In order to achieve this we want to be an

organisation which:

o performs to the highest possible standards;

o inspires pride;

o commands respect;

o works in partnership with other criminal justice

inspectorates and agencies but without

compromising its robust independence;

o values all its staff; and

o seeks continuous improvement.

Mission

HMCPSI strives to achieve excellence in all aspects

of its activities and in particular to provide

customers and stakeholders with consistent and

professional inspection and evaluation processes

together with advice and guidance, all measured

against recognised quality standards and defined

performance levels.

Values

We endeavour to be true to our values, as defined

below, in all that we do:

consistency

Adopting the same principles and core procedures

for each inspection, and apply the same standards

and criteria to the evidence we collect.

thoroughness

Ensuring that our decisions and findings are based

on information that has been thoroughly

researched and verified, with an appropriate audit

trail.

integrity

Demonstrating integrity in all that we do through

the application of our other values.

professionalism

Demonstrating the highest standards of

professional competence, courtesy and

consideration in all our behaviours.

objectivity

Approaching every inspection with an open mind.

We will not allow personal opinions to influence

our findings. We will report things as we find them.

Taken together, these mean:

We demonstrate integrity, objectivity and professionalism at

all times and in all aspects of our work and that our findings

are based on information that has been thoroughly

researched, verified and evaluated according to consistent

standards and criteria.

2 HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

Letter from HM Chief Inspector to the Attorney General

Making a difference the context

Making a difference the broader horizon

Making a difference effective justice and public confidence

Making a difference quality of CPS casework

Making a difference thematic reviews

Making a difference added value of thematic reviews

Making a difference HMCPSI’s governance and performance

Annexes

1 HMCPSI's published reports 62

2 Areas' progress towards achievement of recommendations from the first cycle of inspections as

assessed during the second cycle of inspections 64

3 Areas' progress towards achievement of recommendations from the second cycle of inspections

as assessed during the follow-up inspections 65

4 Review of HMCPSI’s commitment to the ten principles of public service inspection 66

5 Average number of days from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders (three month

rolling average) in England and Wales for April 2004 - February 2005 68

6 CPS performance against qualitative measures assessed by HMCPSI between April 2004 -

March 2005 70

Glossary 72

Contents

10

18

24

40

32

46

52

62

4



The Rt. Hon. Lord Goldsmith, QC

I am pleased to submit my report as HM Chief

Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service

Inspectorate covering the performance of the

Service and the work of the Inspectorate during the

period from 1 April 2004 - 31 March 2005.

The year has combined heavy demands with

substantial uncertainty as to the future of the

Inspectorate, and for staff within it. Uncertainty

caused by the ongoing review of overall inspection

arrangements, initially within the criminal justice

system, and which subsequently in July 2004 was

superseded by a wider review of public service

inspection arrangements. It is therefore appropriate

to acknowledge at the outset of this letter the

extent to which the achievements described below

have been directly dependent on their

professionalism and commitment through a

particularly difficult period. I take this opportunity

to thank them publicly.

2004-2005 was for HMCPSI the second half of a

two-year cycle of CPS Area inspections. Our work

therefore focused largely on delivery of plans which

we had previously made while at the same time

planning for the next series of inspections. HMCPSI

will continue to make a strong contribution to the

drive for improvement in both the CPS and the

criminal justice system as a whole, being

responsive to changing circumstances and the

many initiatives being developed.

The main achievements of the Inspectorate during

the reporting period have been:

o successful delivery of the ambitious inspection

programme of the CPS we had set ourselves and

involving

o completing the second series of CPS Area

inspections by November 2004 - exactly in

accordance with the timetable;

o supplementing the Area inspection

programme with short follow-up visits

approximately six months after the

publication of each report;

o completing thematic reviews relating to the

handling by the CPS of less serious but high

social impact crime and the operation of the

CPS casework quality assurance scheme

(reports published after the end of the

reporting period);

o delivery of joint criminal justice inspection

activity agreed by the Criminal Justice Chief

Inspectors' Group, including

o the joint thematic reviews relating to

persistent and prolific offenders (May 2004)

and the implementation of the Proceeds of

Crime Act 2002 (November 2004);

o leading the second inspection of a criminal

justice area - Surrey - involving all five

criminal justice inspectorates; and

o participating fully in the third criminal justice

area inspection - North Yorkshire;

o an inspection of the London branches of the

Customs and Excise Prosecution Office - the

results will provide a baseline to measure

progress following the establishment of the

Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office in

1Letter from HM Chief Inspector to the Attorney General


April 2005, when Customs and Excise

Prosecution Office was joined by the prosecution

arm of the Inland Revenue;

o work undertaken in relation to the evaluation of

the South Belfast pilot for the new Public

Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland and

work with the Criminal Justice Inspectorate of

Northern Ireland on a thematic review of the

treatment of victims and witnesses;

o participation in work with the Commission for

Social Care Inspection and others to review the

safeguarding of children, and planning the

inspection of children's services with OFSTED

and others;

o putting in place within the Inspectorate a

comprehensive change programme “Moving on

Up” aimed at ensuring the right organisational

structures, culture and inspection arrangements

for delivering future programmes of work, within

existing resources, to give full effect to the

Government's ten principles of inspection as set

out in the Office of Public Service Reform report

“Inspecting for Improvement: Developing a

customer focused approach” and the publication

"Government policy on public service

inspections".

The end of the second cycle of CPS Area

inspections was a good opportunity to take stock of

CPS performance and how it compared with the

first cycle. Caution was necessary: we had added

slightly to the measures used in assessing quality

of casework and the composition of our file

samples had also changed to put the emphasis on

the more demanding range of casework. It might

therefore have been anticipated that overt

performance measures would not be as good due

to the differing sample criteria. In fact, as can be

seen from the report the picture indicates an

overall incremental improvement in performance

although the range of performance in relation to

particular measures is wide. It remains the case

that some CPS Areas perform very well while others

still need to improve significantly.

It is pleasing to note that since the establishment

of the Business Development Directorate within

CPS Headquarters, performance management

arrangements have been strengthened. A quarterly

performance report is now prepared on each CPS

Area. This is a welcome step towards achieving the

consistently high performance which is expected of

public services. In developing the system of overall

performance assessments of the 42 CPS Areas we

were careful to ensure that the two regimes

complemented each other and I believe this has

been achieved. The CPS regime is based on

quantative assessments whereas the Inspectorate

regime looks wider and is concerned mainly with

quality aspects.

The CPS's focus has been mainly on the

Government's 14 priority Areas and on the extent to

which CPS Areas are delivering their contribution

towards the criminal justice Public Service

Agreement targets set by Government and shared

by all agencies. That focus though important and

welcomed needs to be broadened to cover the

remaining 28 Areas - a process which is now

underway. Good overall performance is dependent

on all agencies within the system operating

effectively and in a co-ordinated manner and their

individual performance needs to be measured.



It should not be forgotten that the overall

improvement in CPS performance has been

achieved at the same time that the Service has

been taking forward a series of national initiatives

aimed at strengthening and improving the

efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole.

These include the charging scheme under which the

CPS is progressively assuming responsibility for the

initial decision whether to charge - hitherto a

matter for the police. All 42 Areas are working on

the implementation, through the Local Criminal

Justice Board structure, of the criminal cases

management project. They are also leading the No

Witness No Justice project which is aimed at

providing a consistently high level of service to

witnesses throughout the investigative and judicial

processes. All these initiatives are resource

intensive and it may take time before the full

benefits are seen. It must be said too that in those

Areas where the Chief Crown Prosecutor also chairs

the Local Criminal Justice Board the additional

commitments are substantial.

There is no doubt that a significant number of CPS

Areas have found it very difficult to maintain

existing business and take forward the initiatives

which need to be seen as part of their core

business. In some instances, mainly in relation to

the smaller Areas, there has been an adverse

impact on casework. Most Areas need stronger

monitoring and post implementation evaluation of

initiatives. More generally, the need to deploy

prosecutors to police stations for pre-charge

advice/decision making has created a strain on

prosecutors' resources substantially limiting the

extent to which CPS advocates have been able to

exercise their rights of audience in the higher

courts. This in turn has created heavy dependence

on agents in the magistrates' courts.

The CPS also has other pressures to face: it is

currently restructuring its Casework Directorate to

handle the increased volume of serious and

complex work which will result from the

establishment of the Serious Organised Crime

Agency and that work will need to be resourced.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is an

expectation of more focus on less serious but high

social impact crime and anti-social behaviour

which still impacts heavily on public confidence

because of its prevalence. The challenge for the

CPS in the years to come will be to maintain the

improvement it has achieved and at the same time

meet its ever increasing responsibilities. I believe it

can achieve that and this Inspectorate will develop

and focus its inspection processes in the way that

helps it do so.

Our approach to inspection will change

significantly in the next series of inspections. It will

involve a scheme of overall performance

assessments for CPS Areas based on scrutiny of

existing performance information and data,

supplemented by short penetrating fieldwork. This

will enable the Inspectorate to offer an overall

classification for each CPS Area ranging from

excellent to poor. In this respect, we will come into

line with inspection arrangements for most other

public services and thus meet one of the

expectations of Government policy on inspection.

1Letter from HM Chief Inspector to the Attorney General


Measuring the achievement of the Inspectorate is

always difficult. It can be invidious to claim success

for improvement in case outcomes, when the work

of the Areas and CPS staff are directly responsible

for this. The catalytic effect of inspection, and the

identification of weaknesses and in some cases

priorities, all have an effect on improving CPS

casework, and this is reflected in the acknowledged

value placed on our reports by yourself, CPS

Headquarters and Chief Crown Prosecutors. The

impact of our major thematic work (be it joint or

sole) often continues for some time, galvanising

inter-departmental work and both policy and

practice changes. This is demonstrated in the

report.

Developing the new inspection framework and the

arrangements for a system of overall performance

assessments have formed the kernel of the change

programme to which I referred earlier. It is not

however confined to re-engineering our inspection

processes. The change programme will embrace all

aspects of our activity including how we manage

and run the Inspectorate itself. The programme

comprises a portfolio of projects which will seek to

revitalise some of the relationships with those

whom we inspect and other criminal justice

inspectorates, improve our planning and our own

use of resources and create a more robust series of

performance measures for use internally. As part of

this process, we shall need to examine the mix of

skills within HMCPSI and look at how inspection

projects are led.

The Inspectorate Management Team took the

decision to press ahead with the change

programme notwithstanding the confident

expectation that inspection arrangements within

the criminal justice system were likely to be

substantially re-organised. Given the pace of

change with the CPS and the criminal justice

system as a whole, it would have been wrong not to

make adjustments which were clearly necessary.

The results of the review of public service

inspection arrangements were announced by the

Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget

statement on 16 March 2005. The Government

subsequently published on 23 March 2005 a

consultation paper relating to arrangements for a

single inspection regime for the criminal justice

system. I have no difficulty with this concept. My

main concern is that the current proposals are not

sufficient to ensure that the new organisation will

be able to offer the robust and independent

inspection which the public would expect. The lines

of accountability and its position in relation to

government departments are such that it is unlikely

to meet the principal requirement that it should be

free from the influence of those who manage

delivery within the services inspected.

It will be apparent from the earlier parts of this

letter that, despite strengthening of the CPS's

internal management arrangements, in my view

there remains a need for effective external

inspection of the CPS and its 42 Areas. I know that

you share that view. It is however difficult to see

that a new single inspectorate can achieve the

saving of resources which the Government requires

and lighten the burden of inspection on the front

line while at the same time maintaining effective

single agency inspection and increasing greatly the

proportion of cross-cutting work.



1 Throughout this period, HMCPSI has sought to

work much more closely with other criminal justice

inspectorates and the Criminal Justice Chief

Inspectors' Group (which I currently chair) is

developing a programme of joint cross-cutting

work, both thematic and criminal justice system

area based. HMCPSI will continue to work closely

with them to ensure that there is a sound basis for

the work of the proposed new single inspectorate.

There is, however, a need for a corresponding

degree of co-ordination between departments so as

to provide the inspectorates with a clear and

consistent steer as to priorities in relation to

inspection programmes.

As I indicated at the outset, it is to the credit of

staff within HMCPSI that they have maintained the

level of commitment and quality of work

throughout. It will be important that any transition

to a single inspectorate is managed in a way which

does not sacrifice that goodwill nor what has

already been achieved.

Stephen J Wooler, CB

HM Chief Inspector



England and Wales by CPS Area

Areas inspected during the year April 2004 - March 2005

Areas inspected in the current cycle of inspections prior to April 2004


2Making a difference the context

Role and responsibilities

Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service

Inspectorate (HMCPSI) is an independent statutory

body. Its primary role is to promote the effectiveness

and efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service

(CPS) whose statutory function is to prosecute the

majority of criminal cases in England and Wales.

The CPS is organised into 42 geographical Areas,

each under the leadership of a Chief Crown

Prosecutor. Seven Directorates make up its

Headquarters which is based in London and York.

The Inspectorate's remit for single agency inspection

has been broadened to include the Customs and

Excise Prosecution Office. (The Customs and Excise

Prosecution Office and the prosecuting arm of the

Inland Revenue became the Revenue and Customs

Prosecution Office in April 2005.)

Also, the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in

Northern Ireland has invited HMCPSI to conduct

statutory inspection work in relation to the new

Public Prosecution Service which came into being in

June 2005.

The Chief Inspector of HMCPSI is appointed by and

reports to the Attorney General who is responsible

to Parliament for the CPS, the Customs and Excise

Prosecution Office (now the Revenue and Customs

Prosecution Office) and for the Director of Public

Prosecutions, Northern Ireland.

HMCPSI carries out its remit by a programme of

single agency inspections, reviews of specific

themes, joint inspections with one or more of the

other four criminal justice inspectorates, and with

other bodies such as OFSTED, the Commission for

Social Care Inspection and the Audit Commission.

Organisation and management

In his role as Minister responsible for HMCPSI, the

Attorney General is assisted by an advisory board.

