the inspectorate’s report on cps essex · former unit head seconded from colchester cju on...

THE INSPECTORATE’S REPORTON

CPS ESSEX

REPORT 15/03 NOVEMBER 2003

CPS ESSEX

AREA OFFICEChelmsford

OTHER OFFICESColchester, Harlow, Laindon, Southend

MAGISTRATES’ COURTSBasildon, Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping, Grays

Harlow, Harwich, Southend, Witham

CROWN COURTS Basildon, Chelmsford, Southend

CONTENTSPAGE

PREFACE

1 INTRODUCTION 1Methodology and nature of the inspection 3

2 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5Recommendations 7

3 KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS 8Commentary 11Pre-charge advice to police 11Quality of decision-making 11Continuing review 11Discontinuance 11Ineffective trials 12Adverse outcomes 12Narrowing the justice gap 12

4 CASEWORK 13Overview 13Advice to police 13Cases ready to proceed at first date of hearing 15Discontinuances in magistrates’ courts 16Summary trial preparation 17Committal and Crown Court case preparation 18Disclosure of unused material 20Sensitive cases 21File/message handling 22Custody time limits 23Appeal and committal for sentence processes 24Recording of case outcomes 24Readiness for court 25Learning points 25

5 ADVOCACY AND QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERY 27Overview 27Advocacy standards and monitoring 27Court endorsements 28Court preparation 28Attendance at court 29

6 VICTIMS AND WITNESSES 30Overview 30Direct Communication with Victims 30Victims’ Charter 31

7 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 33Overview 33Performance standards 33Performance monitoring 33Joint performance management 35Continuous improvement 35Accounting for performance 36

8 PEOPLE MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS 37Overview 37Human resource planning 37Staff structure 38Staff development 39Performance review 40Management involvement 41Equality and diversity 41Health and safety 42

9 MANAGEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES 43Overview 43Adherence to financial guidelines 43Budgetary controls 43Value for money approach 44

10 PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCES 45Overview 45CJS partnerships 45Improving local CJS performance 46Information technology 46Buildings, equipment and security 46Partnership with Headquarters and the Service Centre 47

11 POLICY AND STRATEGY 48Overview 48Stakeholders 48Performance measurement 48Review 48Communication and implementation 49

12 PUBLIC CONFIDENCE 50Overview 50Complaints 50Minority ethnic communities 50Community engagement 51Media engagement 51

13 LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE 52Overview 52Vision and values 52Management structure 52Organisational structure 53Action plans 53Criminal justice system co-operation 53

ANNEX 1 Business Excellence Model Inspection Map

ANNEX 2 Area organisational chart to show structure and staff numbers

ANNEX 3 Area caseload figures

ANNEX 4 Resources and caseloads

ANNEX 5 Implementation of recommendations and suggestions from report publishedOctober 2000

ANNEX 6 Files examined for CPS Essex

ANNEX 7 List of local representatives who assisted in the inspection

ANNEX 8 HMCPSI Vision, Mission and Values

ANNEX 9 Glossary

PREFACE

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) was established by theCrown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000 as an independent statutory body. TheChief Inspector is appointed by, and reports to, the Attorney General.

HMCPSI’s purpose is to promote continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectivenessand fairness of the prosecution services within a joined-up criminal justice system, through aprocess of inspection and evaluation; the provision of advice; and the identification of goodpractice. It works in partnership with other criminal justice inspectorates and agencies,including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) itself, but without compromising its robustindependence.

The main focus of the HMCPSI work programme is the inspection of business units withinthe CPS – the 42 Areas and Headquarters Directorates. In 2002 it completed its first cycle ofinspections during which it visited and published reports on each of the 42 CPS Areas as wellas the Casework Directorate and Policy Directorate within CPS Headquarters. A limitedamount of re-inspection was also undertaken. HMCPSI is now well into the second cycle ofinspections. Some significant changes have been made in its methodology in order toenhance the efficiency of HMCPSI itself and adapt its processes to developments both withinthe CPS and the wider criminal justice system. The four main changes are the adoption of afour year cycle with each Area now receiving two visits during that period, one of which maybe an intermediate (as opposed to full) inspection; a risk assessment technique has beendeveloped to determine the appropriate type of inspection and the issues which should becovered; an inspection framework has been developed founded on the EFQM (BusinessExcellence Model); and we have incorporated requirements to ensure that our inspectionprocess covers all matters contained in the inspection template promulgated by theCommission for Racial Equality. HMCPSI will also be using a wider range of techniques forgathering evidence.

The Government has initiated a range of measures to develop cohesion and betterco-ordinated working arrangements amongst the criminal justice agencies so that the systemoverall can operate in a more holistic manner. Public Service Agreements between HMTreasury and the relevant Departments set out the expectations which the Government has ofthe criminal justice system at national level. The framework within which the system ismanaged nationally has been substantially revised and that is reflected by the establishmentin each of the 42 criminal justice areas of a Local Criminal Justice Board. During the secondcycle of inspection, HMCPSI will place even greater emphasis on the effectiveness of CPSrelationships with other criminal justice agencies and its contribution to the work of thesenew Boards. For this purpose, HMCPSI will also work closely with other criminal justiceinspectorates. A particularly important feature of this report is the consideration given to thepilot scheme in Essex for implementation of the recommendation of the Review of theCriminal Courts of England and Wales (2001) by Sir Robin Auld that the CPS should assumeresponsibility for decisions whether to charge.

Although the inspection process will continue to focus heavily on the quality of caseworkdecision-making and casework handling, it will continue to extend to overall CPSperformance. Consistently good casework is invariably underpinned by sound systems, goodmanagement and structured monitoring of performance. Although reports in our first cycletended to address management and operational issues separately from casework, that

fundamental linkage will now be reflected more fully through the EFQM based inspectionframework. Inspection teams comprise legal inspectors, business management inspectors andcasework inspectors working closely together. HMCPSI also invites suitably informedmembers of the public nominated by national organisations to join the process as layinspectors. These inspectors are unpaid volunteers who examine the way in which the CPSrelates to the public, through its dealings with witnesses and victims, its externalcommunication and liaison, its handling of complaints and the application of the publicinterest test contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

HMCPSI has offices in London and York. The London office has two Groups whichundertake inspections in the Midlands and Wales, and in Southern England. The Groupbased in York undertakes inspection in Northern England. Both offices undertake thematicreviews and joint inspections with other criminal justice inspectorates. At any given time,HMCPSI is likely to be conducting six geographically-based or Directorate inspections andtwo thematic reviews, as well as joint inspections.

The Inspectorate’s reports identify strengths and aspects for improvement, draw attention togood practice and make recommendations in respect of those aspects of the performancewhich most need to be improved. During the second cycle of inspections, a database will bebuilt up enabling comparisons to be drawn between performances of CPS Areas. The table ofkey performance indicators within this report makes such comparison with the aggregate datagathered from the first 11 inspections. HMCPSI points out the care which must still beundertaken if readers are minded to compare performance described in this report with theoverall CPS performance in the first cycle. Although many of the key requirements remainand are tested by the same standard, the composition of the file sample has altered and thismay make such comparisons unreliable. For that reason, no comparisons are made in thisreport with the first cycle.

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s report about CPSEssex (the Area). CPS Essex serves the area covered by the Essex Police. It has oneoffice, at Chelmsford. The Area Headquarters (Secretariat) is based at theChelmsford office.

1.2 Area business is divided on functional lines between magistrates’ courts and CrownCourt work. The Criminal Justice Units (CJUs) are responsible for the conduct of allcases dealt with in the magistrates’ courts at Basildon & Grays, Chelmsford,Colchester, Harwich & Witham, Epping, Harlow and Southend. The CJU has basesat police stations at Laindon, Colchester, Harlow and Southend. The Trial Unit (TU)reviews and handles cases dealt with in the Crown Court sitting at Basildon,Chelmsford and Southend. The TU is based at the Chelmsford office. CPS Essex andEssex Police have implemented the recommendations of the Glidewell Review so thatCPS lawyers work alongside police administrative staff, with police managers, in theCJUs. They conduct the functions previously carried out by CPS staff. This hasresulted in much work previously undertaken by CPS passing to the police with aconsequent opportunity to redeploy resources or effect cost savings. CPS staff in theTU now undertake some police and magistrates’ court administrative functionsrelating to the Crown Court. Even so, this has worked substantially to the advantageof the CPS.

1.3 The Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales (2001) by Sir Robin Auld(the Auld review) recommended that the CPS should assume responsibility forcharging. The necessary legislation is now before Parliament. However, some pilotshave been undertaken in a number of CPS Areas, and in Essex on a countywide basis.In this original form (referred to as Auld 1), in cases meeting the agreed criteria, thepolice would submit a written file for advice, responded to in writing. Subsequentlydedicated lawyers were then introduced at the four CJU police stations andChelmsford to give on the spot advice to officers (Auld 2). The two most obviousmanifestations of these continued developments are the concentration of CPScasework staff in the Trial Unit; and the very high number of cases logged aspre-charge advice (albeit the large majority do not represent the carefully structuredand formal requests for advice as the term is generally understood, on whichinspections usually focus).

1.4 The Area Management Team (AMT) comprises the Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP),Area Business Manager (ABM), the five Heads of Unit and one other lawyer, aformer Unit Head seconded from Colchester CJU on project management.

1.5 At the time of the inspection at the end of May 2003, the Area employed theequivalent of 134.15 full-time staff. The Area Secretariat comprises the CCP, ABM,two project managers, Special Casework Lawyer (SCL) and the full-time equivalentof 4.8 other staff. Details of staffing of the units is set out below:

2

Grade Essex TULaindon

CJUColchester

CJUHarlow

CJUSouthend

CJU

Level E 1

Level D 1 1 1 1 1

Level C lawyers 8 5.2 7.9 5.6 4.2Level B3/B2caseworkers

3 1 1.6 1 1

Level B1caseworkers

20.6 1

Level Acaseworkers 50.4 2 2 2 1.85

TOTAL 84 9.2 12.5 9.6 9.05

A detailed breakdown of staffing and structure can be found at Annex 2.

1.6 Details of the Area’s caseload as at the end of March 2003 are as follows:

CategoryArea

numbersArea % of

total caseloadNational % oftotal caseload

Pre-charge advice to police 7,199 20.4 4.5

Summary motoring 12,629 35.7 36.7

Other summary 4,609 13.0 18.8

Either way and indictable only 10,810 30.6 39.4

Other proceedings 108 0.3 0.6

TOTAL 35,355 100% 100%

1.7 As previously mentioned, the unusually high advice figure reflects the operation ofthe Auld charging pilot. This gives a distorted picture of the balance between thedifferent caseload categories. It should also be noted that a large number of old caseswere being finalised at the time of the inspection.

1.8 Details of the Area’s Crown Court finalised cases as at the end of March 2003 were:

Crown Court finalised casesArea

numbersArea % of

total caseloadNational % oftotal caseload

Indictable only 536 22.6 31.2

Either way offences 928 39.2 44.0Appeals against conviction orsentence

412 17.4 9.2

Committals for sentence 493 20.8 15.6

TOTAL 2,369 100% 100%

3

1.9 A more detailed table of caseload and case outcomes compared with the nationalaverage is attached at Annex 3 and a table of caseload in relation to Area resourcesat Annex 4. CPS Essex, in common with other CPS Areas, has benefited from asignificant increase in its budget since our last inspection in order to drive upperformance. As a result, the Area has been able to recruit more staff and reduce theaverage number of cases dealt with per lawyer and caseworker, although the Area istrying to achieve more, as discussed at chapter eight.

Methodology and nature of the inspection

1.10 The inspection process is based on the inspection framework summarised at Annex1. There are two types of inspection. A full inspection considers each aspect of Areaperformance within the framework. An intermediate one considers only thoseaspects which a risk assessment against the key elements of the inspectionframework, and in particular the key performance results, indicates require attention.These key results are drawn from the Area’s own performance data, and otherperformance data gathered within the local criminal justice area.

1.11 The scope of the inspection is also influenced by the length of time sinceperformance was previously inspected. The assessment in respect of CPS Essex alsodrew on findings from the previous inspection of the Area, a report of which waspublished in October 2000.

1.12 As a result of this risk assessment, it was determined that the inspection of CPSEssex should be an intermediate one. Matters to be followed up from the lastinspection included effective advice and review and monitoring the same; integrityof PIs; learning from experience; handling of sensitive unused material; filemanagement systems; summary trial preparation; identification and handling ofracially aggravated offences; custody time limits; the Area Business Plan andtraining, particularly staff guidance on roles and processes moving into functionalunits and Glidewell co-location. The inspection team paid particular attention to theextent to which Area performance had made progress in relation to these aspects ofcasework and management. Additionally, the inspectors identified the Area’sinvolvement in various national pilot schemes, and its progress since havingimplemented the Glidewell recommendations immediately after the last inspection,as aspects for attention.