The board is chaired by the Legal Secretary to the

Law Officers - David Brummell until the latter part of

2004, subsequently by his successor Jonathan Jones;

advisory board


its members are the Director of Public Prosecutions

for England and Wales, Ken Macdonald, QC; the

Chief Executive of the CPS, Richard Foster; Jenny

Rowe, Director of Policy and Administration at the

Attorney General's Office; Stephen Wooler, CB, HM

Chief Inspector of the CPS; and Steve Watkins, Head

of Corporate Services at HMCPSI. The three external

members are Helen Jones (Kingfisher plc); Professor

Andrew Sanders (Manchester University); and Sir

Alasdair Fraser, CB, QC (Director of Public

Prosecutions, Northern Ireland). Katey Rushmore,

HM Inspector, acts as secretary.

In the light of the pending changes to criminal

justice inspection arrangements the role of the

advisory board was reviewed during the past year.

The conclusion was that its continuance with both

existing external and non-executive members

remained valuable until implementation of change,

in whatever form that may be.

The Chief Inspector is supported in his role by the

Inspectorate Management Team which at the start of

the year moved from three inspection groups to two.

This enabled the recruitment of a Director of

Strategy and Change, a time-limited appointment to

oversee the implementation of an ambitious change

programme “Moving on Up” aimed at creating

“An adaptable organisation staffed by highly

motivated and entrusted professionals, who deliver

a service which adds value for stakeholders, is

focused on achieving outcomes and, through its

leadership, will be influential in cross-government

inspection and policy development.”

The role of the Head of the Corporate Services

Group, responsible for the Inspectorate's internal

services including business planning and

monitoring performance against plan, remained

unchanged.

Other changes included the appointment of a

communications officer at the turn of year to

strengthen the Inspectorate's

o external communications and relationships

o publicity

o press handling

o internal communications strategy.

It became clear part way through the year that the

change programme as originally envisaged was

making far greater demands on Inspectorate

resources than operational considerations could

accommodate and therefore needed to be scaled

down and refocused. This has been done and the

time-limited appointment of the Director of

Strategy and Change came to an end on 31 March

2005. The kernel of the programme was “inspecting

for outcomes” which in practice merged with the

separate project on overall performance

assessment. More information on the change

programme can be found in the section “Making a

difference: HMCPSI governance and performance”.



The inspection programme

Lay inspectors continued to make a valuable

contribution to the inspection programme this year.

They were drawn from one or other of groups such

as Victim Support, Citizens Advice, the local Race

Equality Council, and NACRO. They examined

various aspects of the CPS's relationship with the

public, including the care and treatment of victims

and witnesses of crime, the handling of complaints,

and the application of the public interest test in the

Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The second cycle of CPS Area inspections was

completed in November 2005 in accordance with

the timetable. This involved 15 inspections which

were a mix of either full or intermediate ones

depending on the risk assessment. In addition we

made 19 follow-up inspections during the year to

assess progress and implementation of our

recommendations and other aspects for

improvement as well as seeking to confirm that

strengths and good practice had been sustained.

We undertook thematic reviews of the CPS's

casework quality assurance scheme and the

Service's response to less serious but high social

impact crime and anti-social behaviour. The

findings of these thematics are reported in the

section “Making a difference: thematic reviews”.

We also began a thematic inspection of the

reliability and use made of performance

management information in the CPS which was

ongoing at the end of the reporting period.

A list of inspection reports published by HMCPSI is

at Annex 1. Annexes 2 and 3 give our assessment of

the CPS's progress towards achievement of the

recommendations contained in Area inspection

reports during the first and second inspection

cycles, respectively.

The end of the second cycle of Area inspections

provided the opportunity to take stock of CPS

performance and how it compared with the first

cycle. Caution was necessary because of slight

changes to the measures used in assessing the

quality of casework in the second cycle; and a

change of emphasis to a more demanding range of

casework in the composition of file samples. As can

be seen from later sections of this report the

picture indicates an overall incremental

improvement in performance although the range of

performance in relation to particular measures is

wide. A summary of our conclusions illustrating

statistical comparisons was circulated widely within

the CPS thus enabling the Service to analyze its

work on a comparative basis.



Good practice

Drawing on our conclusions from the comparison

of the first and second cycle of inspections, we

prepared a booklet “Promoting Improvement in

Criminal Justice” which highlights the good practice

we found in the two cycles. Publication of the

booklet and its dissemination within the CPS took

place after the end of the period covered by this

report.

The HMCPSI/CPS Good Practice Committee which

had outlived its usefulness was stood down around

the end of the second cycle of inspections. It was

time to move on with the CPS taking more direct

responsibility for disseminating good practice.

A new methodology - overallperformance assessments

The end of the cycle of inspections also provided

the opportunity to revise the inspection framework

to take account of initiatives and other changes in

the CPS and the wider criminal justice system.

Work began in the latter part of 2004 to develop a

system of overall performance assessments of the

42 CPS Areas. Its purpose being to inform members

of the public in clear and straightforward terms

about the quality of prosecution services being

delivered in their local CPS Area, mirroring what

occurs in relation to many other aspects of public

services.

Overall performance assessments involve giving an

assessment at a specific point in time of

performance against a range of standards for pre-

determined aspects of work. They draw on existing

information and performance data, with a central

element being an Area's self-assessment of its

performance. HMCPSI’s proposals follow the Audit

Commission model with assessment ratings of

excellent, good, fair and poor.

Overall performance assessments for public

services were endorsed in the publication

"Inspecting for Improvement: Developing a

customer focused approach". By adopting a system

of overall performance assessments, HMCPSI

demonstrates further its commitment to the ten

principles of public service inspection. Annex 4

gives other illustrations of this commitment.




As well as providing the public with information

about the quality of the prosecution service in their

locality, the overall performance assessment will

promote improvement in the quality of service

offered by the CPS by periodic independent

assessment of performance through which

improvement can be measured. It will allow for a

more risk-based approach to inspection, enabling

Inspectorate resources to focus on those aspects of

performance likely to be most beneficial. The

inspection burden on the front line will diminish

selectively, since Areas rated highly will be subject

to much less inspection scrutiny than those rated

at the lower end.

At the end of the reporting period the methodology

for overall performance assessments was in its final

stages of development, following a widespread

consultation programme with the CPS about the

content and process. And, following a presentation

on 8 April 2005, shortly after the reporting period,

the Attorney General gave his approval.

The aim is to complete the programme of

assessments between June and November 2005.

overall performance assessment group



The ten principles of public service inspection


Pre-charge decision making: management and

realising the benefits

o the Area ensures that procedures for pre-charge

decision making operate effectively at Area

charging centres.

o the Area ensures that all charges advised on are

in accordance with the Director's Guidance, the

Code, charging standards and policy guidelines,

and are accurately documented and recorded.

o the Area is able to demonstrate the benefits of

their involvement in pre-charge decision making.

Managing magistrates' courts cases

o the Area ensures that cases progress at each

court appearance.

o the Area contributes effectively to reducing

cracked and ineffective trials.

o the Area demonstrates that the case

management system contributes to the effective

management of cases.

Managing Crown Court cases

o the Area ensures that cases progress at each

court appearance.

o the Area contributes effectively to reducing

cracked and ineffective trials.

o the Area demonstrates that the case

management system contributes to the effective

management of cases.

Ensuring successful outcomes

o the Area is working to increase the number of

successful outcomes and reduce the level of

attrition after proceedings have commenced.

Handling sensitive cases and hate crimes

o the Area identifies and manages sensitive cases

effectively.

Custody time limits

o Area custody time limit systems comply with

current CPS guidance and case law.

Disclosure

o the Area ensures that there is compliance with

the prosecution's duties of disclosure.

The service to victims and witnesses

o the needs of victims and witnesses are fully

considered and there is timely and appropriate

liaison, information and support throughout the

prosecution process.

Presenting and progressing cases at court

o the Area ensures that prosecution advocates and

staff attend court promptly, are professional,

well prepared and contribute to effective case

progression.

Delivering change

o the Area has a clear sense of purpose supported

by relevant plans.

o a coherent and co-ordinated change

management strategy exists.

o the Area ensures staff have the skills, knowledge

and competences to meet the business need.

Managing resources

o the Area seeks to achieve value for money, and

operates within budget.

o the Area ensures that all staff are deployed

efficiently.

Managing performance to improve

o managers are held accountable for performance.

o the Area is committed to managing performance

jointly with criminal justice partners.

o performance information is accurate, timely,

concise, and user friendly.

o internal systems for ensuring the quality of

casework are robust and founded on reliable and

accurate analysis.

Leadership

o the management team communicates the vision,

values and direction of the Area well.

o senior managers act as role models for the

ethics, values and aims of the Area and the CPS

and demonstrate a commitment to equality and

diversity policies.

Securing community confidence

o the Area is working proactively to secure the

confidence of the community.

Overall performance assessment framework 2005: criteria to be assessed


2


Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors’Group

The Chief Inspector has continued to chair the

Group. In many respects this has been a

disappointing year in spite of the successful delivery

of thematic joint cross-cutting inspection activity

relating to persistent and prolific offenders and the

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and of inspections of

two criminal justice areas.

The Chief Inspectors' Group has been hampered in

its endeavours to develop cross-cutting inspection

arrangements by lack of an effective steer from

Government departments. The centre has not

succeeded in providing a co-ordinated or corporate

set of criminal justice priorities in relation to

inspection programmes. So far as the criminal

justice inspection regime is concerned, it is

dependent on the establishment of better rapport

and working arrangements between the criminal

justice departments and the Chief Inspectors' Group

before the “emphasis on tough joint inspections

across CJS agencies to be done on a thematic or

regional basis”, as envisaged in "Justice for All", the

White Paper representing the Government's view as

to what should be done to modernise and improve

the criminal justice system, and which referred to Sir

Robin Auld's recommendation that joint inspections

be placed on a more formal and established footing,

can become a reality.

Another factor that has been ongoing and

unsatisfactory is the handling of the Criminal Justice

Inspection Review. The current proposals for a single

criminal justice inspectorate appear to presuppose

that organisational change to inspectorates is the

way to a more effective and efficient inspection

programme. To achieve that, a clear vision of what

scrutiny is needed to provide the robust and

independent inspection regime which Ministers

need and the public is entitled to expect is required.

The real justification for a single inspectorate must

be to reflect the wider changes in the criminal

justice system so that inspection too has a holistic

approach. The role of a single inspectorate should

be defined by reference to function rather than

organisation so that it can provide effective scrutiny

across the whole system with no artificial

constraints or barriers. The lines of accountability

and its position in relation to government

departments should be such so as to meet the

principal requirement that it should be free from

the influence of those who manage delivery within

the services inspected.

3Making a difference the broader horizon


Criminal justice system areainspections

The Inspectorate led two of the first three criminal

justice system area inspections and by the time this

report is published will have led three of the first four.

The ground-breaking pilot inspection of the

Gloucestershire criminal justice system area by all

criminal justice inspectorates, and criminal justice

partners notably Victim Support, on which we

reported last year, provided the foundation from

which to build an inspection programme to scrutinise

criminal justice system areas in a holistic way.

Two more criminal justice system area inspections

were undertaken - Surrey, led by HMCPSI; and North

Yorkshire, led by the HM Magistrates' Courts Service

Inspectorate (HMMCSI) now HM Inspectorate of

Court Administration (HMICA). The fourth criminal

justice system area inspection, Merseyside,

undertaken since the end of the reporting year was

led by HMCPSI.

As with Gloucestershire, the Surrey, North Yorkshire

and Merseyside criminal justice system area

inspections were able to provide an independent

joint analysis of local strengths and weaknesses. The

subsequent recommendations and aspects identified

as needing further improvement will help to inform

the respective Local Criminal Justice Boards' future

plans.

Criminal justice system area inspections also

provided the opportunity to develop arrangements

for cost/benefit analysis. The arrangements were

applied in the North Yorkshire inspection and also in

the Merseyside inspection.




Joint thematic inspections

A number of joint thematic inspections were also

undertaken during the year with one or more

criminal justice inspectorates and, on occasion,

with other bodies, such as the Commission for

Social Care Inspection. Joint thematic inspections

included persistent and prolific offenders; asset

recovery since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and

safeguarding children. We also collaborated with

the Audit Commission in their review of high crime

neighbourhoods and our thematic review of the

handling by the CPS of high social impact crime

and anti-social behaviour.

Community justice centres

Community justice centres are aimed at putting the

community at the centre of justice and justice back

into the heart of the community. They aim to tackle

crimes and anti-social behaviour which make the

lives of communities miserable and to deal also

with offenders and their problems before they can

progress on to more serious crimes. A pilot project

is underway in Merseyside.

HMCPSI hosted a joint inspectorate event where

the inspectorates made a valuable contribution to

the development work in relation to the project by

sharing with the leaders their experience of what

works and what does not work.

Relationships with the CPS

The Inspectorate and the CPS are committed to

building on the existing cordial and constructive

relationships to mutual benefit. To this end the

Inspectorate facilitated a joint HMCPSI/CPS

seminar in March 2005 to discuss the way forward.

As a result a framework for new working was agreed

in order to maximize the benefits of the inspection

process and to ensure proper clarity and

coordination for driving forward improvements as

necessary. The framework includes the provision of

more regular meetings between the Inspectorate

and the CPS's Business Development Directorate to

help facilitate the benefits of inspection.


The Customs and Excise ProsecutionOffice (since April 2005 the Revenueand Customs Prosecution Office)

During the year the Inspectorate undertook an

inspection of the London branches of the Customs

and Excise Prosecution Office - the results will

provide a baseline to measure progress following

the establishment of the Revenue and Customs

Prosecution Office in April 2005, when it was joined

by the prosecution arm of the Inland Revenue.

Even though the inspection did not focus on

management issues, it became clear that the

inadequacy of resources was a major issue and we

recommended a full review of resources. We found

that as VAT and excise fraud cases progressed they

tended to become steadily larger and more

complex, to the point where what would once have

been regarded as an exceptionally large and

complex case was almost routine. It can be difficult

for one mind to encompass all the unfolding

complexities of such cases, particularly as they

relate to disclosable material, and when only one

lawyer may be responsible for several of them at

any given time. In this situation counsel is

effectively the decision maker which limits the

effectiveness of in house lawyers and results in an

inability to handle cases or be present at all court

appearances either in the magistrates' courts or in

the Crown Court to adverse effect.

A key finding on casework quality was that much

progress had been made since the pilot inspection

of the Manchester branch of the Office in 2002.