1.13 As a result of risk assessment, the file inspection did not include consideration ofexamples of discontinued cases, no cases to answer or judge directed acquittals. Nodischarged committal cases were submitted in the sample. However, in the light ofevidence being gathered in the course of inspection, a sample of discharged/discontinued cases was looked at on site.

1.14 Our previous report made a total of 23 recommendations and 14 suggestions, as wellas identifying two aspects of good practice. In the course of this inspection, we haveassessed the extent to which the recommendations and suggestions have beenimplemented, and a synopsis is included at Annex 5.

4

1.15 Our methodology combined examination of 148 cases finalised between December2002 and the end of February 2003 and interviews with member of CPS staff at alllevels, criminal law practitioners and local representatives of criminal justiceagencies. Our file sample was made up of magistrates’ courts and Crown Courttrials (whether acquittals or convictions), cracked and ineffective trials and somespecific types of cases. A detailed breakdown of our file sample is shown at Annex6. A list of individuals from whom we received comments is at Annex 7. The teamcarried out observations of the performance of advocates and the delivery of serviceat court in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court.

1.16 Inspectors visited the Area on various dates between 19 May and 6 June 2003.Although some aspects of case preparation and administration previously undertakenby CPS have now passed to the police service, we continued to examine them withthe full co-operation of the Essex Police, for which the Chief Inspector thanks them.The lay inspector for this inspection was Juliet Dempster, who was nominated byNACRO. The role of the lay inspector is described in the Preface. The views andfindings of the lay inspector have been included in the report as a whole, rather thanseparately reported. She gave her time on a purely voluntary basis, and the ChiefInspector is grateful for her effort and assistance.

1.17 The purpose and aims of the Inspectorate are set out at Annex 8. A glossary of theterms used in this report is contained at Annex 9.

5

2 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 CPS Essex demonstrates a very progressive and dynamic attitude to its role in thewider criminal justice system (CJS). There is a vigour and positivity in its outlook thatis refreshing. It embraces national imperatives enthusiastically and is comfortablewith change.

2.2 It has established co-location with the police in Criminal Justice Units (CJUs) atpolice stations comprehensively and to the extent that other Areas look to Essex as anexample in their own considerations of this initiative. It has similarly taken up thecharging pilot pursuant to the recommendations in the Auld review on a countywidebasis, which has been a major commitment.

2.3 The Area has also developed other initiatives: there is a comprehensive programmefor handling Direct Communication with Victims (DCV) and it is now engaged on theCase Preparation Project. This is being taken forward by the Department ofConstitutional Affairs (formerly Lord Chancellor’s Department) and is leading andevaluating pilots for a number of listing strategies, such as “honoured appointments”.CPS Essex will be taking on the Victims and Witnesses project as well.

2.4 To help it to do this, there is a dedicated project team of two lawyers, who have a highprofile with other agencies and who have done much to establish the reputation of theCPS in the CJS as a key player in inter-agency collaboration. One of them is attachedto the Area Management Team (AMT).

2.5 Both here and across the staff we found clear commitment to the job in hand, althoughthis has not always resulted in effective implementation. There is a supportive attitudeto staff, with flexible working practices. The ability of the staff to deliver in the TUwould benefit from an early review of the rather fragmented administrative functionsand systems to avoid unnecessary duplication and delay.

2.6 CPS performance measures, based on case outcomes, indicate that Essex is on a parwith the national picture in most respects. Our findings, based on examination andanalysis of a file sample provided by the Area, suggested that the overall performanceof the Essex Area was below that of the other Areas inspected in the currentinspection cycle so far. In both the TU and CJU we saw room for improvement in keyaspects of case management and performance including: discontinuance decisions;timely amendment of charges; requests for additional evidence or information; thestandard of instructions to counsel and doing more to avoid the outcome in casesresulting in judge ordered acquittals.

2.7 The Area has had longstanding and considerable difficulties in maintaining accuracyof management information, compounded by its early move to a co-located structureand the undertaking, by police staff, of core administrative functions. This may haveaffected the CPS performance measures and has made it more difficult for it toidentify opportunities for improvements contributing to meeting public serviceagreement (PSA) targets, or to know its true caseload, which affects funding.

6

2.8 Advocacy in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court is satisfactory overall.However, the Area’s commitment to pilots has led it to use temporary central fundsgranted for these pilots (which are not part of the Area’s budget baseline) to “backfill”with agents for lawyers deployed on the pilots. As with other CPS Areas, we saw thatagent usage in court has limited benefits and can, in fact, derogate from the quality ofservice provided to the court, and ultimately, public confidence.

2.9 Since the last inspection, the Area has experienced significant changes ofmanagement, including the appointment of new Unit Heads, which has had an impacton the effectiveness of the AMT. It has not been as cohesive as it would have likedand this may have affected the ability of the management team to translate itsstrategies and plans effectively into operational and casework outcomes.

2.10 There is a need now for some stability at AMT level, with good development ofmanagement skills, in order to effect improvements and deal with inconsistentperformance across the functional units.

2.11 We looked at the progress made by the Area since the last inspection report in 2000against the recommendations and suggestions made in that report. This showed that,whilst the Area has tackled some aspects and is making progress in others, it still hasa way to go. However, this must be seen in the context of the major operationalchanges that have taken place since the last inspection.

2.12 In looking at public confidence and development of other CPS aims and objectives inthe Area, we were very interested to see what impact co-location and, moreparticularly, the Auld pilot, is having on narrowing the justice gap. We were thereforekeen to see the position with regard to discontinuance, including dischargedcommittals and cracked/ineffective trials.

2.13 It is clear that guilty pleas on first early administrative hearings (EAHs) haveincreased (the most recent figure is 31%). Our own observations of the Auld pilot onsite were of a professional and capable service, which has clearly enhanced relationswith the police. However, our file sample presented, at best, a mediocre picture onmagistrates’ court discontinuances, and the Area’s own figures on dischargedcommittals remain disturbingly high, reflecting some fairly entrenched cultures. Ourenquiries and consideration on site of a random sample of discharged anddiscontinued cases demonstrated a combination of factors for which the CPS wasresponsible, militating against an overall positive impact on case progression andresults.

2.14 The CPS commissioned a full external evaluation of all the Auld charging pilot Areaswhich included specific feedback of the pilot in Essex. Since then, the Area itself hasnot evaluated or analysed data from the ongoing scheme and is presently unable todemonstrate improved performance. The key performance figures that follow in thisreport endorse the need for improvement in most key aspects of case management.

2.15 CPS Essex deserves a lot of credit for its aims and vision. It now needs to consolidateits position, improve review of the effectiveness of pilots and case handling and thentake the necessary steps to gain the improved performance that its vision deserves.

7

2.16 We hope that the observations in this report and identification of strengths, aspects forimprovement and recommendations help it on that path.

Recommendations

2.17 We make recommendations about the steps necessary to address significantweaknesses relevant to important aspects of performance, which we consider to meritthe highest priority.

2.18 We have made five recommendations to help improve the Area’s performance.

1. The AMT reviews and analyses factors contributing to discharged committalsand takes appropriate remedial action. (paragraph 4.39)

2. Action is taken by the TU Head to improve the quality of instructions tocounsel. (paragraph 4.39)

3. The AMT strengthens arrangements for performance management by:

* compiling accurate and complete data;

* analysing and evaluating data to determine effects on performance;

* implementing plans effectively including reviewing and adjustingactions as necessary;

* evaluating outcomes to demonstrate impact on PSA targets;

* establishing more structured and effective arrangements for learningfrom experience; and

* ensuring wider circulation of case results. (paragraph 7.11)

4. The AMT reviews the structure, work flow systems, roles and responsibilities inthe TU. (paragraph 8.16)

5. The ABM develops a robust system for ensuring that PIs are a complete andaccurate reflection of the work undertaken. (paragraph 9.8)

8

3 KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Target 1: To improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justiceto 1.2 million by 2005-06; with an improvement in all CJS areas, a greater increase in the worst performingareas, and a reduction in the proportion of ineffective trials.

CPS PERFORMANCE

NationalTarget

2002-2003

NationalPerformance

Cycle to date*

AreaTarget

2002-2003

AreaPerformance

MAGISTRATES’ AND YOUTH COURT CASEWORK

Advice

Decisions complying with evidential test in the Code 1 - 100% - 92%

Decisions complying with public interest test in the Code 1 - 95.2% - 95.2%

First Review

Decisions to proceed at first review complying with the evidential test 1 - 98.5% - 94.7%

Decisions to proceed at first review complying with public interest test 1 99.9% - 98.6%

Requests for additional evidence/information made appropriately atfirst review 1

75.7% - 51.2%

Discontinuance

Discontinuance rate of completed cases (CPS figure) - 12.6% - 12.1%

Discontinued cases with timely discontinuances 1 - 71.2% - 93.8%

Decisions to discontinue complying with the evidential test 1 - 91.3% - 64.3%

Decisions to discontinue complying with the public interest test 1 - 99.2% - 71.4%

Discontinued cases where all reasonable steps had been taken torequest additional evidence/information 1

- 84.6% - 75%

Level of charge

Charges that required amendment and were amended in a timely manner 1 72.3% 33.3%

Cases that proceeded to trial or guilty plea on the correct level of charge 1 96.6% 94.4%

Cracked and ineffective summary trials

Cracked trials as recorded by CPS and magistrates’ courts JPM -(Oct-Mar 03)

37.9%-

(Jan-Mar 03)34.3%

Cracked trials in file sample that could have been avoided by CPS action 1 - 23.3% -13.3%

(2 out of 15)

Ineffective trials as recorded by CPS and magistrates’ courts JPM -(Oct-Mar 03)

30.4%-

(Jan-Mar 03)24.2%

Ineffective trials in the file sample that could have been avoided byCPS action

- 4 1 out of 1

Summary trial

Acquittal rate in magistrates’ courts (% of finalisations) – CPS figure - 1.8% - 1.8%

Decisions to proceed to trial complying with the evidential test 1 - 94.9% - 87.8%

Decisions to proceed to summary trial complying with the publicinterest test 1

- 100% - 93.5%

Cases with timely summary trial review 1 - 75.1% - 87.5%

Requests for additional evidence/information made appropriately atsummary trial review 1

- 71.2% - 36.4%

No case to answers where outcome was foreseeable, and CPS couldhave done more to avoid outcome 1

- 56.25% - NA

9

CPS PERFORMANCE

NationalTarget

2002-2003

NationalPerformance

Cycle to date*

AreaTarget

2002-2003

AreaPerformance

CROWN COURT CASEWORK

Committal and service of prosecution papers

Cases with timely review before committal, or service of prosecutioncase in “sent” cases 1

- 79.9% - 72%

Decisions to proceed at committal/service of prosecution papers stagecomplying with evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors 1

- 97.1% - 86.8%

Decisions to proceed at committal/service of prosecution papers stagecomplying with public interest test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors 1

- 100% - 97.1%

Requests for additional evidence/information made appropriately atcommittal/service of prosecution case review 1

- 89.8% - 61.5%

Timely and correct continuing review after committal - 83% - 64.3%

Cases with timely service of committal papers on defence 80%78.7% 1

86.7% 372% 1

96.5% 2

Cases with timely delivery of instructions to counsel 84%83.5% 1

86.6% 387.5% 1

85.3% 2

Instructions to counsel that were satisfactory 1 - 61.3% 50%

Cracked and ineffective trials

Cracked trials that could have been avoided by CPS action 1 - 26.2% - Not sampled

Ineffective trials where action by CPS could have avoided anadjournment 1

- - 4 - -

Level of charge

Charges that required amendment and were amended in a timelymanner 1

81.6% 93.3%

Indictments that required amendment 1 28.3% 24%

Cases that proceeded to trial or guilty plea on the correct level ofcharge 1

97.5% 92%

Judge ordered and judge directed acquittals

JOA/JDAs where outcome was foreseeable, and CPS could have donemore to avoid outcome 1

- 20.5% - 46.7%

Trials

Acquittal rate in Crown Court (% of all finalisations excluding JOA,appeals/committals for sentence and warrant write-offs) 2

- 10.1% - 10%

1 as assessed by HMCPSI from examination of the file sample during inspection2 self-assessment by Area3 nationally collated figure based on Area self-assessment returns4 insufficient numbers of files to provide reliable data

* average performance of Areas inspected in inspection cycle 2002-2004 based on a sample of cases examined and observations atcourt in the 11 inspections completed to 30 June 2003

10

Target 2: To improve the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system, including increasing that of ethnicminority communities, and increasing year on year, the satisfaction of victims and witnesses, whilst respectingthe rights of defendants.

CPS PERFORMANCE

NationalTarget

2002-2003

NationalPerformance

Cycle to date*

AreaTarget

2002-2003

AreaPerformance

MAGISTRATES’ AND YOUTH COURT CASEWORK

Disclosure

Cases where primary disclosure properly handled 1 69.6% 81.8%

Cases where secondary disclosure properly handled 170%

(7 out of 10)25%

(1 out of 4)

Witness care

Trials where appropriate use made of S9 CJA 1967 1 97.5% 96.5%

Trials where appropriate use made of the witness care measures 1 81.3% 75%

CROWN COURT CASEWORK

Disclosure

Cases where primary disclosure properly handled 1 85.5% 76%

Cases where secondary disclosure properly handled 1 54.7% 73.7%

Witness care

Trials where appropriate use made of witness phasing/standby 1 77.3% 93.3%

Trials where appropriate use made of the witness care measures 1 87.9% 90%

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS AND CROWN COURT

Custody time limits

Cases in sample where expiry dates accurately calculated - 91% - 93.3%

OTHER ISSUES

Payment of witness expenses

Payment of witness expenses within 10 days of receipt of claim 2 100% 99.8% 100% 99.8%

Handling of complaints

Complaints replied to within 10 days 2 94% 88.6% 96% 100%

Citizens charter commitment

MPs correspondence replied to within 15 days 2 100% 91.8% N/A 83.3%

Improving productivity

Reduce sick absence rate per member of staff10.6 days

(2001)8.5 days(2001)

9.6 days(2001)

7.65 days(2002)

OTHER ASPECTS OF CPS PERFORMANCE

CJS Youth Justice Performance Measures (shared betweenHome Office, Department of Constitutional Affairs (formerlyLCD) and CPS)

To halve time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offendersfrom 142 to 71 days by 31 March 2002

71 days68 days

(Jan-Dec 02)71 days

67 days(Jan-Dec 02)

1 as assessed by HMCPSI from examination of the file sample during inspection2 self-assessment by Area

* average performance of Areas inspected in inspection cycle 2002-2004 based on a sample of cases examined and observations atcourt in the 11 inspections completed to 30 June 2003

11

Commentary

Pre-charge advice to police

3.1 We considered that there was a proper application of the principles in the Code forCrown prosecutors in 23 out of 25 cases submitted (92%) in relation to the evidencetest and that the principles of the public interest test were properly applied in allexcept one (95.2%). The corresponding figures for other inspections to date are 100%and 95.2% respectively.

3.2 Where necessary, further evidence/information was sought in nine out of twelve cases(75%). A full explanation of the decision was provided in 18 out of the 25 cases. Weconsider the implications in chapter four.

Quality of decision-making

3.3 There is room for improvement in the quality of decision-making. Our considerationof files in the magistrates’ and Crown Court file samples showed disagreement withtwo decisions at initial review to continue on the evidential Code test, and onedecision to continue on the public interest test, all in the magistrates’ court trial filesample. A more pro-active approach in the early stages of a case is also desirable;where it was appropriate to request further evidence at first review, this was done inten out of the 19 trial sample cases in the magistrates’ court and eight out of 13 in theCrown Court.

Continuing review

3.4 Pro-active continuing review is an important factor in strengthening cases or makingearly decisions to discontinue. This may be reflected in requests for additionalinformation and evidence at summary trial and committal review. Such requests weremade in 36.4% of relevant cases at summary trial review (cycle to date 71.2%) and in61.5% of relevant cases at committal review (cycle to date 89.8%). The Area willneed to address both these aspects of performance.

Discontinuance

3.5 Strengthening and pursuing cases is another important facet of narrowing the justicegap. Whilst the rate of discontinuance matches the national picture, one mightanticipate a lower level if the Auld charging pilot had the desired effect of eitherstrengthening or weeding out weak cases early. The Area changed and expanded therange of the pilot during its course, which may be reflected in future discontinuancerates. Albeit not all the cases seen had been the subject of the pilot, we found that thereviewer should have asked for more information in four of the 16 cases beforediscontinuing. We disagreed with the decision to discontinue in five out of 14 cases(on either or both code tests), a standard below that of other Areas inspected in thecycle to date.

12

Ineffective trials

3.6 Local magistrates’ court data for the first three months of this year shows a favourablecomparison to Areas already inspected. Agreed figures have not been kept for asufficiently long period to be able to comment whether this represents animprovement to which CPS initiatives may have contributed. Of those categorieswhere the prosecution is responsible for ineffectiveness, the largest number is absenceof prosecution witnesses (other than police), 15.65%, and prosecution not ready,9.9%. The overall effective trial rate is 41%.

3.7 The local data shows that there were 471 cracked trials of a total of 1,374. Of thosecategories for which the prosecution could be deemed accountable (156), 63 weredropped on grounds of insufficient evidence (13.4%) and 30 due to a witness beingabsent or having withdrawn (6.4%).

Adverse outcomes

3.8 There were no “no case to answer” or judge directed acquittals in our sample, but weconsidered 15 cases submitted as judge ordered acquittals. In four of these wedisagreed with the decision to continue on the evidence at committal review; requestswere only made in seven out of 12 relevant cases for more information, and of thosewhere the reason for acquittal was reasonably foreseeable (11), the CPS should havedone more to avoid acquittal or discontinue earlier in seven. This was a performancebelow that seen elsewhere in the current cycle of inspections.

3.9 In the ten cases where we could see adverse case reports, four did not clearly andcorrectly identify the reasons for the outcome, which may reflect the lack of rigour inthe consideration given to such cases.

Narrowing the justice gap

3.10 The factors relating to review, discontinuance, and ineffective and adverse cases areall relevant to the issues affecting the justice gap. However, our main concern was thenumber of cases intended for committal to the Crown Court which were dischargedbecause the prosecution was not ready to proceed. Area figures showed that therewere 89 such cases in the period September to December 2002; there were 32 inOctober alone. This is a high proportion in comparison with the total Crown Courtthroughput. This was endorsed by our own court observation. Due to the long termproblems caused by inaccurate performance statistics, the Area has not had anaccurate picture of discontinuance (which includes discharged committals). It willneed this to inform itself properly on progress in narrowing the justice gap.

3.11 Figures show that there has been an increase of 1.97% in the number of offencesbrought to justice in Essex against an ongoing national target for the current year of5%.

13

4 CASEWORK

KEY REQUIREMENT: THE AREA DESIGNS, MANAGES AND IMPROVES ITS CASEWORK

PROCESSES IN ORDER TO DELIVER KEY PERFORMANCE, CUSTOMER AND SOCIETY

R E S U L T S , TO ENSURE THAT ALL PROCESSES ARE FREE FROM BIAS AND

DISCRIMINATION, AND TO SUPPORT POLICY AND STRATEGY

Overview

4.1 CPS Essex Area has moved to full co-location with the police followingimplementation of recommendations in the Review of the CPS by Sir Ian Glidewell(the Glidewell report), and this has led to some fundamental changes in caseworkmanagement. Casework handling has also been substantially affected by the Area’sparticipation in a charging scheme pilot pursuant to recommendations in the Auld review.

4.2 Following recommendations in the last inspection report, the Area has establishedprocesses to monitor the quality of casework and there has been an improvement inevidencing review at all stages and endorsing actions/outcomes at court.

4.3 However, decision-making is variable in both the CJUs and TU, and there is adisparity of performance across the CJUs. The statistical findings from the file sampleindicated that there is room for improvement in key aspects of case handling, forexample application of evidential and public interest code tests at all stages of review;requests for further evidence/information and decisions to discontinue cases. Aconsistent standard of advice given under the Auld charging pilot needs to beachieved. Handling of correspondence could be improved.

4.4 There was a particular concern about the very high number of discharged committalsin the Area and the continuing poor standard of instructions to counsel. Someconsistency issues remain with disclosure.

4.5 The Area has created a number of specific teams in the TU for the preparation ofcommittals. This has led to staff working in isolation from other units without anoverall understanding of the process. There is some duplication and repetitive effortsto obtain evidence, with no effective overall management of the total process.

4.6 The inaccuracy in the integrity of performance indicator (PI) data noted in our lastreport has persisted. Only recently has resolution been grasped. The long term effecton the Area’s ability to validate its caseload and consequent funding are discussedlater in this report.

Advice to police

STANDARD: REQUESTS FOR ADVICE ARE APPROPRIATE, AND DEALT WITH IN A TIMELY

WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE TESTS AND CPS POLICY, AND ADVICE IS FREE FROM

BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

4.7 Advices are now handled in four ways: the standard form of submission of a file foradvice, for example, in fatal traffic accident cases; submission of a written file uponbailing a suspect for five weeks or “face to face” advice. The last two fall under theAuld charging pilot. There are also telephone advices. Our file sample containedexamples of standard advice submissions and written Auld advices.

14

4.8 We examined 25 advice files and considered that the advice complied with theprinciples of the Code as regards the evidential test in all but two cases (92%), in oneof which we also disagreed the application of the public interest test.

4.9 The Area has agreed protocols with the police as to the systems and criteria to befollowed in the Auld charging pilot. We examined advice files and had the benefit ofwatching the conduct of two “surgeries” at Chelmsford and Colchester where alawyer at the police station is available daily to give oral advice to officers on animpromptu or appointment basis. When such advice is given, the lawyer provides awritten record for the officer, which is attached to any subsequent file. A copy is kepton a CPS log.

4.10 We were impressed by the professionalism and conduct of the “Auld lawyers” we sawand it is clear that this service is valued by the police.

4.11 However, there were factors relating to the submission of cases which detracted fromthe operational effectiveness of the pilot, making it difficult to validate or determineaccurately whether it was having a positive impact on narrowing the justice gap. Wefound that the charging pilot was not always capturing the right cases:

* some files which should have been referred for advice were going straight intoNarey lists;

* some very straightforward cases were being referred inappropriately for advice;

* other files where there was clearly insufficient evidence were being submittedby police for CPS to “rubber-stamp” their decision;

* on occasion, advice given not to charge without first obtaining furtherevidence, was ignored.

4.12 Where cases are bypassing the scheme, the risk persists of inappropriatecommencement of proceedings or wrong charging, and the potential positive impactof Auld is diminished. The CPS in the initial stages has rightly been keen toencourage the police to pursue the scheme, but now that its credibility appears to beestablished, the opportunity should be taken to ensure consistent application of theagreed criteria and consequent submissions for advice.

4.13 Overall, the quality of advice given under Auld is variable and it is difficult toascertain whether this pilot has led to better performance. Some examples seen, withinand without the file sample, were cursory or even incorrect. Others were full andhelpful. The Area will wish to address the content and standard of these advices andensure that an early grip is taken on cases to steer them in the right direction. This willbecome more important as the Case Preparation Project pilot, referred to later, takesfull effect.

15

Aspects for improvement

* The quality and detail of Auld advices.

Cases ready to proceed at first date of hearing

STANDARD: JOINT CPS/POLICE PROCESSES ENSURE CASES READY TO PROCEED AT

FIRST DATE OF HEARING AND THAT CASEWORK DECISIONS REFLECT THE GENERAL

DUTY UNDER THE RACE EQUALITY SCHEME (I.E . TO ELIMINATE UNLAWFUL

DISCRIMINATION, PROMOTE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND PROMOTE GOOD

RELATIONS BETWEEN PERSONS OF DIFFERENT RACIAL GROUPS)

4.14 File administration in CJUs is handled by police personnel under Glidewellco-location. This, coupled with the Narey reforms, provides a framework for theprosecution to manage cases at an earlier stage. The great majority of cases evidencedinitial review having taken place before the first hearing. The use of the charging pilotin Essex has produced a further reduction in cases not ready to proceed.

4.15 It is clear that the proportion of cases where defendants plead guilty at firstappearance in early administrative hearings (EAHs), where pleas are not anticipated,has increased - the most recent figure is 31%. This could be due to the newframework and the impact of Auld. There are good systems in place for givingadvance information to the defence.

4.16 The level of both review and court endorsement has improved since the lastinspection. The magistrates’ courts files in our file sample demonstrated a goodstandard of first or Narey endorsements, covering the evidential and public interesttests in generally sufficient detail, and usually with mode of trial considerations andany human rights aspects referred to where relevant. This applied both to EAH andEFH designated caseworker (DCW) courts. We refer later to issues arising from thequality of review and actively steering cases.