Whereas prior to the separation of the prosecution

function from HM Customs and Excise the

relationship between the lawyers and investigators

and policy officials had been more in the nature of

a solicitor being instructed by the client, lawyers

were thinking much more as independent

prosecutors applying the tests of evidential

sufficiency and public interest in the Code for

Crown Prosecutors. Good relations between the

investigators and lawyers had nevertheless been

maintained and even strengthened. Lawyers were

closely involved in giving advice in the early stages

of cases, they were well informed and

knowledgeable about the particular issues that

arose in different classes of cases and their advice

and decision making was generally very sound.

Customs and Excise Prosecution Office responded

positively to the recommendations, key

developments being the introduction of a Business

Change Programme to help the implementation of

some of the recommendations, a review of

casework by the Resource Assurance Unit, and

strengthening of policy and guidance in relation to

the proper discharge of disclosure responsibilities.



Northern Ireland

In 2004 HMCPSI was invited by the Director of

Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland to assist in

the evaluation of the South Belfast Public

Prosecution Service pilot, as the precursor to the

roll-out of a statutory independent prosecution

service throughout Northern Ireland. The legislation

for this was implemented in June 2005.

An experienced business management inspector

and a legal inspector were assigned to this role.

They undertook an evaluation of the quality of

decision making on files submitted to the pilot by

the Police Service of Northern Ireland, looked at

the effectiveness of systems to progress cases and

the operation of an enhanced service to victims

and witnesses.

They were able to make a significant contribution

to the evaluation report which informed further

development of the Service. They also contributed

to an assessment of job descriptions and grading

evaluations.

We also took part, along with HM Inspectorate of

Constabulary (HMIC) and HMMCSI, in the thematic

review of treatment of victims and witnesses in

Northern Ireland led by the Criminal Justice

Inspectorate for Northern Ireland. Fieldwork was

carried out in January 2005 and the report will be

published in Summer 2005. The review covered from

the time a crime was reported to when an offender

was released from sentence. As part of their

research, the review team spoke with victims of

crime across Northern Ireland. The team looked at

o the whole criminal justice process to assess how

agencies treated victims and witnesses

o compliance with Northern Ireland equality

legislation in the treatment of victims and

witnesses

o the relationship of criminal justice agencies with

voluntary agencies, for example Victim Support,

Women's Aid, and the NSPCC

o facilities at court for victims and witnesses,

including support given by the Witness Service.



The impact of inpsections

Measuring the achievement of the Inspectorate is

always difficult. It can be invidious to claim success

for improvement in case outcomes, when the work

of front line practitioners is directly responsible for

this. The catalytic effect of inspection, and the

identification of weaknesses or the need to

rebalance priorities, all have an effect on

improving CPS casework, and this is reflected in

the acknowledged value placed on our reports by

the Law Officers, CPS Headquarters and Chief

Crown Prosecutors; and more recently the Director

of the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office.

The impact of our major thematic work (be it joint

or sole) often continues for some time, galvanising

inter-departmental work and both policy and

practice changes as can be seen from the section

in this report on the Crown Prosecution Service's

response to thematic reviews.

Public Service Agreement targets

The period of this report is covered by the Spending

Review 2002 settlement. The Government's priorities

for criminal justice for that period are set out in the

Spending Review 2002 Public Service Agreement for

which the Attorney General, Home Secretary and

Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs have

joint responsibility for delivery.

The CPS's response to the targets has been to set a

challenging reform agenda to strengthen the

prosecution process, to rebalance its effort in

favour of victims and witnesses, to engage more

with local communities and to raise the quality of

its casework. Nevertheless it is difficult to identify

exactly what the contribution of the Service has

been in respect of these joint targets - the same

can be said for all the criminal justice agencies.

Meeting the targets is a joint responsibility of all

criminal justice partners at the local level, as they

all influence them. It is another aspect of work

where the closest cooperation between criminal

justice partners produces the best results, and the

Local Criminal Justice Boards were designed in part

to provide the framework for this.

Progress in relation to targets has been generally

though not uniformly good this year and the

Service as a whole deserves commendation for its

contribution, even when a number of other pressing

initiatives such as charging have required priority

attention.

Spending Review 2002: Public Service

Agreement targets

“To improve the delivery of justice by increasing

the number of crimes for which an offender is

brought to justice to 1.2million by 2005-2006,

with an improvement in all CJS Areas, a greater

increase in the worst performing areas and a

reduction in the proportion of ineffective trials**

To improve the level of public confidence in the

CJS, including increasing that of ethnic minority

communities, and increasing year on year the

satisfaction of victims and witnesses, whilst

respecting the rights of defendants

To increase value for money from the CJS by 3%

a year”

**As part of the Spending Review 2004 settlement announced in July 2004

this target was reset for 2005-2006 from 1.2million offences brought to justice

to 1.15million. The adjustment removed a number of minor motoring offences

which had been counted previously. At the same time, a higher target of

1.25million offences brought to justice was set for 2007-2008

4Making a difference effective justice and public confidence


Narrowing the justice gap

Increasing the number of crimes for which an

offender is brought to justice is known as

narrowing the justice gap.

The justice gap is the difference between the

number of offences recorded by the police, and

the number for which an offender has been

cautioned, convicted, issued with a penalty

notice, received formal warning for possession

of cannabis, or had the offence taken into

consideration by a court.

The Government set a national target for the

criminal justice system to increase the number of

offences brought to justice by 5%. Achievement of

this target is more dependent than the other

targets on police action and there have been very

large individual variations between criminal justice

areas. When the target was first introduced it was

common to see improvements on the baseline

being made in percentage double figures, and in

some cases this has been maintained. About two

thirds of areas visited this year as part of the CPS

inspection programme have done better than the

target, some considerably so.

On the other hand there have been some examples

of previously impressive improvements not being

maintained, with in one criminal justice area an

improvement of 13.5% falling more recently to 1.4%.

There have also been a few areas recording

decreases in offences brought to justice, in one

case of -11%, in another -7%; these were both

comparatively large and high crime areas.

However a note of caution is needed, the figures

are volatile; some baselines may have been

calculated from inaccurate figures; and a few areas

have falling caseloads while others show increases

which affect the performance figures.

Persistent young offenders

In the year ending 31 December 2004 criminal

justice areas overall met the target of reducing to

71 days the length of time between arrest and

sentence of persistent young offenders by two days.

While some criminal justice areas achieved an

average time of below 50 days others were

significantly above the 71 day target. For the rolling

quarter December 2004 - February 2005 the overall

average processing period was 67 days with 14

criminal justice areas failing to meet the target.

The poorer performing criminal justice areas are in

effect being carried by the better performing areas

and poorer performers need to revitalise their

efforts to achieve and maintain the 71 day target. A

chart illustrating performance is at Annex 5.

Ineffective trials

The reduction of ineffective trials in both the Crown

Court and the magistrates' courts has been a

notable achievement of the last year, with many

criminal justice areas succeeding in making

considerable inroads into historically high figures,

and thus improving treatment for victims and

witnesses as well as leading to increased efficiency

and cost savings. Case progression officers and the

effective trial management programme, as well as

locally devised schemes for ensuring that cases are

trial ready, are all having a significant impact.

The three main reasons for ineffective trials are

prosecution witnesses failing to appear, defendants

failing to appear, and lack of court time or room.

Together these account for more than 75% of

ineffective trials and of this 75% the prosecution

witness failed to appear in 41% of them. Clearly

better victim and witness care might have reduced



the number of prosecution witnesses failing to

appear and the No Witness No Justice initiative is

designed to do just that.

The data tends to indicate that overall there has

been a fall across criminal justice areas

(representing an improvement) in the rate of

ineffective trials in both the magistrates' courts and

the Crown Court, and a small but significant rise in

the rate of effective trials. Nevertheless, it has to be

recognised that less than half the cases that are

listed for trial are effective, and in some areas as

the rate of ineffective trials falls, the rate of cracked

trials rises (the defendant pleads guilty if the

witnesses attend and the prosecution is not

granted an adjournment and has to offer no

evidence if they do not attend) so that there is little

improvement in the effective trial rate.

The CPS still has some

way to go - we found that

in 27.4% of adjournments

in the magistrates' courts

and 10.5% in the Crown

Court more could have

been done by the CPS to

avoid the case being

adjourned. Reasons

ranged from the

inadequate application of

disclosure rules to the

prosecution not being

ready for trial. In our view

individual prosecutors

and caseworkers need to

examine the reasons their

trials are ineffective to ensure the same mistakes

do not reoccur. There is generally more room for

personal responsibility and accountability in case

handling on the part of prosecutors and

caseworkers within the CPS.

Charging scheme

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes provision for

prosecutors in the CPS to take over responsibility for

charging in more serious and contested cases. A

statutory scheme is in place in the 14 CPS priority

Areas (responsible for 60% of the CPS's cases). A

non-statutory scheme known as “the shadow

charging scheme” is in place in the remaining

28 CPS Areas.

We found considerable variation in the coverage

offered by Areas depending on whether they were

operating the statutory scheme or shadow scheme,

and, most importantly, whether or not resources

were available to provide coverage at all charging

centres.

Generally speaking we

found that both the CPS

and the police

experienced benefits from

the new charging regime.

The police valued the

early involvement of

prosecutors to secure the

right evidence and select

the right charges in the

more complex and

serious cases, and in

more routine work the

early elimination of weak

cases. CPS prosecutors

also welcomed this early

and more proactive involvement. We found also the

quality of advice given, both in face to face

interviews and in writing was generally good, with


Prosecution witness failed to appear 41.1%

Defendant failed to appear 19.4%

Defence witness failed to appear 5.4%

Prosecution not ready for trial 7 8%

Late or non-disclosure of evidence by prosecution 7.8%

Late or non-disclosure of evidence by defence 3.1%

Lack of court time or courtroom 15.5%

Reasons for ineffective trials


the appropriate charge almost always selected.

However, instances of a subsequent change of view

do occur and, as a consequence, there are significant

variations between Areas about the proportion of

such cases.

It is too early to say whether the benefits in terms of

fewer discontinuances, a higher proportion of early

guilty pleas, and more offences brought to justice

per year will be delivered. In part this is because of

the early stage of the project, but also because it has

taken a while for accurate evaluative data to be

collected. This needs to be addressed systematically

by CPS managers in all Areas, through the Compass

case management system and closer joint

monitoring and evaluation with the police.

We found the charging scheme worked best in

collocated CPS/police units where frequent

meetings between both agencies addressed issues

in individual cases as well as trends and patterns

of results.

It was undoubtedly the case that the police valued

most highly advice given face to face. Written

submissions and telephone advice, supplemented

by fax, were considered unsatisfactory substitutes.

Consequently we found that where face to face

advice was unavailable enthusiasm for, and take up

of the scheme, was markedly lower, and

expectations were disappointed. The free and frank

discussions possible in face to face

o tended to minimise the police perception in

some Areas that the CPS were over cautious in

bringing charges

o reduced unnecessary requests for full files or

further information.

For the CPS the commitment required to operate

the scheme successfully, and the priority and

resources rightly given to it, have caused strains

elsewhere, notably in the ability to deploy higher

court advocates to anything like the extent that

they could be, or were being hitherto. We found

some misgivings about the reduction in case

ownership brought about by the scheme associated

with some uncertainty about the correct approach

when a second prosecutor took a different view of a

case from that of the charging prosecutor.

Victims and witnesses

Five years ago the prosecution began to transform

its approach to victims and witnesses, this has

involved prosecutors

o communicating directly with victims in certain

cases, providing more information about

decisions and processes

o supporting vulnerable or intimidated victims

and witnesses to enable them to give their best

evidence.

As part of the ongoing programme a No Witness

No Justice project was commissioned in 2004 - its

aim to introduce dedicated witness care units

across England and Wales, bringing the police and

CPS together for the first time jointly to meet the

individual needs of victims and witnesses.

Putting victims and witnesses of crime at the heart

of the criminal justice system through

implementation of these initiatives is a priority for

the CPS. We in the Inspectorate have sought to

reflect this priority by giving it close attention

during Area inspections throughout the year. Our

overall findings come against the background that

the expectations of victims and witnesses have

been increased - for example, in relation to the




extent to which victims are consulted about, and

informed of decisions in their case, in attendance

and waiting times at court, and, in appropriate

cases, in the way they can give their evidence.

Special measures

Special measures are designed to make it easier

for victims and witnesses to give their evidence

and to give it free from unnecessary stresses and

pressures by, for example, the use of TV links to

the court or video recording of evidence

The CPS responded with enthusiasm to the

availability of special measures enabling vulnerable

or intimidated victims and witnesses to give their

evidence to the court in a variety of different ways.

Experience has shown that many cases would not

have gone before the court but for the special

measures provisions.

Whereas the measures work well generally, we were

concerned on two counts. The first relates to cases

where the court has no discretion but to grant an

application for a live TV link - for example for victims

and witnesses where the alleged offence is a violent

or a sexual one and they are under 17. In these cases

the victim or witness usually welcomed the

opportunity to give evidence in this way, and indeed

might not otherwise have been prepared to give

evidence. However the purpose of the legislation is

to assist the victim or witness to give the best

possible evidence rather than insist that they do so

in a particular way and we found a small but

significant minority that might have preferred

another of the available measures, for example, use

of a screen.

The second relates to cases where the ability to

grant special measures is discretionary, that is in

most adult cases. The police and Witness Service

are also involved in these cases. We observed that

in some Areas there was a lack of clarity about

which agency was responsible for identifying

suitable cases due to a lack of information passing

between them. In our view, the CPS prosecutor in

charge of the case, as an integral part of their care

and control of it, should always consider at an early

stage whether any of the victims and witnesses

would benefit from a special measures application;

and should seek more information where necessary,

rather than relying on one of the other agencies to

supply it if it exists, or to prompt an application.

We found there was considerable variation between

Areas in the amount and the type of information

routinely provided by them to the Witness Service,

with some Areas providing very scant information.