4.17 One particular success has been the implementation of a first time proof in absencescheme for minor motoring offences, achieved through joint CPS, police andmagistrates’ court processes. Statements are served with summonses. Those wherewritten guilty pleas are received are dealt with by the clerk of the court and others arehandled in a separate list by the DCWs, who are able to prove cases in absence on thefirst hearing. This is in line with recommendations of the “Implementation of Section1 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Procedure) Act 1998” report, a joint thematic reviewundertaken by HMMCSI, HMCSPI and HMIC. The arrangements appear to beworking very well in practice.

4.18 Two aspects affect progress in some cases. First, the high usage of agents, includingthose in courts dealing with remand cases, means that they are called upon to dealwith “overnight” cases. A CPS lawyer will not have previously reviewed some ofthese. An agent has no authority to review and so cases cannot be meaningfullyprogressed unless the agent acts outside his or her authority, which we understandoccurs from time to time. It is anticipated that the further implementation of Auld willreduce the number of overnight cases that have not been seen by a prosecutor.

16

4.19 Second, we noted that in cases conducted in Southend and elsewhere where pre-trialreviews (PTRs) are not held, witness availability had not been ascertained before firstappearance, with the result that in the event of a not guilty plea and trial dates beingfixed, this happend blind. This in turn would lead to applications to vacate, sometimeswell on, the dates are notified as inconvenient for witnesses.

4.20 Witness availability should be a known factor at the outset when the statement istaken, but the advantage of its early availability may now be overtaken since thetimetabling of cases is one aspect of case management being undertaken in an inter-agency Case Preparation Project*.

Strengths

* Handling of proofs in absence with other agencies.


* Agents dealing with some first appearances.

Discontinuances in magistrates’ courts

STANDARD: AREA PROCESSES ENSURE DISCONTINUANCES IN MAGISTRATES’ COURTS

OR CROWN COURT ARE BASED ON ALL AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND ARE TIMELY

4.21 Whilst timeliness of discontinuance is satisfactory in the Area, the compliance withthe evidential test in decisions to discontinue, as seen in our file sample (64.3%), fallswell below that found in other inspections to date (91.3%), as does the compliancewith the public interest test (71.4% against 99.2%). The Area will wish to address thisaspect of casework in view of the recommendations in the last report regardingeffective review and proper preparation for trial.

4.22 Due to the large number of historic cases having recently been finalised, masking thetrue figures, and the variable submission of files discussed earlier, we were unable tosee what clear impact the Auld pilot has had on the rate of discontinuance, nor is theArea able to do so.

4.23 We considered some additional discontinued cases whilst on site. We found that thedecisions made to discontinue in themselves were properly open to the prosecutorwithin Code principles, but some of the cases were founded on Auld advices that wereinadequate (in one case we disagreed with the advice that there was sufficientevidence to charge) and with some, lack of early grip on cases with consequentchanges of course by the TU. This was in contrast to findings of reviews we were toldwere conducted during the pilot itself.

* This is now known as the Effective Trial Management Project and references to the Case Preparation Projectshould be construed accordingly.

17


* Decisions to discontinue in the magistrates court.

Summary trial preparation

STANDARD: AREA SUMMARY TRIAL PROCESS ENSURES THAT THE PTR (IF THERE IS

ONE) AND THE TRIAL DATE ARE EFFECTIVE HEARINGS, AND ANY DECISIONS ON

ACCEPTABILITY OF PLEAS OR ALTERNATIVE CHARGES ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE

WITH CODE TESTS AND CPS POLICY, AND ARE FREE FROM BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

4.24 Our trial file sample indicated timely requests for full files and timely summaryreview of files but, as mentioned, lack of pro-activity in requesting further evidence atthe review stage. Appropriate and expeditious use was made of s9 in the vast majorityof cases.

4.25 In most of the CJUs there was a 16 day trial check, however this often only involvedpulling files from racking for lawyers to check. A trial checklist was introduced buthas not been consistently completed. It seems to address administrative issues ratherthan evidential ones. The Area may wish to adopt a more comprehensive check thanis evidenced on the file.

4.26 The use of PTRs is variable, as is their effectiveness. One court observation, of anagent prosecutor, showed it to be perfunctory. In order to address issues meaningfully,service of the case and unused material needs to take place in advance, butachievement of this aim is better in some units than others.

4.27 Whilst trial courts are suitable for agents, this has an impact where issues arise as towhether to continue or what plea to accept. This delays court proceedings wheninstructions have to be sought or the matter is deferred for the reviewing lawyer tomake the decision, as is required. The question of acceptable pleas can and should beaddressed by PTR and, at latest, by trial review. This should be clearly endorsed onthe file for the benefit of the prosecutor in court.

4.28 With the advent of the Case Preparation Project, where it is anticipated that most caseprogression will take place outside the court, the role of the PTR seems likely to diminish.

4.29 In some cases there was a lack of consistency. A lawyer in the CJU might advise infavour of a particular charge, but another lawyer in the same unit took a different viewon the same evidence and circumstances. Lawyers should make robust and properearly decisions supported by enquiry into, and appropriate requests for, evidence. Thiswas not always happening. When properly reached, these decisions should not then bechanged for reasons of expedience. Such vacillation has an adverse impact oneffective hearings and sends an unfortunate message to police, victims and witnesses.Sometimes the situation arose because evidence the police had anticipated obtaining,for example, scientific evidence, did not in fact materialise; but sometimes it wassimply a question of judgment.

18

Committal and Crown Court case preparation

STANDARD: AREA PROCESSES FOR CASES “SENT” OR COMMITTED FOR TRIAL TO THE

CROWN COURT ENSURE THAT:

A) SERVICE OF THE PROSECUTION CASE ON THE DEFENCE TAKES PLACE WITHIN

AGREED TIME PERIODS BEFORE COMMITTAL/PDH;

B) PROSECUTION HAS TAKEN ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE THE PDH AND TRIAL

DATE EFFECTIVE; AND

C) PROSECUTOR IS FULLY INSTRUCTED

4.30 The Area has a very high discharged committal rate (see 3.10). Adverse case reportsthat we saw indicated the major cause for this to be failure by police to provide thenecessary evidence in a timely manner. The latest joint performance management(JPM) figures do not sit with this finding but there may also be issues about the useand integrity of that data, referred to later.

4.31 Court observation confirmed an unsatisfactory state of readiness at committal by theprosecution, some of which related to waiting upon further evidence, for example,medical/video tapes. Three of the cases seen were running up against custody timelimits. One youth case had been adjourned three times for committal. Three caseswere discharged at prosecution instigation.

4.32 In view of this, we asked for ten random discharged files on site. Those we receivedincluded cases discontinued pre-committal. Our investigation contradicted indicationsthat the problem resides only with police failure to provide evidence requested forcommittal. Whilst there were issues as to the quality and timeliness of initialinvestigation, none of the cases seen failed due to late provision of evidence forcommittal requested from police. Rather, in line with our findings under advice, wenoted a combination of factors for which the CPS is responsible, including two caseswhere preliminary Auld advice had been given. One was inadequate and the otherwrongly advised charging on the existing evidence. In this same case and four others,we found poor initial review that failed to address issues. However, in two of thedischarged cases there was, in fact, sufficient evidence to commit and go to trial. Thissupported our initial assessment that the distinction is not being made betweencommittal readiness and trial readiness by lawyers in the TU.

4.33 We understand that there is a system for re-instatement of cases in appropriatecircumstances, but in none of the cases was there any evidence of review by the CPSwith a view to re-instatement. Few cases do, in fact, come back to court. The Areawill wish to satisfy itself that the system is working properly in light of warningsbeing given to defendants upon discharge as to the possibility of re-instatement, andadditional work being undertaken by police.

4.34 The TU is divided into six functional CPS administrative teams, three of which areresponsible for pre-committal preparation and three which deal with administrationafter committal:

* File Building team - requests and vets file contents, types witness statementsand records of interview before the file is seen by file adjudicators for aninitial evidential assessment and consequent requests for outstanding items;

19

* Casework Support section - monitors receipt of additional items and assistscaseworkers with preparing jury bundles and serving notices of additionalevidence. They are also responsible for linking post mentioned below;

* Committal Preparation team - paginates and copies bundles prepared bycaseworkers and endorsed by lawyers as to readiness, types committalpackages and briefs and late statements;

* Listing section - logs case details, monitors service of sent papers and custodytime limits, updates and finalises cases returning from the Crown Court,confirms counsel bookings and maintains SCOPE spreadsheet;

* Court Coverage team - covers routine cases at court and finalises and sendsout counsels’ briefs, of which there was a large backlog at the time ofinspection, discussed at paragraph 4.55 below;

* Witness Care section - warns witnesses for court from information receivedfrom the file building and casework support teams as well as the listing sectionupon returns from court. Issues arising from this are discussed at paragraphs6.9 - 6.13 below.

4.35 There is some duplication and overlap in tasks. For instance, a file adjudicator maypass the case to the head of their team, thence to the CPS B2 manager and then to thelawyer if there is a doubt on the strength of evidence. There are also some problemswith the operational effectiveness of these units, discussed at paragraphs 4.55onwards. One of the risks of the system as it now stands is the late stage in the processat which the caseworkers and the lawyers consider the committal file. This may be afactor having an impact on the number of cases discharged at committal.

4.36 Inspectors formed the view that the work of the different teams done in isolation hadlent itself to a lack of understanding of the whole picture. There had been no oneperson with an effective management overview of the whole process. We understandthat steps were taken to try and address this shortly before the inspection.

4.37 The police have reviewed their own part of the process and it is proposed thatdedicated file management units (FMUs) including statement takers, disclosureofficers and file adjudicators are placed on division to build cases at source and avoidthe time now taken in referring back to officers for additional evidence. Improved filequality should take the focus of effort away from ‘chasing’ evidence and informationwhich at present happens constantly throughout the process.

4.38 In light of our file examination findings and the comments we have made about thestepped committal process, the Area will need to address its own quality andtimeliness of committal preparation and management, as well as the cultural attitudetowards having committals discharged.

4.39 Of 22 applicable cases where there were instructions to counsel, only 11 adequatelyaddressed the issues in the cases (50%). In 13 applicable cases, only two addressedthe acceptability of pleas (18%). In view of this, inspectors found that the overallquality of the brief to counsel was satisfactory in all respects in just 50% of casesseen.

20

RECOMMENDATIONS

The AMT reviews and analyses factors contributing to dischargedcommittals and takes appropriate remedial action.

Action is taken by the TU Head to improve the quality of instructions tocounsel.

Disclosure of unused material

STANDARD: AREA PROCESSES FOR DISCLOSURE ENSURE FULL AND TIMELY

COMPLIANCE WITH CPIA AND CPS POLICY/OPERATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS IN BOTH

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS AND CROWN COURT

4.40 The Area practice is to file unused material and schedules separately from the rest ofthe file in a green plastic wallet. Correspondence relating to disclosure was also, forthe most part, kept with disclosure material; the Area will wish to ensure that this isuniform practice. The log on the front of the wallet on Crown Court files should aidproper attention to disclosure. However the log was not always completed and itsundoubted usefulness as a tool diminished.

4.41 We found that primary disclosure was properly dealt with in 27 out of 33 applicablefiles (82%), in the magistrates’ court and in 76% of Crown Court cases. It was timelyin 88% of magistrates’ cases and 20 out of 24 Crown Court cases (83%). Thesefigures are on a par with those available nationally and tend to belie anecdotalevidence of adjournments in the magistrates’ courts occasioned by late service.However if the lawyer is not available to deal with primary disclosure before the committal,the disclosure may not be seen and dealt with before the plea and directions hearing(PDH). It may be that performance across the units is inconsistent and certainly thereis an acknowledged concern regarding cases in Basildon Magistrates’ Court.

4.42 Secondary disclosure shows a similar picture of proper handling in the Crown Court(73.7%). This may reflect the system in the Crown Court to ensure that defencestatements are referred promptly to the officer in the case. Secondary disclosure isappropriate only infrequently in the magistrates’ court because the defence do notoften serve a defence statement. The results are less good; out of four in the sample,only one was considered to have been handled properly.

4.43 We found some inconsistency in the marking of schedules and in decisions as to whatto disclose. Decisions properly made not to disclose were, on occasion, resiled fromupon persistence by the defence, to avoid trial adjournments. With the advent of newJoint Operational Practice Instructions (JOPI), the Area may wish to refresh itstraining and encourage its prosecutors to invite both magistrates and judges to testdefence requests for material more rigorously. An example has been set in this regardin Southend where there is a pro-active attitude to defence statements. If considered tobe inadequate, the CPS lawyers decline secondary disclosure and draw the attentionof the defence to the view expressed in the Auld report. The District Judge supportsthis position. The Unit Head has addressed the magistrates’ legal advisors on thedisclosure provisions.

21

Strengths

* Handling of secondary disclosure in Southend CJU.

Sensitive cases

STANDARD: SENSITIVE CASES (RACE CRIME, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE/CHILD WITNESS, RAPE, FATAL ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES, HOMOPHOBIC ATTACKS)ARE DEALT WITH IN A TIMELY WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPS POLICY AND IN A

MANNER WHICH IS FREE FROM BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

4.44 The Area has achieved consistently good figures for the throughput of persistentyoung offender (PYOs) cases, which better the Government target of 71 days fromarrest to disposal. However, against this performance the most recent figure fell belowthe target.

4.45 The Area has youth specialists who review and present the cases in court, but someagents are used to conduct trials. Positive feedback was received about the level ofservice given in youth courts.

4.46 The Area is represented on the Local Criminal Justice Board sub-group (Youth ActionTeam).

4.47 Our consideration of youth cases in the trial file sample did raise concerns in three outof the 11. We disagreed with the decision to continue at summary trial review in oneand considered the case poorly reviewed and handled in the two others, where therehad been a failure to make appropriate requests for further evidence/information. Bothended in discontinuance.

4.48 Domestic violence cases are generally soundly handled and demonstrate awareness ofCPS policy, but we did have concerns with three cases. One was an Auld advicewhere the evidence was insufficient to proceed and in the other two we consideredthat more could have been done to bolster the evidence before dropping the cases. Inone of these, we considered there was a clear public interest in proceeding, despite thevictim’s unwillingness, as the defendant was in breach of a conditional discharge foran earlier assault on her.

4.49 Handling of child abuse cases was generally satisfactory, but in four out of eight caseswe found that more pro-active review and/or timely actions were desirable. In two ofthe same cases we considered this could have led to earlier disposal of the cases.

4.50 Of the ten race crime cases seen, we were concerned about two cases, one fromSouthend and one from Laindon, where there was abundant evidence to substantiatethe racially aggravated element of the charge. This element was dropped without anyexplanation appearing on the file. In one case the offer of a bindover was accepted,inappropriately in our view, and in the other, a plea to the non-racially aggravatedform of the offence. Neither appeared to have been referred to the Unit Head beforedisposal. Other cases showed that more pro-activity was called for, for example inasking for more information/evidence at review stages.

22

4.51 The one Crown Court case seen did not adequately address the acceptability of pleas.


* Consistent standard of handling racially aggravated cases.

File/message handling

STANDARD: FILE/MESSAGE HANDLING PROCEDURES SUPPORT TIMELY CASEWORK

DECISIONS AND ACTIONS IN BOTH MAGISTRATES’ COURTS AND CROWN COURT

4.52 We received some positive feedback regarding police administration in CJUs and thesupport provided to lawyers, and most cultural differences have been overcome withgoodwill on both sides. However, in Colchester, further endeavours are needed toachieve good teamwork and understanding.

4.53 In the recent past, backlogs of work had developed at Laindon CJU, largely due to alack of CPS lawyers. The work has now been re-organised by the Unit Head so thaturgent matters are dealt with and the CPS personal assistant has introduced furtherchecks to ensure effective hearings. A longer term solution is needed as constant ‘firefighting’ is having a negative impact on morale.

4.54 Problems occur on files when caseworkers and lawyers are absent from the office forany length of time, including unanswered post. Our file sample showed an exampleof applying for extension of time to serve papers in a s51 case, as it had not beenprogressed in the absence of a caseworker. The Case Progression Officer does dealwith urgent matters, however that role is likely to change, and a more systematic wayof dealing with outstanding work is needed, as suggested in the last report.

4.55 Timely handling is affected by the multi-team structure in the TU including apersistent problem with locating files. There is also a backlog in the despatch ofbriefs, which delays the files passing to the caseworkers to enable them to preparecases for PDHs in time. Similarly, recourse to information from court endorsementsby different teams means files pass through several teams before reaching thecaseworker. Although these functions are carried out expeditiously, they delay reviewdecisions being taken by caseworkers or lawyers.

4.56 The Area should re-assess the deployment of staff in the TU. A B3 manager has beenappointed to oversee the administrative functions of the unit and at the time of ourvisit changes were being considered. Inspectors welcome such an assessment. Astronger management structure would enable staff to feel more supported, and crosstraining and regular meetings between CPS and police managers would increaseawareness and help resolve issues. We make a recommendation in this regard atchapter eight.

23

Custody time limits

STANDARD: SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH TIME LIMITS/TARGETS IN BOTH MAGISTRATES’ COURT AND CROWN COURT

4.57 Police staff in the CJUs are now responsible for monitoring magistrates’ court casessubject to custody time limits (CTLs) and maintaining a central diary. The lawyersidentify and independently maintain their own diaries of CTL cases, but these are notalways kept up to date. 42 day checks were not always evidenced.

4.58 In addition, we saw cases where separate CTLs should have been recorded but werenot. Both the 56 and 70 day time limits were recorded on the front of the file and inthe diary, notwithstanding the type of charge. We understand that this preventsproblems if charges are downgraded from either way to summary only. However itshould be clear from the front of the file which time limit applies.

4.59 We examined 15 cases while on site comprising ten magistrates’ court files and fiveCrown Court files to determine compliance with CTL procedures. All except onewere accurately calculated (93.3%).

4.60 We found one custody time limit failure in the file sample, which arose from poorendorsements and a failure to re-calculate a time limit after a defendant had beenre-entered into custody. Although he remained in custody on a new charge of failureto appear, having pleaded not guilty, the time limits relating to the substantive chargehad expired.

4.61 Monitoring in the TU for Crown Court cases is done pre-committal by the filebuilding section and thereafter by the listing section, using similar systems. A centraldiary is maintained and caseworkers notified when expiry dates approach. Thesenotices are chased until a case is finalised or listed for application to extend.Caseworkers should also monitor their own CTLs in personal diaries as a back upsystem.

4.62 There is a risk in this system of an extension being overlooked where the case listingis close to the expiry date or the caseworker is absent; the person operating the centraldiary may be unaware that action had not been taken. We understand that a CTLfailure did occur in such circumstances.

4.63 The Area is about to adopt a review of CTL systems in all units to ensure they complywith the new essential actions and good practice guide recently issued byHeadquarters. In view of this, we are not making a recommendation.


* Further training for all staff dealing with CTLs to ensure fullunderstanding and application of the governing rules.

24

Appeal and committal for sentence processes

STANDARD: APPEAL AND COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE PROCESSES ENSURE APPEAL/SENTENCE HEARINGS ARE FULLY PREPARED AND PRESENTED

4.64 Some difficulties have been experienced in the TU in obtaining appeal files from theCJUs, particularly those with a backlog of archiving. However, once received, theArea has efficient systems for dealing with committals for sentence and appeals.They are prepared by the Committal Preparation team, which also selects counsel.Under the Case Preparation and Progression Project, committals for sentence atChelmsford are given a fixed date which enables them to be block listed.

Recording of case outcomes

STANDARD: RECORDING OF CASE OUTCOMES AND ARCHIVING SYSTEMS ARE EFFICIENT

AND ACCURATE

4.65 The last inspectorate report recommended that the Area ensured a system for accurateand timely completion of performance indicators. However, since the Glidewellre-structuring, the Area has experienced further difficulties with the recording andfinalising of cases in the CJUs. Police staff were to input cases on SCOPE and returnthe front sheets of finished cases to Chelmsford for registration and finalisation in theSecretariat. However due returns to the CPS were not occurring and a backlog builtup in the CJUs.

4.66 This meant that the PI finalisation figure (on which future funding is based) wasinaccurate. Cases which were finished were still marked as live on the system. Thisgave a carry forward figure that was much higher than it should have been andaffected the units’ average processing period.

4.67 CPS staff were put back into the units to register and finalise cases in situ. In addition,a system of stocktakes of live files and manual adjustment to PIs was tried to try andreconcile the figures. However it failed to work.

4.68 More recently in one unit, a systematic identification of all old cases that requiredfinalisation was carried out. Committed cases, advice and warrant files were allresulted and the remaining case results were identified with assistance from thepolice. A new live file list was printed and cases in the unit were matched against thislist. Dead cases were finalised and accounted for.

4.69 One consequence is that both the numbers and proportions of discontinued cases arehigher than would normally be encountered. We were unable to ascertain whetherthis was an accurate reflection of the case outcomes or the result of the way thefinalisation exercise had been carried out. The resultant figures will therefore need tobe treated with circumspection.

4.70 We are told that police staff now understand the issue. In future live file lists shouldbe regularly printed and old cases reviewed to ensure they are still live. Fullstocktakes should be carried out at least every six months.

25

4.71 The Area manually record Auld advice cases and minor road traffic matters that arethen added on to the PIs by the Secretariat. Where warrant cases have been properlywritten off, but are listed before the court to be formally withdrawn, they should notbe re-registered and finalised.

4.72 There is no backlog of finalised cases in the Crown Court. Some duplication ofregistration can occur pre-committal due to misrecording of names and referencenumbers, which would add to the backlog accumulating in the unit PIs. Where casesdo not proceed beyond committal because they are discontinued or discharged, thiswill not be reflected in the Trial Unit PIs, but will appear on the respective CJUsfigures.

4.73 There is an overly complex system for making manual PI adjustments for casesincorrectly finalised as adverse, or where the defendant has charges or co-defendantsstill to be dealt with. As long as the discrepancy between the number of adverse formsand the adverse PI figures can be accounted for, there is no need to adjust them.

Readiness for court

STANDARD: JOINT CPS, POLICE AND COURT SYSTEMS ENSURE FILES ARE DELIVERED

TO THE CORRECT COURT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND ARE READY TO PROCEED

4.74 The evidence was that the availability of files at court has improved since the time ofthe last inspection, though occasionally lawyers arrive at the magistrates’ court to findcases on the list that they do not have. The problem is mostly caused by shortadjournments. Actions may also not have been picked up on. It is important in casesadjourned for short periods that lawyers ensure they are brought as a priority to theattention of administrative staff.

4.75 Where agents have been instructed we were told that files are delivered to chambersthree days before the date of hearing. That there remain perceived problems withagents’ preparedness is a matter we refer to in more detail in chapter five.

Learning points

STANDARD: AREA HAS EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO IDENTIFY LEARNING

POINTS FROM CASEWORK AND IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

4.76 The Area produces adverse case reports but some lacked sufficient detail from whichto understand what had gone wrong. The forms are completed from endorsements atcourt by caseworkers who may not have been present or may not have had a grasp ofthe whole case. Comments on causes of failure often need to be more probing andpossibly more self-critical.

4.77 Since recommendations in the last report, the Area has adopted dip sampling. It hasalso, subsequently, been one of those Areas instrumental in developing and pilotingthe CPS Casework Assurance Scheme. It is clear that this is used to feedback toindividual lawyers on occasion, but there is again some question as to how rigorouslyit is used. Nor is there systematic dissemination of notable successes, which may alsocontain learning points.

26

4.78 It is intended that team meetings are used to discuss casework but this is not doneconsistently across the units. We understand that the AMT will now be giving moreemphasis to casework in its discussions.

4.79 The main gap in identifying learning points lies between the CJUs and the TU. Thereis no formal method of spreading casework results across the teams, which, given therate of discharged committals, the use of CJU lawyers in the Auld pilot and thedifferences in view being taken in casework, is clearly important. Further, whilstfigures are produced each month as to the discharged committals and judge orderedacquittals (JOAs), these have only been seen by the CCP and TU Head.

4.80 Area training days are regularly held and attended by a proportion of staff from allunits, albeit constrained by operational needs.

4.81 Chapter eight discusses the advantage of rotation in learning from experience andhighlights this as an aspect for improvement.


* Recording and analysis of reasons for adverse case outcomes in theCrown Court.

27

5 ADVOCACY AND QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERY

KEY REQUIREMENT: THE AREA DELIVERS A HIGH QUALITY OF SERVICE, INCLUDING

ADVOCACY, TO THE COURT, OTHER COURT USERS, AND VICTIMS AND WITNESSES,WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COURT HEARINGS

Overview

5.1 Our risk assessment did not raise advocacy as a main concern in an intermediateinspection, so observation was reasonably limited. We did however see a spread oftypes of court and advocate.

5.2 Limited observation of counsel in the Crown Court showed standards that weresatisfactory or above. The standard of CPS and agent advocates in the magistrates’courts is more variable, notably the ability of agents conducting trials. Standards ofperformance both seen, and on what we were told, largely depend on the level ofpreparation.