Direct communication with victims of crime

In all cases where a charge is dropped or its

severity reduced the CPS undertakes to inform

the victim in writing and explain the decision

to them. In cases involving death the CPS also

offers to meet the family of the victim

We were pleased to note that some Areas have not

only conscientiously implemented the scheme but

also extended it in innovative ways. For example

o making direct contact with all victims in

indictable only cases to inform them of progress

o writing to victims with an explanation where pre-

charge advice has led to no offence being

charged

o establishing victim or witness information

bureaux in conjunction with the police to handle

all aspects of witness care and to provide a point

of contact.

These and other initiatives which we have identified

and promulgated as good practice deserve to be

commended.

Compliance with the direct communications with

victims’ standard in discontinued cases was 60.8%

and, in Crown Court cases in which the prosecution

offered no evidence and the judge ordered

acquittal, compliance was 53.1%.

Category of case Compliance with standards

Discontinued cases 60.8%

Judge ordered acquittals 53.1%

The most serious and commonest problem was the

failure to identify, or having identified, failure to

send letters, to relevant victims. Commonly only

around half of relevant victims were identified and

sent letters - in one Area the proportion was as low

as 23%. Other problems involved

o timeliness - many letters were sent more than

five days after the decision had been taken

o poor quality - too much reliance on standard

paragraphs; too much jargon; and insufficient

thought about the individual and the offence

o failure to send letters where a committal had

been discharged where the prosecution was not

ready to proceed.

In some cases Areas themselves were well aware

that they were performing badly but had not taken

effective steps to deal with the problems.

We consider it is the responsibility of the

prosecutor who makes the decision to drop the

charge or reduce its severity to initiate the

procedure and to make sure that an appropriately

worded letter is sent. Administrative systems

should be in place to act as a fail-safe, but

ultimately it should be the prosecutor's

responsibility to ensure that the letter is sent. The

reputation of the CPS and the criminal justice

system as a whole can suffer harm if victims are not

told why, or indeed if, decisions have been taken

which may be of great importance and sensitivity to

them, or if they are informed in an inappropriate or

insensitive way.

Victim personal statements

There was evidence in a number of Areas that

victim personal statements had been used far less

frequently than envisaged when introduced.

Obtaining such statements is the responsibility of

the police but in our view if one has not been

obtained in appropriate cases the prosecutor

should ask for one to assist the court to assess the

gravity of the offence. We found that this was

seldom done. For example in one Area the police

provided a victim personal statement in only 35 out

of 104 appropriate cases - out of these the

prosecutor made further enquiries in only one case.

Community confidence

Each Area inspection includes an assessment of

the extent and quality of engagement with minority

communities, the public at large, and the media.

We were pleased to note that most Areas placed





increased emphasis on engagement with the

community, including local Members of Parliament,

and that the commitment was widespread and

genuine. In a number of Areas it was clear that

engagement with the community was particularly

strong. For example, we found that much effort was

expended in reaching out to local schools and

colleges; local minority groups including minority

ethnic communities; domestic violence fora;

women's groups; and gay and lesbian groups. We

noted that Areas often experienced difficulty,

however, in locating suitable points of contact and

this hampered effective engagement.

We noted that where Area communication officers

had been appointed there was improved contact

with the local media which helped to portray a

positive image of the Area to its local communities.

Another tool that CPS Areas used to gain public

confidence was the Area annual report. While we

think many Areas could do much more to use this

medium, some produce a very good annual report.

For example, one Area gave useful and interesting

information about particular offences and

offenders, and conveyed the impression that the

CPS was genuinely committed to serving the local

community and in a way distinct from the role of

the police. We believe other CPS

Areas could learn from this example.

Overall our findings were that Areas

had difficulty gauging the effect of

their efforts. (The British Crime

Survey focuses on confidence in the

criminal justice system as a whole

only.) We found that some Areas

made a positive effort to find out

the effect they had on community confidence, and

others could learn by their example, for instance by

o ensuring that questions specifically tailored to

the CPS were included in witness surveys when

these were conducted by the Local Criminal

Justice Board

o ensuring questions were added to a bi-annual

questionnaire issued by the local Police

Authority.

In spite of the many positive points, we were

concerned that engagement with communities

about criminal justice issues was somewhat

haphazard and unplanned - Local Criminal Justice

Boards pursued some aspects through local

criminal justice confidence plans while individual

agencies pursued others specific to their particular

concerns. This fundamental issue needs to be

addressed if engagement with communities is to

have the desired impact on public confidence. The

CPS is developing a national strategy to improve

community confidence to overcome inconsistency

of approach by its Areas and while this is welcomed

what is needed is a comprehensive and effective

criminal justice system strategy.

So, the acid question remains - how criminal

justice areas devise and take forward a

comprehensive criminal justice

strategy to ensure community

confidence - through Local Criminal

Justice Boards or by individual

criminal justice agencies pursuing

their own strategies, or through a

mixture of both. These critical

questions need to be addressed.


Performance management

The principles of performance management have

become more firmly established within the CPS

since the creation of the Business Development

Directorate in its Headquarters. This is a welcome

step towards achieving the consistently high

performance which is expected of public services.

The CPS regime which is largely quantative is

complemented by that of HMCPSI which is

qualitative and also addresses the softer issues

such as leadership and effective partnership

working. Together the two regimes provide the CPS

with a comprehensive commentary about its

strengths and weaknesses.

The conclusion of the second cycle of Area

inspections provided the opportunity to draw

comparisons with the first cycle to see what

progress had been made on the assessment of the

quality of casework, including review and decision

making, case preparation, and advocacy.

Assessments are based on advice to the police

from a file sample from each Area inspected and on

court observations as well as meetings with staff

and practitioners from all parts of the criminal

justice system. Comparisons of performance on all

relevant aspects of quality are set out in in Annex 6.

HMCPSI measures include

o Advice - compliance with the tests in the

Code for Crown Prosecutors

o Review - compliance with the individual

Code tests at first review; summary trial

review; committal/service of prosecution

case review; discontinuance; and those

adverse outcomes that were foreseeable

and in which the CPS could have done

more to avoid the outcome

o Case preparation - compliance with the

statutory duties of primary and secondary

disclosure; instructions to counsel in

Crown Court cases; and indictments

requiring amendment

o Ineffective trials - in the magistrates'

courts where the CPS could have done

more to avoid the outcome; similarly in

the Crown Court

o Cracked trials - in the magistrates' courts

where the CPS could have done more to

avoid the outcome, likewise in the Crown

Court

o Advocacy - a measure of advocacy

performance assessing a random selection

of crown prosecutors, designated

caseworkers and counsel/solicitor agents

in the magistrates' courts based on as

long a period of advocacy as can

reasonably be secured and across as wide

a range of work as possible

However it can be difficult finding effective trials or

cases in remand lists which test advocacy skills in

greater depth because of the substantial proportion

of cases listed for trial which crack or are ineffective

5Making a difference quality of CPS casework


Advice cases

The frequency with which the police request formal

written advice has diminished substantially

following the introduction of the charging scheme.

The percentage of formal advices in accordance

with the Code for Crown Prosecutors were slightly

lower in the second cycle than in the first, but we

did not examine advice cases in a number of Areas

assessed as good performers, so this is not a direct

comparison.

Advice First cycle Second cycle

Code tests compliance 96% 95.4%

During the second cycle, we considered that

judgment quality remained high, and the quality of

explanation to the police improved significantly.

Timeliness which dipped during the first inspection

cycle improved during the second.

We considered that charges proposed in formal

advices were appropriate in 96.8% of cases and that

charging standards were applied correctly in 96.2%.

Review

Caveat to first and second cycle data

comparison

The general sample in the first cycle included a

significant proportion of straightforward guilty plea

cases (36.5%). There were no such cases in the

second cycle sample. This means that the majority

of decisions that fell to be assessed in the second

cycle tended to be more difficult because the cases

were contested and/or sensitive.

The slight percentage point improvements in the

second cycle are a positive finding given that more

of the decisions were taken in more difficult cases.

Review – evidential test First Second Differencecycle cycle

Initial review 98.3% 98.6% +0.3%

Summary trial review n/a 96.3% n/a

Committal/Service of case n/a 96.1% n/a

Further evidence or information requested to strengthen the case 76.5% 76.7% +0.2%

Review – public interest test

Initial review 99.8% 99.9% +0.9%

Summary trial review n/a 99.7% n/a

Committal/Service of case n/a 99.8% n/a

The quality of application of the Code at initial

review remained high and did not fluctuate greatly

during the four year period covered by the two

inspection cycles.

Compliance with the evidential test of the Code

was almost identical between the first cycle (98.3%)

and the second (98.6%).

The public interest test of the Code was complied

with in almost all cases 99.9% compared with 99.8%

in the first cycle.

Whereas a visible improvement in performance – in

terms of requesting additional evidence or

information where appropriate to help strengthen

the case at first review – might have been expected

in the second cycle because of the absence of the

more straightforward cases, performance was almost

identical to that of the first cycle.




Discontinuance

Discontinuance First cycle Second cycle

Code tests compliance 93% 92.4%

It needs to be borne in mind that the charging

scheme was introduced during the second cycle.

Early indications about the impact of that initiative

suggested that fewer inappropriate cases were

instigated. However, the rates of discontinuance of

cases in which the CPS made the pre-charge

decision vary significantly between Areas. While new

factors can arise, a high rate of discontinuance calls

for careful analysis of those cases, particularly of the

pre-charge decision.

Overall, the quality of decision making in

discontinued cases was less certain than in the

general sample. Most cases we disagreed with were

about the sufficiency of evidence, where Area

prosecutors were more cautious/less optimistic as

to the likelihood of conviction than inspectors.

Comparatively few related to public interest

decisions.

Timeliness of discontinuance deteriorated between

the first cycle (80.1% of cases discontinued at the

earliest appropriate opportunity) and the second

cycle (76.9% of cases). This may be due to the

introduction of the charging scheme - prosecutors

may be slower to discontinue cases they or their

colleagues have advised should proceed at the pre-

charge advice stage.

Adverse outcomes

Adverse outcomes

These are cases in the magistrates' courts

where the magistrates find no case to answer,

and those in the Crown Court which end

prematurely by reason of a judge directed

acquittal (that is a direction to the jury during

the course of the trial) or a judge ordered

acquittal (where the judge orders acquittal

before a jury is sworn in, generally when the

prosecution offers no evidence)

The inspection process pays considerable attention

to adverse outcomes. This is because of the fact

that if the prosecution finds it necessary to

terminate a case so far into the proceedings or if a

case is stopped by the judge or magistrates at the

end of the prosecution case it can suggest some

weaknesses in decision making or the handling of

the prosecution. That is not always so: cases do

quite often fail even at a late stage for reasons

which the prosecution cannot control or influence.

The key issue is whether the prosecution could

have done more to avoid the outcome.

Adverse outcomes First cycle Second cycle

Foreseeable and where

the CPS could have done 20.5% 25.5%

more to avoid the outcome*

*The lower the figure the greater the added value by the CPS.

The figures represent a percentage of the total number of adverse outcomes

not a percentage of the total caseload

Adverse outcomes in the magistrates' courts (no

case to answer) and the Crown Court (judge

ordered and directed acquittals), which were

foreseeable and where the CPS could have done

more to avoid the adverse outcome deteriorated in


the second cycle as compared with the first.

No case to answer

Factors contributing to the number of no case to

answer outcomes included prosecutors not always

recognising and/or recording at initial review

evidential weaknesses likely to cause an adverse

outcome; lack of appropriate attention at the

summary trial review stage; failure to request

necessary further information or evidence at the

summary trial review stage; and failure to ensure

the police had provided relevant background

information about the reliability and willingness of

witnesses. It should be recognised that the number

of such cases is very small.

We found that the CPS could have done more to

avoid reasonably foreseeable no case to answer

outcomes in 38.4% of these outcomes in both the

first and second cycles.

Judge ordered acquittals

The proportion of judge ordered acquittals in which

the initial review endorsement referred to an

identifiable evidential weakness was better in the

second cycle (71.3% of relevant cases) compared to

the first cycle (63.9%).

Likewise the proportion of these cases in which the

evidential decision to accept the case at committal

review was correct was slightly better in the second

cycle (92%) than in the first (91.8%).

We were disappointed to find that in the second

cycle the CPS could have done more to avoid

reasonably foreseeable judge ordered acquittals in

27.9% of these outcomes - less good than in the first

cycle where the percentage was 23.8%.

Judge directed acquittals

The proportion of judge directed acquittals in

which the initial review endorsement referred to an

identifiable evidential weakness was 59.3% in the

second cycle, slightly below that of the first cycle

(60.3%).

We were pleased to note that the quality of

evidential decisions to proceed at committal review

improved in the second cycle (94.9%) as compared

with the first cycle (88.3%).

We found the CPS could have done more to avoid

the reasonably foreseeable judge directed acquittals

or dropped the case sooner in 24.5% of these

outcomes in the second cycle slightly better

performance than in the first cycle (24.7%).




Disclosure

Disclosure First cycle Second cycle

Primary test 75% 76.4%

Secondary test 64.9% 60.6%

Comparisons with first and second cycle data

relating to disclosure have to be treated with

considerable caution since inspectors had to apply

stricter criteria for most of the second cycle.

Findings suggest that the handling of primary

disclosure is getting better but there is still

considerable room for improvement with regard to

secondary disclosure.

We found that the CPS complied fully with the

statutory duty of primary disclosure in 71.6% of

magistrates' courts' cases and in 79.9% of Crown

Court cases. Overall compliance was 76.4% in the

second cycle compared to 75% in the first. This can

be taken to represent a tangible improvement in

overall performance because the introduction of

new joint operational instructions and revised

guidance during the course of the second cycle

imposed stricter obligations on the CPS and police.

But we were concerned to find that compliance

with the statutory duty of secondary disclosure was

lower in the second cycle than the first, particularly

in Crown Court cases. The CPS complied fully with

its statutory duty in 71.6% of magistrates' courts'

cases but in only 59.4% of Crown Court cases.

We were also concerned about the lack of

consistency across CPS Areas in executing their

prosecutorial duties in relation to disclosure. There

are many differing local practices. For example, in

some Areas it is recognised that because of judicial

pressure or the views of the local Bar all non-

sensitive material will be disclosed to the defence

automatically at court without application of the

statutory tests. In these circumstances prosecutors

take a less than rigorous approach to disclosure

and, while ultimately fair to the defence, results in

the prosecution not considering unused material

fully. In other CPS Areas greater or lesser weight is

given to primary or secondary disclosure

respectively.