5.3 Wider use could be made of the Area’s HCAs at the pre-trial stage, particularly inChelmsford, where they cover only a small proportion of PDHs.

5.4 There is currently a heavy reliance on agents in the magistrates’ court, whose use isnot confined to trial courts. Although there are some good agents, their lack ofauthority to make decisions and sometimes their lack of preparedness are continuingproblems.

5.5 Designated caseworkers (DCWs) are generally well regarded and this was supportedby our observation, demonstrating thorough preparation and a pro-active approachwhich led to an additional serious motoring charge in one case.

5.6 The treatment of witnesses at court is good.

Advocacy standards and monitoring

STANDARD: SELECTION AND MONITORING OF ADVOCATES IN MAGISTRATES’COURTS AND THE CROWN COURT ENSURES CASES ARE PRESENTED TO A HIGH

STANDARD AND IN A MANNER WHICH IS FREE FROM BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION, AND

THAT SELECTION OF ADVOCATES COMPLIES WITH CPS GENERAL DUTY UNDER THE

RACE RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2000

5.7 The general standard of advocacy seen in the Crown Court was satisfactory or abovewith appropriate handling of two sensitive cases. The standard of advocacy in themagistrates’ court is variable. Most advocates seen were satisfactory or above buttwo, one agent and one CPS prosecutor, lacked in presentation and confidence.

5.8 Monitoring of counsel and HCAs in the Crown Court is carried out by the CCP andTU Head, but is not systematic. Although Unit Heads have objectives to monitoradvocacy regularly and use the results as part of the performance appraisal system, inpractice monitoring in the magistrates’ court is largely reactive. The standard of trialadvocacy by agents is variable. The Area is considering the best way to takemonitoring forward.

28

Court endorsements

STANDARD: COURT ENDORSEMENTS ARE ACCURATE AND THOROUGH AND TIMELY

ACTIONS ARE TAKEN AS A RESULT

5.9 There has been an improvement in endorsements generally since the last inspectoratereport. There is still some room for improvement in the clarity and fullness of courtendorsements. The quality of endorsements by agents sometimes suggests uncertaintyas to what is required, with insufficient details of decisions or who has been spoken toat court and what has occurred. Lawyers do not always mark the white file clearlywith, for example, a clear explanation of what charges have been committed and whatwithdrawn.

Court preparation

STANDARD: PREPARATION FOR COURT IS EFFICIENT AND ENABLES BUSINESS TO

PROCEED AND PROGRESS

5.10 We accept that files are usually sent to agents (or at least to their chambers) at leastthree days in advance of magistrates’ court hearings in which they are instructed.However, there remains a problem with agents’ preparedness. The use of agents is notconfined to trials but extends to some pre-trial work, e.g. PTRs where agents do nothave the necessary authority to compromise cases by accepting pleas. The lack ofauthority and clear instructions means the court list can be frequently interruptedwhile authority or instruction is sought. The problem is compounded because theremay be no CPS lawyer present in the building. This can be a contributory factor to theincidence of cracked and ineffective trials. The Area could do more to tackle thisproblem, for example by ensuring agents are given clear instructions in writing and inadvance on the relevant magistrates’ court files about the acceptability of pleas. It willalso wish to reconsider the balance between CPS lawyers and agents.

5.11 In the Crown Court, particularly at Chelmsford Crown Court, the majority of PDHsare handled by counsel, frequently holding the brief in a case that is not their own.HCAs, on the other hand, seem in the main to deal with cases on which they havealready worked as the reviewing lawyer and cover only “their” PDHs. In some of thecases that we saw it was clear that more progress might have been made if the HCA,rather than counsel, had handled the PDH.


* The extent of use and management of agents.

* Instructions as to acceptable pleas on magistrates’ court file jackets.

29

Attendance at court

STANDARD: STAFF ATTENDANCE AT COURT IS TIMELY AND PROFESSIONAL, AND THE

CORRECT LEVELS OF SUPPORT ARE PROVIDED

5.12 Our observation showed timely attendance at court by CPS lawyers, but agents mayarrive at court without sufficient time to discuss particular cases with the defence.

5.13 Progress in the committals courts was also assisted by the presence and support givenby level A2 staff to the prosecuting advocate. Again we received favourable commenton this, confirming our own observation.

5.14 The quality of support provided by caseworkers is very good, when they are present,as are the trial notes taken. We observed that caseworkers were not always present inthe courtroom on occasions when it would be appropriate, albeit present in thebuilding. This applied to a trial, which was both serious and sensitive, where therewas no caseworker attending counsel during the opening of the case and theexamination in chief of the principal witness, and in a guilty plea where details ofcosts were required.

Strengths

* The assistance provided by A2 caseworkers in committal courts atChelmsford and Basildon.


* Appropriate coverage of cases by caseworkers in the Crown Court.

30

6 VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

KEY REQUIREMENT:

* THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES ARE MET

* DECISIONS TO DISCONTINUE, OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER A CHARGE ARE PROMPTLY

AND APPROPRIATELY COMMUNICATED TO VICTIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPS

POLICY, AND IN WAY WHICH MEETS THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS

Overview

6.1 We formed the view that witness care in the courts has improved and continues to doso, although there are variations. Caseworkers in the Crown Court handle witnesseswell for the most part, as do prosecutors in the magistrates’ court, although agents arenot always as aware. Application of Special Measures in appropriate cases hasenhanced the situation for vulnerable witnesses. Court observation of one such CrownCourt case showed appropriate handling, understanding and sensitivity by counsel andothers towards a vulnerable victim with slight learning difficulties. There is room forimprovement in communication to the Witness Service and thereby to witnesses,which we discuss below.

6.2 The Area has adopted a comprehensive approach to Direct Communication withVictims and it is clear that a lot of consideration and effort has gone intoimplementing the scheme, which is kept under review. A recent report by externalconsultants showed it to be performing well on a national level. There is still room forimprovement in the overall standard of letters, of which the Area is aware.

Direct Communication with Victims

STANDARD: VICTIMS ARE INFORMED OF DECISIONS TO DISCONTINUE OR CHANGE

CHARGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPS POLICY ON DIRECT COMMUNICATION TO

VICTIMS

6.3 The Area has established sound processes for communication with victims givingeffect to the recently introduced national scheme, Direct Communication withVictims (DCV). This commits the CPS to informing victims in writing where chargesare substantially reduced or cases dropped, as well as offering the opportunity formeetings in appropriate circumstances to explain decisions. There are dedicatedVictim Information Officers (VIOs) in three of the four CJUs with a PersonalAssistant (PA) dealing in the fourth, and a Victim Information Bureau (VIB) withdedicated staff in the TU.

6.4 Police identify cases initially inside the file jacket and the lawyer at court isresponsible for marking the front of the file where he/she identifies the file as such.Cases are routed back through the VIO after court hearings as cases progress so thatletters can be sent where changes to charges are made/cases dropped. There is a highrate of identification of cases and timely dealing with letters.

31

6.5 In addition to the national training provided to all lawyers and caseworkers, a localguidance and training pack was produced in the Area to support individuals, but therewas a view that this was a little unmanageable. There has been some local training forthe VIOs who initially compile the letters.

6.6 Letters are formed from precedents and information on the file endorsed by lawyers(which may be variable if, for instance, the prosecutor was an agent). The lawyerresponsible for the case checks and amends the letter as necessary.

6.7 Our consideration of a sample of letters showed a variable standard. Some wereformulaic and the use of standard phrases or the quoting of statutory sections madethe letters stilted. They did not always address properly the reason for change or thematter being dropped. Such letters were impersonal and lacked empathy. There werealso grammatical errors and poor English. Others however were in simple, clearlanguage with the right tone. The Area will wish to review any training need andensure a consistent, good standard of letters with effective monitoring by managers.

6.8 Telephonic responses from victims are routed to the VIOs and, if they cannot dealwith the query, they will take details and refer to the responsible lawyer. This givestime for the lawyers to apprise themselves of the file details and make an informedresponse to the victim. Take up of face to face meetings is low.


* Consistent standard of DCV letters.

Victims’ Charter

STANDARD: RESULTS INDICATE THAT THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES ARE

CONSISTENTLY MET IN ACCORDANCE WITH VICTIMS’ CHARTER

6.9 Liaison with witnesses at court is mentioned in chapter five. A dedicated team nowdeals with the warning of witnesses in the TU, but there are ongoing difficulties in theeffective and efficient operation of that section that need to be addressed to ensureappropriate levels of witness care and raise public confidence.

6.10 The ambit of the team’s responsibilities lacks clarity; if witnesses fail to respond tocourt warnings, there is no formal chase up system and if they cannot attend, there isreference to the caseworker but it is not clear whose responsibility it is to apply tobreak the fixture. There is a perception that witness availability is given inadequatepriority by the court listing officer and liaison needs to improve. Regular meetings toagree working arrangements are particularly important with the Case PreparationProject and Fixed Appointments coming on line.

6.11 The team does not deal with special measures applications and staff had not hadtraining in dealing with witnesses on the telephone.

32

6.12 The team does not appear to be responsible for liaison with the Witness Service, andcommunication with, and the provision of information to, that body to assist it withsupporting witnesses e.g. provision of LWACs, dewarning of witnesses, andnotification of cases where special measures may be needed, is patchy.

6.13 We understand that taking on the Victims and Witnesses project is providing thetrigger for a more structured approach to witness liaison and process-mapping is beingundertaken. We welcome this review since, if it had not been impending, we wouldhave made a suitable recommendation.


* Evaluation of the management and working arrangements in theWitness Liaison section and the provision of information to theWitness Service.

33

7 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

KEY REQUIREMENT: PERFORMANCE AND RISK ARE SYSTEMATICALLY MONITORED

AND EVALUATED, AND USED TO INFORM FUTURE DECISIONS

Overview

7.1 Performance management needs to develop further in Essex. While there is asignificant amount of performance information and data available in various forms,the degree of analysis and follow-up has not exploited its full potential. The lack ofproper evaluation has contributed to some issues taking longer than necessary toresolve or improve. The national Casework Quality Assurance Scheme, if applied tofull effect, can address this in casework terms.

7.2 There has been little in the way of effective joint monitoring of performance withregard to the timeliness and quality of police files. In common with other CPS Areas,Essex needs to reinvigorate the joint performance management (JPM) scheme.

7.3 The Area has been pro-active in undertaking review work of its action plan inresponse to the last inspectorate report.

Performance standards

STANDARD: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE SET FOR KEY ASPECTS OF WORK ANDCOMMUNICATED TO STAFF

7.4 The Area sets some standards as part of the business planning process. The new draftbusiness plan sets specific actions and targets to assist in delivering PSA targets. Theseinclude the Casework Quality Assurance Scheme mentioned below. Lawyers’ PerformanceAppraisal Reports (PAR) objectives now reflect required performance standards.

7.5 Staff sometimes receive information about performance at training days and teammeetings and have a laminated card showing Area performance against targets butthis is acknowledged as little used. More meaningful data, particularly informationrelating to pilots and new initiatives, would help staff feel more involved in, andresponsible for, the Area’s performance.

Performance monitoring

STANDARD: PERFORMANCE IS REGULARLY MONITORED BY SENIOR AND MIDDLE

MANAGEMENT AGAINST PLANS AND OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND STANDARDS ARE

EVALUATED, AND ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT

7.6 Since the last inspection, the Area has improved monitoring of aspects of casework,by participating in the national Casework Quality Assurance pilot. Files are regularlydip sampled in each of the units, with copies of the completed forms sent to theSecretariat for collation and despatch to Headquarters. These are not alwaysconsistent with other returns, for example as to adverse outcomes where there isfailure of CPS review. While feedback to individuals has been given on occasion,there is no analysis of data for any overall Area performance, trends or wider learningpoints; also there needs to be a sharing of information between the units. Thereappears to be some inconsistency in the robustness of assessments.

34

7.7 Unit Heads provide monthly reports to the CCP and these are usually discussed atAMT. There has been recognition that the process has not delivered the hoped-forfocus on performance and that Unit Heads’ own understanding of performancemanagement needs developing. The Area has now introduced a new system ofquarterly reporting, using a standard template.

7.8 The Area has attached two of its lawyers to the Secretariat who deal specifically withspecial projects such as the introduction and review of the numerous schemes andmonitor progress against the previous inspection for which an action plan wasproduced. An inspection review was carried out in 2001. This proved useful. Theworking group produced several recommendations and listed good practice foundwhich was of particular assistance to the new CJUs. “Mini-inspections” of progressagainst the action plan have been conducted internally, the last in August last year,which was a joint review conducted with the police. This review process is to theArea’s credit but its full benefits have yet to be realised.

7.9 There is no formal monitoring taking place with regard to the quality of briefpreparation or any information available relating to the performance of the individualteams in the TU. Such measurement could be incorporated into monthly team reports.

7.10 There was a lack of awareness of whether the pilots were successful in improvingperformance. There had been an earlier independent review of the Auld charging pilotwhere the Area took issue with some of the findings, but there had been no ongoingassessment or re-evaluation since then, although the scheme was continuing.

7.11 The Area needs to become more focused as to what data needs to be collected andanalysed to enable it to understand performance in key aspects of work. We considerthat these should include the key measures of success for the pilots, quality of advice,quality of decisions to discontinue, and the reasons for discharged committals.

Strengths

* Self-assessment of progress in relation to the Area action plan from thelast inspection report.

RECOMMENDATION

The AMT strengthens arrangements for performance management by:

* compiling accurate and complete data;

* analysing and evaluating data to determine effects on performance;

* implementing plans effectively including reviewing and adjustingactions as necessary;

* evaluating outcomes to demonstrate impact on PSA targets;

* establishing more structured and effective arrangements forlearning from experience; and

* ensuring wider circulation of case results.

35

Joint performance management

STANDARD: SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PERFORMANCE JOINTLY

WITH CJS PARTNERS

7.12 The Joint Criminal Justice Management Team was established in September 2001 andcomprises senior CPS and police managers. Meetings take place every four to sixweeks and provide a useful forum for discussions on joint initiatives and joint reviewsof working arrangements. There appears to be a genuine desire to work together andco-operate; however we found few joint targets or agreed measurements of success.In addition, there is no Divisional Police representation. Moreover, there has beenlittle effective work to monitor and improve the quality of police files, despite the factthat it is cited as the major cause of difficulties in the TU. JPM is not used effectivelyas we were told the CPS cannot rely upon the data due to its own inconsistent returnsof forms, but no alternative method is used. It is within the power of the CPS toimprove this situation, at least in part. The police recognise that there have beendifficulties in the past in providing good quality, upgraded committal files in a timelyfashion. The police are deconstructing their centralised file-building unit (currentlysited in the CPS premises at Chelmsford) in favour of FMUs based in a number ofpolice stations. The Area will wish to monitor the impact of this on timely andeffective committal preparation and the discharged committal rate.

7.13 While the new process should have a positive impact it cannot be guaranteed, and theArea will want to ensure that it has sufficiently robust systems to identify quickly anylate or poor quality files. The success of these units may be linked to/affected by thequality of advice given by the CPS at the charging stage, which we have discussedearlier in this report.

7.14 The courts produce cracked and ineffective trial data in line with national policy,although the information provided by the magistrates’ courts exceeds the basicrequirements of the scheme in the level of detail and analysis. However there waslittle awareness of this data in the units. It is anticipated that the requirements of theCase Preparation Project will ensure that the CPS have access to relevant information.As with internal data, there is a need for wider dissemination of the information.


* A joint performance management system to identify and improve lateand evidentially substandard files.

Continuous improvement

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED A CULTURE OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

7.15 The Area’s enthusiasm for new initiatives is indicative of a creditably progressiveattitude and drive for continuous improvement. In order to carry through andmaintain enthusiasm with those staff trying to make the initiatives work, the Areaneeds to prove its successes to those involved and demonstrate improvements as a

36

result of new initiatives by way of performance results. Clear targets and milestonesneed to be agreed so staff are aware of what they are striving for and why. Clearerlines of communication should enable staff to feel their concerns are being raised withAMT and taken seriously.

Accounting for performance

STANDARD: THE AREA IS ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR PERFORMANCE

7.16 We were concerned that, due to a variety of factors, it would be very difficult for theArea to account for performance accurately. In a few instances this would be becausethere was a lack of appropriate data collected; in other circumstances, data wasavailable but it was not being analysed; and the integrity of some data, includingreturns on no case to answers and PIs, was questionable.

37

8 PEOPLE MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS

KEY REQUIREMENTS:

* HUMAN RESOURCES ARE PLANNED TO ENSURE THAT STAFF ARE DEPLOYED

EFFICIENTLY, THAT THE AREA CARRIES OUT ITS WORK COST-EFFECTIVELY AND

THAT THE AREA MEETS ITS STATUTORY DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYER, AND THOSE

THAT ARISE FROM INTERNAL POLICIES

* RESULTS INDICATE THAT STAFF ARE DEPLOYED EFFICIENTLY, THAT WORK IS

CARRIED OUT COST-EFFECTIVELY, AND THAT THE AREA MEETS ITS

RESPONSIBILITIES, BOTH STATUTORY AND THOSE THAT ARISE FROM INTERNAL

POLICIES, IN SUCH A WAY THAT ENSURES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN,DIVERSE ORGANISATION WHICH STAFF CAN TAKE PRIDE IN

Overview

8.1 The challenges raised by major operational changes and new initiatives that havetaken place since the last inspection have been met by admirable commitment of thegreat majority of staff.

8.2 The results of the staff survey from early 2002 were encouraging, with a substantialnumber of outcomes better than national averages.

8.3 The Area is very supportive of its staff with a positive approach to ‘family friendly’policies and pastoral issues generally.

8.4 The Area has struggled to recruit new legal staff until the most recent campaign, andthis, combined with the high number of initiatives in Essex, has compounded somedifficulties in the last year. The outlook for the coming year is a little more positivewith an influx of new lawyers in CJUs.

8.5 Co-location with the police has worked well in the CJUs, although the division intofour fairly small units has not been without difficulties. CJUs are very exposed in theevent of staff absence and this has contributed towards the very high use of agents inthe magistrates’ courts. There have also been challenges in maintaining effectivecommunications.

8.6 We have commented on the workflow systems that need to be addressed in the TU.The Area has recognised the problem and work on this had just started at the time ofthe inspection. Morale in the unit is not high as staff face frustrations that they are notdelivering the quality of work, or the outcomes that they would like.

Human resource planning

STANDARD: HUMAN RESOURCE NEEDS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY PLANNED

8.7 The recent recruitment campaign has been much more successful than previous onesSeven lawyers have been offered positions (two of these are currently casualemployees). This is encouraging, although the effect of anticipated natural wastagehas already caused the Area to consider further recruitment activity.

38

8.8 While we were made aware of occasions where units had supported one another, weconsider that there is scope for more pro-active management of staffing in each of theunits. There has been a tendency for increased agent usage to be the normal way ofcovering shortages in the CJU. There had been some positive action in the past monthto try and achieve more effective deployment, but work remains to be done.

8.9 The Area recognises the benefits of prosecutors gaining experience in both the CJUsand TU and, whilst we were told that the Area has adopted the CPS rotational policy,it has found it difficult to implement. There was less desire to join the TU than wehave normally encountered. More recently, CJU staff have been seconded for a threemonth development period in the TU – this is a positive step but no replacement forproper placement via rotation into the TU.


* A more flexible system of deploying staff, with improved planning ofshort term inter-unit moves and implementation of the rotation policy.

Staff structure

STANDARD: STAFF STRUCTURE AND NUMBERS ENABLE WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT COST

EFFECTIVELY

8.10 The problem with recording PIs has had an adverse impact on funding. Essex wasover budget in the last financial year. Despite the recruitment issues mentioned, therehas been significant increase in staffing since the last inspection together with a shiftof work to the police.

8.11 Lawyer numbers in the CJUs are tight; particularly when one takes account of theneed to provide five lawyers for the charging pilot, the working patterns of some staff,and the recent level of absence. Figures provided by the Area Service Centre for theyear from May 2002 to May 2003 indicate an average of 7.65 days sickness absenceper person, which is better than the national average. Whilst it is recognised that CPSadministrative staff take on some additional police tasks, we consider there to be ahigh number of such staff in the TU and duplication of tasks.

8.12 Deployment of DCWs at the time of our visit was such that lawyers or agents werecovering some of their designated courts. In one instance this meant a CPS lawyerprepared a Narey court for conduct by an agent the following day. Work wasunderway to ensure that optimum deployment can be achieved. An examination ofcourt rosters indicated that it would be unusual for lawyers to be allocated more thanfour half day sessions in court weekly. This is relatively low for CJU lawyers.

8.13 The CJUs were intended to operate without any CPS administrative staff. The caserecording problem and new initiatives (primarily DCV) have led to most sites havingtwo level A staff in each CJU.

39

8.14 The Area has recognised the problem in the TU and has started to address the issue; itis, however, a significant challenge to simplify the structure and systems to improvethe performance of the unit. We believe that economies will be found which, overtime, may allow the balance of legal/non-legal staff to be modified.

8.15 The AMT is keen to make maximum use of the HCAs in the Area and to help theirdevelopment will wish to include a broader range of deployment in court. Essex hasexceeded its target for HCA sessions, with a staple diet of plea and directions hearings(PDHs) albeit many PDHs are still covered by counsel. HCA work patterns do notmirror the main PDH hearing days.

8.16 In the coming year the additional staffing will need to be funded primarily from areduction in agent usage, although increased court coverage by in-house prosecutorsshould bring other efficiency benefits.

RECOMMENDATION

The AMT reviews the structure, work flow systems, roles and responsibilitiesin the TU.

Staff development

STANDARD: STAFF CAPABILITIES ARE IDENTIFIED, SUSTAINED AND DEVELOPED

8.17 We received mixed feedback with regard to training. The Area has a trainingcommittee which has met regularly. Last year’s training plan was not commensuratewith the challenges facing the Area, but we were satisfied through otherdocumentation and interviews that the Area attaches the appropriate importance totraining, albeit implementation may require more planning, for example theintroduction of special measures. Each AMT discusses training and a report isappended to the minutes. There is less evidence of plans being driven by the needs ofindividuals; the training manager has not received Personal Development Plans(PDPs) for some staff.

8.18 Most of the focus is on subject-based training and Area training days. There areseparate days organised for administrative staff. Most staff were satisfied with thearrangements. The Area also organises ad hoc training sessions on specialist subjectsand draws on trainers from across the Area to deliver this. Training opportunitiescould be further developed utilising the skill and experience of the SCL.

8.19 The Area has a very positive attitude to supporting non-legal staff with financialsupport for development, and five people are currently benefiting from this approach.

8.20 Induction is satisfactory for the arrival date of a new employee, but varies thereafter.Some staff have mentors who are very supportive, while others are left more to theirown devices. This is likely to take on more importance in the next few months, withnew lawyers coming in.

40

8.21 Some of the AMT managers would welcome more training in management skills; weunderstand that some discussions are already underway. The Area has suffered a littlefrom the lack of SCOPE expertise among staff. Care must be taken to ensure thatsufficient training is provided when the new Integrated Case Management System isimplemented later in the year.

8.22 After a mock IiP assessment report which identified a number of key areas whereimprovements needed to be made, the Area made an effort to improve the operationof the appraisal system. Since our site visit, the Area has been successful in gainingre-accreditation. Managers will wish to focus training activity on managementtraining, PDP-based development and effective induction.

Strengths

* Area support and financial assistance for the development of somenon-legal staff.

Performance review

STANDARD: STAFF PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT IS CONTINUOUSLY REVIEWED

AND TARGETS AGREED

8.23 The appraisal process has not been strong in previous years, although a significanteffort has been made to improve the situation in the current reporting cycle - 88% ofreports had been completed at the time of our visit. Under performance has not beeneffectively tackled, which has contributed to disparity of performance between units.

8.24 Interim reviews have not been conducted with any consistency, particularly in the TU.Whilst some lawyers have objectives designed to meet recommendations made in thelast inspection report, other staff commented that some of their objectives have beenthe same for years and cover aspects of work now outside their control. This is a littlesurprising with the number of initiatives/pilots in the Area; we would have expectedto see some being reflected in specific objectives. As the Area continues to implementnew initiatives such as the Case Preparation Project, managers should revisitobjectives via the interim review process. The Area also recognises that the fullco-location in the TU provides additional challenges in terms of individualperformance management.


* Operation of the appraisal system by managers to ensure developmentof staff and improved individual performance.

41

Management involvement

STANDARD: MANAGEMENT HAS AN EFFECTIVE DIALOGUE WITH STAFF AND FOSTERS A

CLIMATE OF INVOLVEMENT

8.25 As with other multi-unit CPS Areas, there is opportunity to improve communications.There have been regular and minuted meetings in the CJUs but not in the TU. TheArea uses the IT system satisfactorily to communicate some key issues to staff. Careis needed to ensure that staff are adequately consulted and informed about issues andproposed initiatives that affect them, particularly where their goodwill is relied on tocarry them through, in order to nurture a sense of involvement in the process.