The future changes flowing from implementation of

Part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in April 2005,

the application of a single disclosure test and

revised guidance will have a positive impact on the

problem of inconsistency.

Instructions to counsel

Instructions to counsel First cycle Second cycle

Fully satisfactory 54.8% 64.3%

As can be seen the quality of instructions to

counsel rose in the second cycle compared with the

first but there were significant variations between

CPS Areas from 94.1% down to 23.1%.

As reported last year, by analysing evidence and

providing guidance to prosecuting counsel on the

acceptance of pleas of guilty by the defendant the

CPS enables prosecuting counsel to respond

appropriately in the event of lesser pleas being

tendered by the defendant; to present a clear and

positive case for prosecution; to ensure offenders

are brought to justice for the appropriate number

of charges to cover their criminality; and to increase

the satisfaction of victims and witnesses with the

criminal justice system.

Cracked trials First cycle Second cycle

Cracked trials in the magistrates’ courts

where the CPS could have done more not applicable 18%

to avoid the outcome

Cracked trials in the Crown Court

where the CPS could have done not applicable 17.8%

more to avoid the outcome


Indictments requiring amendment

Indictments First cycle Second cycle

Indictments requiring 24.7% 26.1%

amendment

lower is better

It is important that the indictment is clear and

accurate from as earlier a stage as possible so that

guilty pleas are forthcoming at the first opportunity.

Indictments also represent a shop window for the

CPS and frequent amendments can affect its

standing in the eyes of other criminal justice

professionals and the judiciary.

In the second cycle we were disappointed to find a

marginal rise in the number of cases in which

indictments required amendment. We expected the

concentration of Trial Unit prosecutors on Crown

Court cases to have had the opposite effect.

Prosecutors and caseworkers need to ensure that

their drafting is better informed by what happens at

court and about why amendments occur in order to

reduce their number.

Cracked trials

A cracked trial occurs when a case listed for a

contested trial does not proceed, either

because the defendant changes his plea to

guilty, or pleads to an alternative charge, or the

prosecution offer no evidence. We assess that

the prosecution should have done more if the

alternative charge should have been selected

earlier, or if the decision to offer no evidence

should have been taken sooner

Almost half of the trials in the sample cracked

because the defendant pleaded guilty to all charges

set for trial. But in a little more than half of the

sample the CPS accepted guilty pleas to some of

the charges or put new offences on the day of trial

inducing a guilty plea.

To a large extent what appears to be happening is

that more trials are cracking instead of being

ineffective with defendants pleading guilty if

witnesses attend or the prosecution being refused

an adjournment and therefore having to offer no

evidence if they do not.



5Advocacy

The extent to which the CPS

advocates are now deployed, either

in the magistrates' courts or in the

Crown Court has fallen markedly. In

some Areas more than half of

magistrates' courts' work was

undertaken by agents and there was

little Crown Court advocacy being

undertaken by CPS higher court

advocates.

We found that in the Crown Court far fewer sessions

were being carried out by higher court advocates.

The drain of experienced prosecutors

to service pre-charge advice work

was said to be the reason.

We observed that the higher court

advocate pilot project in CPS

Hertfordshire was working effectively.

This centrally funded project to

enable higher court advocates to

make regular appearances in the

Crown Court is producing savings,

albeit a limited amount of cash savings. The real

benefit is reputational - a higher profile for the CPS

in the Crown Court.

In the course of inspections we assessed the

quality of advocacy, as set out below and illustrated

in the circles.

CPS advocates / designated case workers in the magistrates' courts

1. Outstanding 0%

2. Very good, above average in many respects 6.6%

3+. Above average in some respects 20.7%

3. Competent in all respects 57.1%

3-. Lacking in presence or lacklustre 14.1%

4. Less than competent in many respects 1.5%

5. Very poor indeed, entirely unacceptable 0%

counsel / solicitor agentsin the magistrates' courts

1. Outstanding 0%

2. Very good, above average in many respects 2.2%

3+. Above average in some respects 12.6%

3. Competent in all respects 67.4%

3-. Lacking in presence or lacklustre 14.1%

4. Less than competent in many respects 3.0%

5. Very poor indeed, entirely unacceptable 0.7%



Joint review of persistent andprolific offenders

Commissioned by the Criminal Justice Chief

Inspectors' Group, the review involved all five

criminal justice system inspectorates along with

representatives from the Audit Commission. It was

led by HMIC. The review reported in May 2004.

The purpose of the inspection was to provide an

early assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency

of criminal justice persistent offender initiatives,

including those offenders who, while not fitting the

national definition of persistent, had been

identified locally as prolific offenders.

The inspection team placed particular focus on the

systems of identification, the process to conviction,

interventions to tackle offending behaviour, and

funding/value for money issues.

The main findings were

o the definition of persistent offender identified an

unmanageable number of offenders who could

not be prioritised effectively within existing

resources

o the offending behaviour of those identified was

not necessarily that which had the most

significant impact on local communities

o tension between rehabilitation aspects of the

persistent offender initiative and the criminal

justice target of bringing more offences to

justice.

The recommendations were that

o persistent offender criteria should be re-defined

to identify a more limited number of priority

offenders so as to ensure that finite resources

were focused on the successful rehabilitation of

the group of people whose offending had most

impact on the local community; and that where

further offending did occur it would be dealt

with as quickly and effectively as possible

o responsibility for the development of work with

such offenders should be located within the

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

rather than with Local Criminal Justice Boards

o a national performance management framework,

reflecting both national and local needs, should

be developed set around the key objectives of

bringing priority offenders to justice, their

rehabilitation and preventing any further

offending.

The emerging

findings and

recommendations

from the report,

along with other

work undertaken

on prolific

offenders, helped

to inform the

revised initiative

on prolific

offenders, targeting those whose repeated

offending impacts so heavily upon public

confidence in the criminal justice system.

6Making a difference thematic reviews


Joint review of asset recovery sincethe Proceeds of Crime Act 2002(Payback time)

This joint thematic inspection by HMIC, HMMCSI

and HMCPSI was led by HMIC, and was undertaken

in early 2004. The final report was published in

November 2004.

The inspection team considered

o the progress, quality and effectiveness of

implementation of the provisions of the Act in

relation to the application and enforcement of

restraint and confiscation orders

o how working practices, organisation and process

changes had been developed to aid successful

delivery

o what partnership arrangements were in place to

ensure effective and efficient processes to

underpin delivery

o what transferable lessons could be disseminated

as good practice.

The inspection

team highlighted

a number of

positive

elements.

However, the

overall findings

were that

implementation

had been

inconsistent

across the criminal justice system. Awareness of

asset recovery powers was poor and as a result

opportunities to seize cash, begin the process of

asset recovery, or pursue money laundering

offences were regularly missed. The conclusion was

that improvement was needed urgently in the

development of the strategic framework of

objectives and targets relating to the Act.

The inspection report set out eleven

recommendations for improvement and

subsequently each criminal justice system

organisation produced an action plan to address

those issues relating specifically to its own

organisation.

For the CPS the main recommendations included

the following aspects for improvement

o collection and collation of data needed to be

more systematic and accurate

o joint police/CPS performance indicators needed

to be agreed locally and to be complementary -

currently police target the amounts restrained

while CPS target the number of orders made

o cases suitable for Proceeds of Crime Act orders

needed to be identified at an early stage - for

example in Manchester the responsible

prosecutor advises pre-charge on the need to

involve the police financial investigation unit

o levels of practitioner training and awareness

needed to be revisited and improved.



The second joint review ofsafeguarding children

The first joint review reported in October 2002. This

second review was led by the Commission for

Social Care Inspection and involved the Healthcare

Commission, OFSTED, HMIC, HMCPSI, HMICA,

HMI Prisons, and HMI Probation.

The review which took place between November

2004 and February 2005 considered progress across

the agencies in taking all reasonable measures to

ensure that the risks of harm to children's welfare

were minimised, and whether all appropriate action

was taken to address concerns - working to agreed

local policies and procedures in full partnership

with other local agencies during the period since

the first review reported. In doing so it met the

Government's commitment that a review would be

carried out every three years focusing on

safeguarding arrangements by local agencies and

the work of area child protection committees in

fulfilling their responsibilities as set out in

“Working Together to Safeguard Children”.

In summary, the aim was to identify two key

outcomes

o that children are safe, and

o that children feel safe.

The report will be published in July 2005. It will

detail arrangements across agencies to safeguard

children, giving particular attention to children's

views and experiences. There are four key themes

o children living at home

o children living away from home

o children and the justice system

o children seeking asylum.

HMCPSI also produced a supplementary report on

the CPS which covers

o the extent to which the CPS as a whole, and

Areas individually, have achieved or

implemented the recommendations of the first

review

o how effective the CPS is in drawing together the

strands of work which impact on children into

cohesive strategies

o the action CPS Areas take to prioritise

safeguarding children and how they work with

other agencies to further this.

The main finding was that safeguarding children

was not a stated national priority for the CPS with

the consequence that there was a lack of

consistency and breadth of coverage across Areas.

Various strands of work were not linked under the

safeguarding banner and so did not underpin the

positive work undertaken on specific topics, for

example in relation to child abuse, domestic

violence, child witnesses and young offenders.

6 Making a difference thematic reviews


High social impact crime and anti-social behaviour

The Inspectorate conducted a single agency

thematic review of how the CPS deals with cases

involving less serious crime but with a high social

impact on individuals and communities and

involving anti-social behaviour. The perception is

that decision making in these types of cases needs

to be improved, particularly in relation to

inappropriate discontinuance, and the CPS needs

to take action to overcome this perception within

the police service and sections of the public.

Much has been done. The CPS has appointed 13*

anti-social behaviour order expert prosecutors in

specific problem locations to concentrate on

prosecuting high social impact crime, supporting

local authorities in the enforcement of any

breaches of anti-social behaviour orders made, and

ensuring prosecutors are trained in their new

powers and responsibilities.

* Since the end of the reporting year an additional appointment has been made

A training programme has also been developed to

train all prosecutors in the proper handling of these

cases.

These were crucial developments to enable

prosecutors to

o be aware of the public interest in prosecuting

high social impact crime

o to advise on the most effective means of

disposal at the outset of a case, such as

restorative justice or conditional cautions

o make application to the court for anti-social

behaviour orders upon conviction.

We found there had been considerable drive in

some Areas to forge effective working relationships

not only with criminal justice partners, but

importantly with local authorities, social services,

and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to

identify the crimes that matter most to local

communities. This is a major expansion in the role

of the prosecutor working closely with the local

community to solve local problems and using new

powers to advise on the most appropriate means of

disposal at the outset of a case.

But problems persisted

o there were inconsistencies as to which anti-

social behaviour order cases the CPS should

prosecute and a lack of clarification as to what

was expected of prosecutors in general and of

the anti-social behaviour expert prosecutors in

particular

o there were weaknesses in the collection and

analysis of data relating to anti-social behaviour

orders and breaches of them which need to be

rectified in order to improve the management of

performance

o there remained a lack of proper strategic

engagement overall particularly with the local

authorities and Crime and Disorder Reduction

Partnerships which resulted in lost opportunities

to exercise the prosecution's new and expanding

role within local communities.

It was encouraging to note that the CPS recognized

the continuing effort required to work positively

with the Home Office to ensure consistent practice

across all Areas, while at the same time

encouraging innovative approaches by the expert

prosecutors.



Casework quality assurance

The CPS developed the casework quality assurance

scheme to provide a framework in which to monitor

the quality of the work of its prosecutors in a

consistent way. It was developed in consultation

with HMCPSI and adopted in April 2003.

The thematic review of the scheme began in

December 2004 to assess

o the effectiveness of implementation throughout

the CPS and the extent of its use

o the reliability of the data as a source of

assurance for CPS managers

o the extent to which HMCPSI could rely on the

data to inform assessment of an Area's casework

quality.

The review team conducted a national survey and

examined a number of files from six Areas against

the assessments made by Area managers and

spoke to staff in those Areas who were involved in

every aspect of the scheme.

At the time of writing the report is in draft. We

found there were some significant differences in the

assessments of Area assessors and those of

inspectors on handling some aspects of case

preparation, with fewer concerns about the

assessments of the quality of decision making. File

examination revealed the need for a far more

consistent approach to assessments between Areas

and within individual Areas. The scheme was not as

comprehensive as intended, nor were files selected

fully representative of Area caseloads in many

instances.

We found also that Area managers had different

views on the value of the scheme. Some believed

the scheme was too resource intensive and gave

very little information about casework quality.

Others had a more positive attitude and used the

scheme as an integral part of performance

monitoring. The majority of Areas viewed the

scheme more as a means of monitoring the

performance of individuals rather than providing a

picture of unit, Area or national casework quality,

while paradoxically not using it as effectively as

they might in individual performance appraisals.

The scheme provides a solid foundation for

providing assurance to the Attorney General and

the Director of Public Prosecutions about CPS

casework quality and the continuing effort to

improve. But a more concerted drive to implement

the full extent and comprehensiveness of

monitoring in accordance with the guidance

provided is needed.

6 Making a difference thematic reviews


Reproduced by kind permission of the above publications


A progress report by the CPS on itsresponse to thematic reviews

This section is based on a report prepared by the

CPS to illustrate the progress it has made as a

result of recommendations flowing from thematic

reviews.

Some of the initiatives set out are not necessarily

as a result of thematic review recommendations

but rather a determined effort by the CPS to

improve its performance in specific aspects of

prosecutions.

Joint thematic review into the investigation and

prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape

in England and Wales (with HMIC) April 2002

Following publication of the report, each CPS Area

appointed a specialist prosecutor for crimes of

rape. The specialist prosecutors meet annually to

network and share good practice and issues arising

in prosecuting such crimes. The next conference is

likely to take place in Autumn 2005.

The Service also produced a range of legal guidance

to prosecutors, including that issued by the

Director of Public Prosecutions in June 2004, to

ensure that rape cases are prosecuted by

experienced barristers and that their performance is

monitored by Areas. In June 2004, the CPS

published its policy for prosecuting cases of rape,

which explains to members of the public, and

particularly victims and witnesses of rape offences,

how rape prosecutions are carried out. Its aim is to

encourage more rape victims to come forward and

to give them greater confidence in the way

prosecutors deal with such cases.

Changes to the CPS case management system to

identify cases for prosecution of rape became

operational from April 2005. The changes should

provide the CPS with regular information on the

outcome of prosecutions for rape crimes and will

help inform further improvements in the way they

are prosecuted. A review of the competencies

required of counsel in prosecuting the crime of

rape is also underway.

Casework having a minority ethnic dimension

May 2002

A follow-up review of CPS casework having a

minority ethnic dimension May 2004

Subsequent to the follow-up review, the CPS

piloted an assessment of the charging initiative in

relation to ethnicity and gender monitoring.

Building on that pilot, plans are in place to

undertake a larger scale assessment of the

statutory charging scheme by ethnicity and gender

of defendant and for the results to be analysed by

an independent consultant. Consultation with black

and other minority ethnic groups and women's

groups will form an integral part of the assessment.

The Service has also extended its own casework

quality assurance scheme to include issues raised

by the “Race for Justice” report. These included

monitoring of file endorsements, charge reduction

and discontinuances, especially in relation to hate

crimes; and has introduced changes to its case

management system that will allow Areas to focus

on casework performance in relation to hate crimes.

Performance indicators for hate crimes and

community engagement have been developed and

form a key part of the CPS Area performance review

arrangements.

7Making a difference added value of thematic reviews


With HMCPSI, the CPS is currently participating in

the “Race for Justice” Taskforce, chaired by the

Honourable Mr Justice Fulford. This multi-agency

Taskforce is examining how all agencies in the

criminal justice system handle racist and religious

crimes; identifying gaps in support and training;

and sharing best practice. At the time of writing a

consultation exercise with CPS was being carried

out. Recommendations from the Taskforce will be

made to the Attorney General later in 2005.

The CPS is also participating in work that is

examining bail decisions for disproportionality by

ethnicity and gender, with a report expected later in

2005. And CPS London is carrying out a review of

its handling of racist and religious crimes.

Thematic review of custody time limits

August 2002

Following the review, the CPS revisited its guidance

for Areas in managing cases with custody time

limits. All CPS Areas have been supplied with

national guidance and have appointed a custody

time limits champion, with the aim that a

consistent and uniform custody time limits system

operates throughout England and Wales.

Additional training for staff has been provided and

induction training for new staff now includes

guidance in handling custody time limits.

Creating the virtuous circle - joint thematic

review of the listing and management of criminal

cases phase I: the magistrates' court (with HMIC

and HMMCSI) October 2002

The recommendations were used to shape early

effective trial management pilots being developed

by the criminal justice system which are being

rolled out to all criminal justice system areas in

England and Wales.

The CPS updated its protocol on listing

arrangements for criminal cases in the magistrates'

courts to provide a framework for listing cases in

the magistrates' courts, so as to provide effective

hearings that led to just outcomes, and which

supported good victim and witness care. These

changes have been subsumed by the general

guidance on Crown Court and magistrates' courts'

listing issued jointly by Ministers and the Lord

Chief Justice in July 2004.

Thematic review of the advice, conduct and

prosecution by the CPS of road traffic offences

involving fatalities in England and Wales

December 2002

In response to the thematic review, all CPS Areas

and Casework Directorate nominated specialist

prosecutors for road traffic fatality cases. The

essential role of the specialist is to keep an

overview of relevant cases in a particular Area, offer

practical advice and assistance to colleagues

prosecuting such cases and, where appropriate,

provide a second opinion. The provision of a

second opinion is particularly important where the

initial review decision is borderline between

whether the driving was 'careless' or 'dangerous'.



In addition, the 1996 driving offences charging

standard has been revised and the CPS held a

series of seminars that explained the essential role

of the specialist prosecutor in road traffic fatality

cases and identified good practice.

Thematic review of the justice gap

January 2003

The introduction of the statutory charging scheme

is leading to the cultural shift in the criminal

justice system that the inspectorates were calling

for. The CPS and the police working together at an

early stage in the investigation as a prosecution

team improves the initial charging decision, the

quality of the evidence and the prosecution file and

makes a substantial contribution to narrowing the

justice gap.

Development and implementation of the No

Witness No Justice programme will enhance

significantly the service victims and witnesses

receive from criminal justice system agencies and

should result in more successful outcomes and

increased public confidence.

Thematic review of business planning

March 2003

In response to the review, the CPS improved its

planning arrangements to provide a more integrated

and comprehensive planning process. A clear vision

and business strategy has been developed and

agreed by the CPS Board. Priorities for delivery and

a performance framework are also agreed by the

Board as part of the planning process and provide

the basis for the CPS and local Area and

Headquaters plans and subsequent annual reports.

Planning guidance has been developed to support

the production of Area plans to consistent

standards. Performance management arrangements

for Areas have been built around progress against

plans and the performance framework and regular

high-level performance, delivery and risk reports

provides an assurance to the CPS Board on delivery

of Public Service Agreement and CPS targets and of

the business strategy.

Streets ahead - a joint inspection of the street

crime initiative (with HMIC, HMMCSI and the

Court Service (now represented by HMICA), HMI

Prisons, HMI Probation, OFSTED and the Social

Services Inspectorate) July 2003

Following the review, the ten areas involved in the

street crime initiative agreed a more focused

performance-driven approach to street crime

through targeting the charging rate and the rate of

ineffective trials in street crime cases. A benchmark

report showed that the charge rate had been

sustained as a proportion of the reducing volume

of reported street crime. The ineffective trial rate

had been halved across the ten areas significantly

exceeding the shared benchmark.

7 Making a difference added value of thematic reviews


There have been further improvements in the

handling and management of street crime cases,

including an improved approach to identity parades

by video. Street crime areas now operate statutory

charging schemes, with all such cases subject to

pre-charge advice and monitored through the CPS

case management system.

Violence at home - a joint inspection of the

investigation and prosecution of cases involving

domestic violence (with HMIC)

Feburuary 2004

The CPS domestic violence policy was reviewed in

the light of the report and a revised policy launched

in January 2005. A new domestic violence training

pack has been developed and a training programme

will be delivered to prosecutors during 2005-2006.

Two domestic violence pilots in Gwent and Croydon

are helping the CPS and police to identify good

practice in the prosecution of such cases. The

report from the pilots, not published at the time of

writing, is expected to be published before this

report. Also, each CPS Area has appointed a

domestic violence co-ordinator to support the

effective prosecution of such cases, allied to the

support provided to victims and witnesses through

witness support units being introduced as a result

of the No Witness No Justice initiative.

Getting on the right track - a thematic review of

CPS handling of British Transport Police

casework March 2004

After publication of the report, a joint conference

was held between the CPS and British Transport

Police to develop more effective partnership

working arrangements. As a result, bi-annual

meetings between senior officers from the two

organisations and more regular operational level

meetings are being held to tackle case

management and prosecution issues, such as more

effective arrangements for disclosure of evidence

and in improved quality of cases brought before the

courts.

Joint inspection report into persistent and

prolific offenders (involving all five crimial

justice system inspectorates with representation

from the Audit Commission) May 2004

Following the joint inspection report in May 2004,

the CPS and other criminal justice system agencies

re-focused attention on the 9,000 prolific and

priority offenders who account for a substantial

proportion of all crime. The CPS is supporting the

work of the police and local Crime and Disorder

Reduction Partnerships by providing a premium

service in the prosecution of prolific and priority

offenders and by sharing information and best

practice in the bringing such offenders to justice.

Payback time - asset recovery since the

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (with HMIC,

HMMCSI) November 2004

In response to the practical recommendations in

the review, the CPS is improving its approach to

asset recovery from criminals under the Act.

The CPS and the Association of Chief Police

Officers have agreed joint area confiscation order

targets to be administered by Local Criminal Justice

Boards and to support delivery of these targets;

each CPS Area has appointed a senior prosecutor



as their Proceeds of Crime Act champion. A

national CPS Proceeds of Crime Act champions'

conference looking at ways of recovering assets in

money laundering cases took place in Spring 2005.

The CPS has contributed to a review of the national

best practice guide for confiscation order

enforcement and is making better use of the joint

asset recovery database to ensure cases with an

asset recovery element are progressed.

The CPS has also undertaken a stocktake of all its

Proceeds of Crime Act orders to ensure that action

is being taken on a timely basis to recover assets

from criminals convicted of acquisitive crimes. In

addition, the Service is making improvements to its

case management system to flag potential asset

confiscation cases and promulgating good practice

from joint police and CPS work in Manchester. This

good practice identifies potential confiscation and

money laundering cases and ensures that they are

referred to the police financial investigation units

for action.

7Making a difference added value of thematic reviews


Stephen Wooler, HM Chief Inspector with his management team


Overview

The move this year from three inspection groups to

two has proved very successful providing greater

flexibility in the deployment of resources enabling

the Inspectorate to complete successfully a

demanding inspection programme as is evidenced

in the earlier sections of this report.

Each group is headed by a Director who is

responsible for delivery of an ambitious inspection

programme involving CPS Area inspections

supplemented by follow-up inspections; thematic

reviews of CPS business; delivery of joint criminal

justice reviews; other inspection activity in relation

to the Customs and Excise Prosecution Office (now

the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office);

support to the Chief Inspector of the Criminal

Justice System in Northern Ireland as and when

required; and participation in work with other

inspection bodies. The group Directors, Sally-Ann

Downey and Jerry Hyde, are members of the

Inspectorate Management Team.

The Head of Corporate Services, Steve Watkins, also

a member of the Inspectorate Management Team,

is responsible for the Inspectorate's internal

services including business planning and

monitoring performance against plan.

Teresa O'Reilly, the Director of Strategy and

Change, a time-limited appointment as of 1 April

2004, was the fifth member of the team with

responsibility for launching the change programme

“Moving on Up”.

The work of the Inspectorate during 2004-2005 was

focused around five themes

o completion of a second inspection cycle of CPS

Areas and business units, including follow-up

visits; a risk assessment determined in each case

whether it should be a full or intermediate

inspection

o continuing the commitment to inspection of

criminal justice areas, involving all five criminal

justice inspectorates

o thematic reviews of relevant topics (some CPS

specific and some on a joint cross-cutting basis)

o inspection of the London groups of the (then)

Customs and Excise Prosecution Office

o delivery of the change programme

“Moving on Up”.

Progress was achieved against a background of

uncertainty over the Inspectorate's future created by

the ongoing review of criminal justice system

inspectorates with its implications for HMCPSI's

future (and subsequent consequences for those

whom we inspect, other stakeholders, and our staff).

Performance against business plan2004-2005

Our core deliverables for 2004-2005 supported the

criminal justice system Public Service Agreement

targets. They were defined as

o bringing about improvement by acting as a

major driver for increasing performance in the

prosecution functions that we inspect

o encouraging joined-up working within the

criminal justice system

o delivering the inspection programme across

prosecution functions using continually

improving methodology that maximizes impact

and minimises the burden of inspection activity

so as to act as a catalyst for continuous

8Making a difference HMCPSI’s governance and performance


improvement and the spreading of good practice

o contributing to greater value for money within

the criminal justice system.

The business plan structure identified the following

levels of activity that contribute towards

achievement of the core deliverables

HMCPSI's business plan for 2004-2005 can be

found at www.hmcpsi.gov.uk. A detailed report on

progress against the deliverables can also be found

on this website, hard copies are available from

Corporate Services, HMCPSI, 26 - 28 Old Queen

Street, London SW1H 9HP. A summary of

achievement appears below, the exact wording is

slightly different from that in the business plan but

the meaning is unchanged.

Business plan activity

Key Activity 1:

CPS Area and Business Unit inspections

Objective: To inspect and report upon the

performance of CPS business units in a way

that secures continuous improvement in

performance and focuses sharply on

outcomes, in particular achievement of Public

Service Agreement targets. Increasingly, value

for money issues will become an important

element in the inspection process from 2004-

2005 onwards

Key Activity 2:

Joint inspections (thematic and criminal

justice system area)

Objective: To work together with other criminal

justice system inspectorates to develop and

deliver a programme of cross-cutting

inspections of aspects of the criminal justice

system within a criminal justice system area or

wider (on a thematic basis) as appropriate. To

produce quality reports which are drivers for

improved performance within the criminal

justice system and promulgate good practice as

well as increased value for money

Key Activity 3:

Thematic inspections (single agency)

Objective: To inspect and report on overall

CPS performance in relation to particular

aspects of its work. To contribute to

attainment of Public Service Agreement

targets including improving value for money


PSA targets CJS

HMCPSI 4 Core Deliverables

Business Plan 7 Key Activities

Development Activity 5 Work Streams*

Sustaining Activity

HMCPSI

Underpinning ActivityUnderpinning Activity

Key contributes to / underpins work of

* subsequently 4 Work Streams


Key Activity 4:

Development of good practice

Objective: To identify good practice and drive

up performance through adoption by the

inspected service of methods of work identified

by inspection teams during Area/thematic or

joint programmes. Achievement of Public

Service Agreement targets being the focus of

the work

Key Activity 5:

Effective consultation with stakeholders,

customers, criminal justice system, the public

Objective: To secure the confidence of

stakeholders, members of the criminal justice

system and the public in the effectiveness of

the inspection process undertaken by HMCPSI

and the reports produced in accurately

assessing, reporting and improving the

performance of the services inspected. (This is

in addition to reporting on the value for money

the CPS delivers, as defined under key activities

1, 2, and 3 above)

Key Activity 6:

Customs and Excise Prosecution Office (now

Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office)

Objective: To inspect and report upon the

performance of Customs and Excise

Prosecution Office in a way that secures

continuous improvement in performance and

focuses sharply on outcomes

Key Activity 7:

Other assignments

Objective: To make available, as required,

experienced HMCPSI personnel to work on

other assignments outside the usual HMCPSI

areas of work

Underpinning Development Activity:

“Moving on Up” change programme

Underpinning Sustaining Activity:

Finance

Human resources

Office services

Key Outcome

Achieved 8 activities (73%)

Partly delivered / achieved 3 activities (27%)

Note: This summary does not reflect the relative

importance or size of each activity.

Apart from development and sustaining activities,

progress, including value for money aspects, has

been covered fairly extensively earlier in this report.

Development activity

“Moving on Up” - the change programme

The “Moving on Up” change programme was aimed

at ensuring the right organisational structures,

culture and inspection arrangements for delivering

future programmes of work, within existing

resources, to give full effect to the Government's

ten principles of inspection as set out in the Office

of Public Service Reform report “Inspecting for

Improvement: Developing a customer focused

approach”.

To this end, the objective of the programme was to

deliver



“An adaptable organisation staffed by highly

motivated, entrusted professionals, who deliver a

service which adds value for our stakeholders, is

focused on achieving outcomes and through its

leadership will be influential in cross-government

inspection policy development.”

So that

o staff are equipped and entrusted to deliver and

support inspections, have clear goals and are

motivated through their work activities

o stakeholders, through effective engagement,

recognize the value we bring to enhancing their

organisation(s) and our contribution to

improving the delivery of criminal justice

services; to the benefit of victims, witnesses and

the public

o structures support the effective delivery of our

services and allow the organisation to adapt and

change

o services are innovative and customised to reflect

the identified risks and needs of those inspected

and their stakeholders; focusing on outcomes

and performance measures

o systems provide information and knowledge to

support our business activities, inspection

recommendations and add value to our services.

This blueprint was distilled into a number of

projects which were brigaded under one of four

work streams (initially five) to be taken forward in

stages. Each work stream was led by a a member of

the management team. The phased approach

enabled early realization of benefits which in turn

provided a firm foundation for the development of

subsequent stages of the programme.

The initial intention was to complete the majority

of the programme by the end of the 2004-2005

financial year. However it soon became obvious

that to maximize benefits for the whole change

programme, a number of projects needed to be

extended beyond that period.


Programme Vision & Mission

Blueprint

Internal Systems Service DeliveryCommunications /

ProfileHuman Resources /

Leadership

Partnership

DevelopmentClear line of Sight

Raising our ProfileInformed Decision

Making

The “Moving On Up”change programme

Supporting Delivery Leading our PeopleImproving

Communications

Communications

Strategy

Inspecting for

Outcomes

Development for

Delivery

Enhanced ProductivityRoles Responsibility &

Accountability



Projects highlighted so were largely completed in

2004-2005 they include

Inspecting for outcomes and enhanced

productivity together formed the kernel of the

change programme. The former focused on revising

the inspection framework to take account of

changes in the CPS, the wider criminal justice

system and contemporaneous expectations as to

the manner in which inspectorates would operate.

An important requirement was greater flexibility so

that Area inspections (to be known in future as

Area effectiveness inspections) could be more risk

based ranging from full inspections to those which

might be limited to individual or a small number of

aspects of performance.

The key component of the enhanced productivity

project was the development of arrangements for a

series of overall performance assessments. The two

exercises were linked in that the overall

performance assessment arrangements were

founded on (but not coextensive with) the revised

inspection framework. The intention was that the

outcome of the series of overall performance

assessments would provide a baseline for the

performance of all 42 CPS Areas and also underpin

the risk assessments which determine the extent

and nature of future inspection activity in relation

to any given CPS Area. The initial risk assessment

based on the overall performance assessment

outcome will need to be kept under continuous

review informed by up-to-date data from the CPS

and criminal justice system performance

management systems.

The inspection framework was completed early in

2005 and that framework together with the

proposed arrangements for overall performance

assessments were approved by the Attorney

General in early April 2005, just after the end of the

reporting year.

Clear line of sight has delivered improved

operational and resource planning arrangements

for the overall performance assessment of CPS

Areas planned for 2005-2006. Further development

work to provide similar arrangements for Area

effectiveness inspections will also be undertaken in

2005-2006.

Communications/Profile projects were completed

and developed into a comprehensive Inspectorate

communications strategy for delivery in 2005-2006.

Development work on projects highlighted so

began in 2004-2005 and completion of them is

expected during 2005-2006.

Project

Project

Sustaining activity

Finance

*Excludes management fee levied on HMCSPI by the Treasury Solicitor's

Department

The Inspectorate's budget comes from the Treasury

Solicitor's Department Estimate. Costs for 2004-

2005 are provisional as they had not been finalised

by the time this report went to print; costs for

earlier years are from the final accounts for the

year.

The accounts have been prepared on a resource

accounting basis, meaning that the figures show

the value of services consumed rather than the

cash spent.

In 2004-2005 the proportion of the Inspectorate's

expenditure on staff was 76%, 11% was spent on

accommodation and 13% on other services.

Governance and risk management

HMCPSI was not subject to internal audit this

financial year. However we continued to review and

maintain arrangements, and to enhance systems for

internal control from the baseline of those that

were in place when a “level one assurance” was

provided by internal audit in 2003-2004.

level one assurance

“a sound system of risk management [control]

exists which is consistently applied and should

be effective in delivering all critical business

objectives. Although not having an adverse

impact on critical business objectives, remedial

action is required to address weaknesses in

control over minor risks.”

HMCPSI continued to review its corporate risk

register and complemented this with the creation

of supplementary risk registers relating to the

“Moving on Up” change programme and in

particular to the proposed series of overall

performance assessments: this was because the

change programme represented a significant aspect

of HCMPSI's activities over the reporting period.

Human resources

During the year a large part of HMCPSI's work on

human resources was focused on supporting the

change programme. Two pivotal appointments were

those of a communications officer and a research

analyst. More generally high calibre candidates

were recruited through inter-departmental trawls or

open competition. Equality and diversity



Net Operating Costs (£000’s) 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Staff 2,085 2,246 2,412 2,528

Recruitment and Training 98 64 101 44

Accommodation 343 502 481 371

Travel and Subsistence 168 128 149 145

Consultancy 153 63 51 59

Supplies and Other Services 177 283 297 161

Total* 3,024 3,286 3,491 3,308



awareness was key in all recruitment campaigns,

and in training and development programmes.

The following statistics are published in accordance

with our Race Equality Scheme

diversity in HMCPSI

minority ethnic representation

disability representation

35-44 age range representation

grade 6 representation

16-24 age range representation

female representation

recruitment applicants

female applicants

disability

minority ethnic background

of those interviewed

female

disability


of those appointed

female

disability


Training and development

Sixty-two training events comprising 484 days were

held during 2004-2005. The participants included

female

disabled


those aged 45+

Disappointingly, only 25% returned their equal opportunity forms

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0 100 200 300 400 500

number of days

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0% 10% 60%20% 30% 40% 50%



Training and development

Every member of the Inspectorate is able to apply

for appropriate training and development to equip

them to fulfil their roles and responsibilities

effectively. To help people decide on the training

most appropriate to their needs, a training

directory was introduced during the year and is

seen as a very positive step.

The twice yearly all staff conferences continued to

provide added value, giving everyone the

opportunity to hear about and discuss topical

issues of importance to the Inspectorate. Other

events also took place for the benefit of inspectors

and other groups of staff to enable them to air and

discuss specific issues of importance.

Investors in People (IiP)

As a mark to our commitment to IiP we kept our

practices under regular review in the light of the

new Investor in People standard which comes into

place in January 2006 to ensure we reflect them in

our working practices as early as possible before

that date.

Equality and diversity

We continued to ensure that our functions, policies

and employment systems eliminated unlawful

racial discrimination, promoted equality of

opportunity and promoted good relations between

persons of different racial groups as stipulated by

HMCPSI's Race Equality Scheme (RES).

At the end of the reporting year our Race Equality

Scheme was under review and a revised scheme to

take us forward to 2008 was in draft. The

Commission for Racial Equality also reviewed our

RES and their findings have been very helpful. The

positive features they found included our

arrangements for meeting the specific employment

duty under the Race Relations Act 1976 (as

amended by the 2000 Act) However, there were a

number of aspects where the Commission

indicated we needed to improve and we shall be

incorporating these in our revised scheme.

Building on the comprehensive equality and

diversity training all our inspectors undertook in

early 2004, we invited an expert on equality and

diversity issues to shadow one of our Area

inspections to consider our approach to equality

and diversity during an inspection. Particular

strengths included our approach to service delivery,

particularly sensitive cases, and to community

engagement. Aspects needing refinement included

strengthening the focus on employment issues and

gathering of evidence relevant to the scrutiny of the

“absence of bias or discrimination in casework”. We

took the opportunity provided by the “Moving on

Up” change programme to incorporate these and

other aspects into the new overall performance

assessment framework. We are confident that the

revised inspection regime provides the support

necessary to enable inspectors to fulfil their

obligations under the Race Relations Acts.

On both Area and thematic inspections we have

had the assistance of people from outside the

Inspectorate to bring an independent and lay

perspective to our work. Although they are drawn

from diverse backgrounds and ethnic groups, as

part of the change programme we have begun the

process of reviewing how we use them and how

best to achieve greater diversity in the pool from

which we draw lay inspectors.



Freedom of Information

HMCPSI's Freedom of Information Publication

Scheme was approved by the Information

Commissioner in May 2003 and published in July

2003. It is available on the HMCPSI website at

www.hmcpsi.gov.uk.

Development of the scheme provided the

opportunity to review our records management

arrangements to enable easy retrieval of both

electronic and hard copy data, necessary in dealing

with Freedom of Information applications.

HMCPSI received fourteen Freedom of Information

applications between the scheme going live in

January 2005 and 31 March 2005, all of which were

responded to within the 20 working day deadline.

The majority of requests related to material

published routinely.

HMCPSI website

Our website was launched in May 2002 with a view

to providing easier access to our reports by

members of the public and the press and to make

other information about the Inspectorate available

to a wider audience. Since the launch a number of

improvements have been introduced, including in

2004-2005 the ability to make available to a

restricted audience embargoed copies of reports in

advance of publication.

Publications

As well as publishing our own Area and thematic

inspection reports we have undertaken a

substantial amount of the publication activity

relating to joint inspections. We also publish good

practice papers and a variety of documents that

relate specifically to HMCPSI including the annual

business plan, Freedom of Information Publication

Scheme and the Chief Inspector's annual report to

the Attorney General.

Because of the positive improvements found on

follow-up inspections, with effect from 1 June 2005

reports of follow-up inspections will be published.

Re-engineering of the publications processes has

resulted in the effectiveness (ratio of process time

to elapsed time) of this support service being

significantly improved.

Area reports

Author Title Publication Date

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS South Wales Jun 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Bedfordshire Jun 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Hampshire and the Isle of Wight Jul 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS West Midlands Jul 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS South Yorkshire Jul 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS West Yorkshire Jul 04*

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Warwickshire Aug 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Dyfed Powys Aug 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Staffordshire Aug 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Devon and Cornwall Sep 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Thames Valley Sep 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Lincolnshire Sep 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS North Wales Oct 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Sussex Nov 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Gwent Nov 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Cumbria Dec 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on the London Casework Units

of Customs and Excise Prosecution Office Dec 04

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Avon and Somerset Jan 05

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Greater Manchester Feb 05

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Wiltshire Feb 05

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Hertfordshire Mar 05

HMCPSI The Inspectorate's Report on CPS Surrey Mar 05

Thematic reports


HMCPSI Bringing Back Quality of Life to our Communities. A review of the

performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to dealing with social

impact crime and anti-social behaviour Jun 05

HMCPSI The thematic review of Casework Quality Assurance Jul 05^

HMCPSI Report on the Inspection of Safeguards for Children within the

Crown Prosecution Service Jul 05^

HMCPSI's published reports

1ANNEX


Joint inspection reports


HMCPSI, HMIC, HMMCSI, Joint Inspection Report into Persistent and Prolific Offenders May 04

HMI Prisons, HMI Probation

Audit Commission

HMCPSI, HMIC, HMMCSI Payback Time. Joint Review of Asset Recovery since the

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Nov 04

HMCPSI, HMIC, HMMCSI, Joint Inspection of the Surrey criminal justice area Mar 05


HMCPSI, HMIC, HMMCSI, Joint Inspection of the North Yorkshire criminal justice area May 05


Commission for Safeguarding Children. The second Chief Inspectors’ Report on Jul 05^

Social Care Inspection, Arrangements to Safeguard Children

HMCPSI, Healthcare and

Commission, Young Person's Guide to the Safeguarding Children Review 2005

Adult Learning

Inspectorate,

Audit Commission,

HMIC, HMICA, HMI Prisons,

HMI Probation, OFSTED

All reports can be downloaded free of charge from our website www.hmcpsi.gov.uk.

Notes:

* These Areas were dealt with in HM Chief Inspector's report October 2002 - March 2004.

^ Not yet published - expected publication date.



CPS Area Achieved Partially Not No longer Total no ofachieved achieved applicable recommendations

from first cycle

Avon & Somerset 4 20 3 1 28

Bedfordshire 5 7 10 22

Cambridgeshire*

Cheshire*

Cleveland 8 9 3 20

Cumbria 6 7 9 1 23

Derbyshire 4 6 1 11

Devon & Cornwall 8 7 5 1 21

Dorset 6 7 1 3 17

Durham 3 8 6 17

Dyfed Powys 9 4 2 1 16

Essex 4 15 3 22

Gloucestershire 10 13 2 25

Greater Manchester 6 8 8 2 24

Gwent 7 6 2 15

Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 9 10 3 3 25

Hertfordshire 7 9 7 4 27

Humberside 21 5 2 2 30

Kent 20 7 1 28

Lancashire 8 6 4 1 19

Leicestershire 6 12 3 21

Lincolnshire 8 7 1 3 19

London 18 36 1 2 57

Merseyside 7 6 2 15

Norfolk 4 9 4 17

North Wales 6 3 5 1 15

North Yorkshire 6 6 1 13

Northamptonshire 6 3 8 17

Northumbria 9 10 0 19

Nottinghamshire 10 6 2 18

South Wales 9 10 4 3 26

South Yorkshire 8 4 2 14

Staffordshire 7 7 1 2 17

Suffolk 10 3 1 5 19

Surrey 7 7 3 17

Sussex 11 10 4 25

Thames Valley 1 17 6 24

Warwickshire 1 4 1 6

West Mercia 5 10 1 16

West Midlands 6 8 4 2 20

West Yorkshire 12 3 1 16

Wiltshire 5 4 1 10

Total 307 339 128 37 811

* This data was not collected at the time these inspections took place.

Areas' progress towards achievement of recommendationsfrom the first cycle of inspections as assessed during thesecond cycle of inspections2ANNEX


Areas' progress towards achievement of recommendationsfrom the second cycle of inspections as assessed duringthe follow-up inspections 3ANNEX

CPS Area Achieved Partially Not No longer Total no ofachieved achieved applicable recommendations

from second cycle

Avon & Somerset* 8

Bedfordshire 1 3 2 6

Cambridgeshire 1 4 5

Cheshire 3 3 6

Cleveland 5 5

Cumbria* 6

Derbyshire 6 1 7

Devon & Cornwall* 5

Dorset 4 1 5

Durham 2 6 8

Dyfed Powys 2 4 6

Essex 3 2 5

Gloucestershire 1 5 6

Greater Manchester* 8

Gwent* 7

Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 2 4 6

Hertfordshire* 5

Humberside 2 2 4

Kent 5 1 6

Lancashire 7 2 9

Leicestershire 6 6

Lincolnshire* 4

London^ 0

Merseyside 5 5

Norfolk 1 1 2 4

North Wales* 5

North Yorkshire 5 5

Northamptonshire 2 7 9

Northumbria 1 5 6

Nottinghamshire 1 3 1 5

South Wales 3 3

South Yorkshire 4 4

Staffordshire* 4

Suffolk 3 3

Surrey* 6

Sussex* 5

Thames Valley 12 12

Warwickshire 1 3 4

West Mercia 1 6 7

West Midlands* 5

West Yorkshire 1 4 5

Wiltshire* 5

Total 22 128 11 1 235

* Follow-up inspections are usually carried out 6-12 months after publication of an Area inspection report these Areas have

not yet had a follow-up inspection.

^ The inspection of CPS London was a re-inspection - a follow-up inspection was not carried out.


4ANNEXReview of HMCPSI’s commitment to the ten principles of publicservice inspection

We show below what we have done and what we

need to do to embrace the ten principles of public

service inspection into our inspection methodology.

We express progress in terms of developments and

aspects being addressed.

1 the purpose of improvement

Developments

o Development of our risk based approach should

ensure that we focus on those aspects of

performance where the need for improvement is

greatest.

o We identify good practice, and have developed

communication channels to ensure that it is

shared between Areas eg Good Practice Guide.

o We are developing our reporting format so that

our recommendations explicitly identify and

address poor performance.

o Creation of inspector liaison roles should help

Areas to respond to our recommendations.

Aspects being addressed

o Identifying the optimum level of our involvement

in implementation of recommendations while

remaining cognisant of retaining our

independence.

2 a focus on outcomes

Developments

o New inspection framework is focused on

outcomes.

o Overall performance assessment process will

judge an Area's performance from the perspective

of the end user.


o Involvement of the end user group(s) in the

development of our inspection methodology and

framework.

3 a user perspective

Developments

o The new inspection framework covers many user

perspectives eg in relation to CPS standards of

treatment in relation to victims and the direct

communication with victims scheme; service

delivery at court; quality and timeliness of advice

to the police.

o Performance measures used are national targets,

so as to judge the CPS from the user perspective

of a national service, rather than utilising targets

agreed by local management.


o Development of our own suite of measures to

assess CPS performance, with particular regard to

quality.

4 be proportionate to risk

Developments

o The new inspection arrangements will be risk

based in terms of resources, focus and frequency.


o Broadening the information used to inform and

determine our risk model.

5 encourage self-assessment by managers

Developments

o The new self-assessment process has an

increased level of transparency.

o We provide increased levels of

assistance/guidance to Areas to complete the

self-assessment.

o Overall performance assessment process includes

a challenge element of the Area's

self-assessment.



o We are seeking to improve partnership working

to ensure a more robust self-assessment process.

6 use impartial evidence

Developments

o The new inspection and overall performance

assessment frameworks ensure greater use and

analysis of data so as to inform judgments

regarding performance.


o We are considering how to maximize the data

from external sources, eg benchmarking with

private sector organisations to inform analysis.

7 disclose the criteria for judgment

Developments

o Robust consultation process undertaken to

engage CPS Areas and inform them of the new

inspection framework and criteria.

o Framework and methodology fully available to

those inspected and other stakeholders.


o The need to demonstrate that our

recommendations are based on our published

criteria supported by data as the evidence and

are not subjective.

8 be open about the processes

Developments

o Consultation process has involved CPS Areas in

the development of new inspection process.

o New arrangement for moderation of reports

being developed.


o Development of quality assurance of our

processes, rather than quality control.

9 have regard to value for money, our own included

Developments

o New inspection framework focuses on the

outcome of resource management rather than

on narrowly defined financial management.

o Risk based approach to inspection should lead

to greater improvements in inspection and

increased levels of efficiency and value for

money.

o Improved costing information now available.

o Utilisation of the “Microsoft Project” planning

tool to ensure optimum resourcing.

o Increased focus on data to make judgments

rather than file sampling and on-site work will

mean greater efficiency.


o Further development of measures demonstrating

our impact.

10 continually learn from experience

Developments

o Ongoing delivery of our robust change

programme “Moving on Up”.


o Knowledge management and intra-group

communication being developed further.

Average number of days from arrest to sentence forpersistent young offenders (three month rollingaverage) in England and Wales by criminal justice areafor April 2004 - February 2005

10 d

ays

20 d

ays

30 d

ays

40 d

ays

50 d

ays

60 d

ays

70 d

ays

80 d

ays

90 d

ays

100

days

71 day target

5ANNEX


Notes: Figures denoted by * are based on 40 or fewer cases and

should be interpreted with particular care.

(1) The area classification is based on the police force that

investigated the offence and entered the charge or summons

details on the police national computer. In a small proportion

of cases, prosecution and court proceedings may have been in

different areas.

(2) Technical problems with local data transfer to the police

national computer may have resulted in slight inaccuracies in

Gwent's figures.

(3) Figures marked with an (^) have been revised following reports

of incorrect data entries on the police national computer.

(4) The final quarter figures for 2004 were not available at the time

this report went to print. The 3 month average to end of

February is shown instead.

Apr 04 - Jun 04 Jul 04 - Sep 04 Oct 04 - Dec 04 Dec 04 - Feb 05 (4) Source Dept Constitutional Affairs

Norfolk

North Wales

North Yorkshire

Northamptonshire

Northumbria

Nottinghamshire

South Wales

South Yorkshire

Staffordshire

Suffolk

Surrey

Sussex

Thames Valley

Warwickshire

West Mercia

West Midlands

West Yorkshire

Wiltshire

England and Wales

10 d

ays

20 d

ays

30 d

ays

40 d

ays

50 d

ays

60 d

ays

70 d

ays

80 d

ays

90 d

ays

100

days

71 day target



Avon

and

Som

erse

tCu

mbr

ia

Dev

on a

nd C

ornw

all

Dyf

ed P

owys

Gre

ater

Man

ches

ter

Gw

ent

Her

tfor

dshi

re

Advice

Compliance with the Code forCrown Prosecutors on Advice

Review

Compliance with the Code forCrown Prosecutors on Review

Evidential Testinitial review

summary trial review

committal review

Public Interest Testinitial review

summary trial review

committal review

Compliance with the Code for CrownProsecutors on discontinuance

Cases in the adverse sample wherethe outcome was foreseeable andthe CPS could have done more to

avoid the outcome

Preparation

Relevant cases where theprosecution complied with the

statutory duty of disclosure

primary disclosure

secondary disclosure

Crown Court cases in whichinstructions to counsel were fully

satisfactory

Indictments requiring amendment

New Measures

Cracked trials where the CPS could have done more to avoid

the outcome

magistrates’ courts

Crown Court

6ANNEXCPS performance against qualitative measures assessed byHMCPSI between April 2004 - March 2005

100.0

97.8

92.3

92.1

98.9

100.0

100.0

79.3

45.2

85.2

85.7

41.5

35.0

25.0

11.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

92.9

25.0

81.8

77.8

91.7

25.0

0.0

20.0

80.0

100.0

96.7

98.4

98.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

20.5

50.9

77.3

68.8

35.3

25.0

0.0

90.0

100.0

100.0

97.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

91.7

23.5

73.2

23.1

50.0

26.3

0.0

36.4

100.0

98.5

98.9

97.2

100.0

100.0

98.8

96.3

12.9

87.8

53.1

76.9

26.1

18.2

24.1

100.0

98.4

86.4

94.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

94.7

24.0

67.5

33.3

90.5

19.0

14.3

12.5

100.0

100.0

91.3

90.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

86.7

33.3

53.8

37.5

81.8

30.4

10.0

10.0


Linc

olns

hire

Nor

th W

ales

Staf

ford

shir

e

Surr

ey

Suss

ex

Tham

es V

alle

y

War

wic

kshi

re

Wilt

shir

e

Sam

ple

size

(n

o of

cas

es e

xam

ined

)Av

erag

e fo

r in

spec

tion

cycl

e 02

-04

Aver

age

for

prev

ious

insp

ectio

n cy

cle

00-0

2

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

25.0

64.9

91.7

47.4

38.9

0.0

16.7

100.0

97.6

96.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.0

9.1

81.6

31.3

92.6

26.9

9.1

0.0

100.0

100.0

96.9

96.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

19.4

94.7

84.2

75.0

23.3

0.0

0.0

100.0

95.3

95.8

91.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

87.5

36.0

67.4

88.9

43.5

20.8

0.0

33.3

84.6

98.7

82.6

91.8

98.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

47.4

71.7

81.0

34.6

17.9

22.2

23.1

83.3

95.5

100.0

96.4

100.0

100.0

98.1

76.9

39.3

29.0

56.3

53.3

30.0

7.1

25.0

88.9

100.0

100.0

95.2

100.0

94.1

100.0

93.8

10.0

63.0

88.9

91.7

8.3

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

97.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

13.6

91.9

81.8

55.0

30.0

0.0

14.3

175

1,283

436

794

1,237

423

756

375

437

796

282

409

425

127

152

95.4

98.6

96.3

96.1

99.9

99.7

99.8

92.4

25.5

76.4

60.6

64.3

26.1

18.0

17.8

96.0

98.3

n/a

n/a

99.8

n/a

n/a

93.0

20.5

75.0

64.9

54.8

24.7

n/a

n/a

Note: All figures are expressed as a percentage of file sample examined by HMCPSI.

All 42 CPS Areas are inspected in an inspection cycle.

Glossary


Attorney General The Attorney General, assisted by the

Solicitor General, are known as the Law Officers. The

Attorney is the chief legal adviser to the Government and

has overall responsibility for the Treasury Solicitor’s

Department, superintends the Director of Public

Prosecution as head of the Crown Prosecution Service

(CPS), the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and

the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.

The Law Officers answer for these Departments in

Parliament. The Attorney General has public interest

functions in which his responsibility is as guardian of the

public interest.

Citizens Advice The Citizens Advice service helps people

resolve their legal, money and other problems by providing

free information and advice from over 3,200 locations, and

by influencing policymakers. Citizens Advice and each

Citizens Advice Bureau are registered charities reliant on

volunteers. The majority of advisers are trained volunteers,

helping people to resolve over 5.6 million problems every

year.

Code for Crown Prosecutors The code is issued under

section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and

gives guidance on the general principles to be applied

when making decisions about prosecutions. The code is a

public document and is available on the CPS website:

www.cps.gov.uk.

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) The Commission

for Racial Equality is a publicly funded, non-government

body set up under the Race Relations Act 1976 to tackle

racial discrimination and promote racial equality. It works

in both the public and private sectors to encourage fair

treatment and to promote equal opportunities for

everyone, regardless of their race, colour, nationality or

national or ethnic origin.

Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system in

England and Wales is made up of several separate agencies

and departments, which are responsible for various aspects

of the work of maintaining law and order and the

administration of justice. The main agencies of the CJS

include: police forces; Crown Prosecution Service; Serious

Fraud Office; magistrates’ courts; the Crown Court; the

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division; Prison Service; and

National Probation Service. The Home Secertary, the

Attorney General and the Secretary of State for the

Department of Constitutional Affairs are responsible for

criminal justice policy, objectives and targets.

Discontinuance This is the term given to the formal

termination of a case by the giving of notice under section

23 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is also often used to

describe other terminations in the magistrates’ courts,

which may occur when a case is withdrawn or no evidence

is offered. In the text its use is restricted to the formal

procedure under section 23. In reviewing and deciding

whether to discontinue a case, the prosecutor will be

guided by the principles set out in the Code for Crown

Prosecutors. Review of a case is a continuing process and

the Crown Prosecutor must take account of any change in

circumstances.

NACRO A national crime reduction charity that aims to

make society safer by finding practical solutions to

reducing crime.

The NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty

to Children) is the UK’s leading charity specialising in child

protection and the prevention of cruelty to children. They

have been directly involved in protecting children and

campaigning on their behalf since 1884.

Victim Support An independent charity that helps people

cope with the effects of crime. They also aim to promote

and advance the rights of victims and witnesses in all

aspects of criminal justice and social policy.

Witness Service There is a Witness Service presence in

every magistrates’ court and Crown Court centre in England

and Wales. This service is run by the independent charity

Victim Support, and helps victims, witnesses and their

families before, during and after the trial.

Women’s Aid Federation of England Women’s Aid is the

national charity working to end domestic violence against

women and children. Women’s Aid co-ordinates and

supports an England-wide network of over 300 local

projects, providing over 500 refuges, helplines, outreach

services and advice centres.

Printed in the UK by the Stationery Office limited

on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

179234 07/05

Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from:

Onlinewww.tso.co.uk/bookshop

Mail,Telephone, Fax & E-mailTSOPO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GNTelephone orders/General enquiries 0870 600 5522Fax orders 0870 600 5533Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474E-mail [email protected] 0870 240 3701

TSO Shops123 Kingsway, London WC2B 6PQ020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 639468-69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 96999-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 063416 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 540118-19 High Street, Cardiff CF10 1PT029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 434771 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588

The Parliamentary Bookshop12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square,London SW1A 2JXTelephone orders/General enquiries 020 7219 3890Fax orders 020 7219 3866

TSO Accredited Agents(see Yellow Pages)

and through good booksellers

hm chief inspector's annual report - justice … · in criminal justice hm chief...

Documents