8.26 We understand that the Area is considering the appointment of a communicationsmanager, and, while this may help with developing a comprehensive communicationsstrategy, there are other simple things that can be done immediately – particularly indisseminating performance information. We discuss some aspects under learning fromexperience in chapter four.

8.27 As part of the Case Preparation Project, changes have been agreed between theagencies as to court listing strategies, including reducing Narey lists so meaningfuldirections can be given for those cases listed, the length of Crown Court warned listsand shortening the warned list period. Changes in working arrangements that affectthem need to be made clear to all CPS staff.

Equality and diversity

STANDARD: ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT CPS EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY

INITIATIVES AND ALL STAFF ARE TREATED EQUALLY AND FAIRLY

8.28 CPS Essex is taking steps to drive equality and diversity issues forward. In addition toan action plan, there have been regular diversity awareness meetings and there is aminority ethnic casework group.

8.29 The results from the staff survey were satisfactory. The Area commissioned someadditional research by a local specialist in diversity issues. There were indications thata small number of staff felt that they are not always treated appropriately. We havecommented elsewhere on the need for increased management training and it may bedesirable to include some human awareness training.

8.30 The Area has been very supportive of its staff in terms of working patterns, includingextensive part-time working, the use of compressed hours and term-time working.Every effort is made to accommodate individual needs. As with some other similarCPS Areas, Essex needs to ensure that the business needs are not put at risk by thedesire to meet staff requests.

8.31 Essex is also supportive of staff with disabilities, for example special equipment andworking arrangements have been made for a partially sighted member of staff.

42

Health and safety

STANDARD: MECHANISMS ARE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS UNDER HEALTH

AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

8.32 The focus of work has been on the CPS office in Chelmsford with the appropriate riskassessments carried out. Some of the accommodation available in the CJUs at policestations is very confined for the staff numbers and could lead to some health andsafety risks, particularly in terms of moving heavy items in very restricted space. It isunderstood that the police are sympathetic to the difficulties and managers will wantto ensure that in their ongoing discussions with the police over premises, appropriateattention is given to health and safety issues.

8.33 We were pleased to note that additional health and safety training was scheduled formid June.

43

9 MANAGEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES

KEY REQUIREMENT: THE AREA PLANS AND MANAGES ITS FINANCES EFFECTIVELY,ENSURING PROBITY AND THE DELIVERY OF A VALUE FOR MONEY APPROACH TAKING

INTO ACCOUNT THE NEEDS OF STAKEHOLDERS

Overview

9.1 We examined financial controls of costs with a light touch and found them to begenerally satisfactory.

9.2 We discussed at chapter four the long-standing problem with the completeness andaccuracy of PIs, which will have had a substantial impact on funding. There is alsothe question of how advices are counted which may also be affecting funding, butwith the opposite effect.

9.3 The policy of allowing some lawyers permanently sited in CJUs to be classified asbased at Chelmsford for the purposes of travelling and subsistence expenses and/orexcess fares should be reviewed.

9.4 The Area has received substantial additional funding to cover the cost of nationallydriven pilots. As much of the money is of a ‘one-off’ nature, most has been spent onagents to the point that non-CPS staff have covered 40% of magistrates’ courtssessions. This has some negative impact on court stakeholders.

Adherence to financial guidelines

STANDARD: THE AREA COMPLIES WITH CPS RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT

9.5 At the time of implementing co-location into the four CJUs, it was agreed that somestaff would retain Chelmsford as their permanent station and are on detached duty atthe CJU. This obviously increases travel expenses and travel time costs for dailytravel to the CJU. While recognising that this may have been a pragmatic approach atthat time, it should now be reviewed since it is doubtful that it remains justified.

Budgetary controls

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS EFFECTIVE CONTROLS TO FACILITATE AN ACCURATE

APPRECIATION OF ITS BUDGETARY POSITION FOR RUNNING COSTS

9.6 The Area returned £100,000 to CPS Headquarters at mid-year. The Area finished theyear with a £50,000 overspend, although this would have been higher without somelast minute additional funding for the Visual Interviewing of Suspects pilot. Thebudget variance was mainly attributable to salaries for administrative staff and thehigh agent usage, which was affected by some lawyer absences in the latter part of thefinancial year.

44

9.7 While the basic controls of costs are satisfactory, funding has probably been adverselyaffected by the inaccurate PIs. This was identified in the last inspection and has sincebeen exacerbated by the administrative changes brought about by co-location. Bycontrast, the Area has claimed a substantial amount of advices in PIs. However ourenquiries indicate that this involves frequent double counting and inquiries beinglogged as advices inappropriately, for example mere confirmation that a file should besubmitted for advice. The Area will wish to determine appropriate criteria as to whatshould legitimately be considered.

9.8 Whilst the issue is now being resolved, the corrective action in itself will continue tohave a financial impact. Most of the backlog of clearances will take place in thisfinancial year which will distort the PIs for the first quarter (and possibly the second).Care will need to be taken in establishing long term staffing plans and other decisionswhich rely on PI data.


* Criteria for counting advices for PI purposes.

RECOMMENDATION

The ABM develops a robust system for ensuring that PIs are a completeand accurate reflection of the work undertaken.

Value for money approach

STANDARD: THE AREA DEMONSTRATES A VALUE FOR MONEY APPROACH IN ITS

FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING

9.9 The funding provided late in the course of the Visual Interviewing of Suspects pilotdid not allow it to be used as anticipated. Lawyers were provided with laptopcomputers for the purpose of viewing DVDs, with a view to their being used inevidence, but this did not happen and did not represent good value for money.

9.10 The Area provided funding of approximately £50,000 to the police for the provisionof data for PA Consulting with regard to the charging pilot. It did not, however,identify all the key issues with regard to the performance of the Area.

9.11 The Area’s commitment and determination to implement national pilots has meantthat, in consequence, central funding provided for such purposes has been utilised inusing agents primarily for advocacy purposes. This has raised an already high usage.The Area recognises that this does not often provide value for money and will need toreconsider risk assessment in this regard when balancing in-house lawyer deploymentand that of other staff.

45

10 PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCES

KEY REQUIREMENT: THE AREA PLANS AND MANAGES ITS EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL

PARTNERSHIPS AND RESOURCES IN WAYS THAT SUPPORT ITS POLICY AND STRATEGY

AND THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF ITS PROCESSES

Overview

10.1 The Area has developed very positive relationships with its criminal justice partners,particularly the police. The Area benefits from having specialist lawyers attached tothe Secretariat to deal with special projects and initiatives. A number of these pilotsrequire multi-agency co-operation and consequently, they have been able to developstrong partnerships at a strategic level. Relationships at operational level are alsomainly good, although there is scope for improvement in working with some.

CJS partnerships

STANDARD: PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER CJS AGENCIES ARE DEVELOPED AND MANAGED

10.2 Historically, liaison between agencies took place via the Trials Issues Group, the AreaCriminal Justice Strategy Committee and the Chief Officers’ Group. In addition, aJoint Working Practices Group was established to discuss working practices andidentify action points. These groups are now being ‘taken over’ by the new LocalCriminal Justice Board and the Area is pro-actively involved. Working relationshipwith the police are discussed at Joint Criminal Justice Management Team meetings.

10.3 The mechanisms for delivering solid partnerships appear to be in place and there havebeen a number of successful joint agreements; however, inspectors found that thesedid not always translate into fully effective working relationships beyond strategic level.

10.4 The working relationship between CPS and Crown Court staff could be improved.We have already commented elsewhere that better liaison with court staff and theWitness Service could increase the effectiveness of the Witness Care section.

10.5 There are few formal meetings with the magistrates’ courts at a local level and mostliaison appears to be conducted centrally. Whilst we understand that care must betaken not to allow local practices to develop, a balance needs to be struck. Inspectorsconsidered that both agencies would benefit from closer co-operation and formalcommunication structures at unit level to deal with local issues.

10.6 The vast majority of those spoken to in both the police and CPS were proud of theclose working relationship that has developed under Glidewell. This should not beunderestimated; the two agencies have overcome many of the staffing issues that haveprevented other Areas from successfully implementing the initiative, i.e. thedifferences in terms and conditions and supervision of each other’s staff. Peoplespoke of the elimination of the blame culture and a joint desire to get the job done.Clearly there are still some issues to resolve, not least the issue of file quality andtimeliness and discharged committals; however the fact that these are seen as a jointproblem is positive. There are some isolated issues within units that need to betackled, particularly with regard to accommodation and resources. The introduction ofthe FMUs should give a more structured line of communication between police ondivision and the CPS, which will be a positive step.

46

Strengths

* Strong standing within the CJS and very good relationships with CJSpartners, particularly the police.


* Closer co-operation and liaison in the Crown Court and moreformalised communication structures in the magistrates’ courts at unitlevel.

Improving local CJS performance

STANDARD: CJS PARTNERS ARE SATISFIED WITH THE CONTRIBUTION THE CPS MAKES

TO IMPROVING LOCAL AREA PERFORMANCE

10.7 We have already commented on the strong relationships that exist between the CPSand CJS partners at a strategic level and this has a positive impact on the Areasstanding and reputation. Many of the agencies referred to the CPS as ‘key players’who make a significant contribution to the criminal justice system. They appear to beprofessional and committed to improve. Consistency of the service provided tomagistrates’ courts still needs to improve. A raised profile at unit management levelmay assist.

Information technology

STANDARD: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS DEPLOYED AND USED EFFECTIVELY

10.8 We understand there has been some reluctance by certain members of staff to use thefacilities provided by Connect 42. In order to encourage its use the Area has beensending more and more information by e-mail and increased the use of the shareddrive. We would encourage them to continue with this. The shared drive can be avery useful tool for sharing information and can be particularly valuable to Areas withseveral sites.

10.9 The Area has entered into a secure e-mail pilot with the courts, police and ProbationService. This is still at an early stage and there have been some problems; however, ifproperly managed, this will increase efficiencies, particularly with the onset ofCompass which will extend its usage.

Buildings, equipment and security

STANDARD: THE AREA MANAGES ITS BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT AND SECURITY EFFECTIVELY

10.10 The Area’s Secretariat and TU are located in Chelmsford, a building it shares with theregional Service Centre. The office is bright and spacious and conveniently locatedfor the Crown Court.

47

10.11 There are some issues surrounding the accommodation in the CJUs, that have beenexacerbated by the need to find suitable accommodation to house the Auld chargingpilot lawyers at charging centres. Problems remain particularly at Harlow, and theseare the subject of ongoing negotiations mentioned earlier.

Partnership with Headquarters and the Service Centre

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS A GOOD WORKING PARTNERSHIP WITH HEADQUARTERS

DEPARTMENTS AND THE SERVICE CENTRE

10.12 Due to the number of centrally driven pilots and projects with which the Area isinvolved, it has developed a good working relationship with CPS Headquarters. TheArea benefits from having the regional Service Centre within the building and istherefore able to liase closely with its staff.

48

11 POLICY AND STRATEGY

KEY REQUIREMENT: THE AREA HAS A CLEAR SENSE OF PURPOSE AND MANAGERS

HAVE ESTABLISHED A RELEVANT DIRECTION FOR THE AREA, COMPLEMENTED BY

RELEVANT POLICIES AND SUPPORTED BY PLANS, OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND

PROCESSES, AND MECHANISMS FOR REVIEW

Overview

11.1 The commitment of managers and staff to make Essex one of the most progressiveCPS Areas is laudable. This needs to be fully matched by effective implementation.

11.2 There have been varying degrees of success in relation to the implementation ofstrategy and pilot initiatives. The key is ongoing review and evaluation supported byreliable management information. This has been encapsulated in a recommendation inchapter seven.

Stakeholders

STANDARD: POLICY AND STRATEGY ARE BASED ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS

AND EXPECTATIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS

11.3 As highlighted elsewhere in the report, Essex is at the forefront of CJS-widedevelopment activity, with participation in a number of high profile projects. To itscredit, Essex is widely perceived as a good Area to pilot new initiatives. It is forward-looking in its vision and keen to develop. However, the continual introduction of newinitiatives with a strong focus on the future has contributed to an occasional loss offocus on strategies and initiatives that have/should have been implemented in the past.

11.4 The success of some pilots is dependant upon the ability of the combined TU todeliver, and performance improvement in the unit must be a priority for the Area ifthe new initiatives are not to be undermined.

Performance measurement

STANDARD: POLICY AND STRATEGY ARE BASED ON INFORMATION FROM

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT, RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

11.5 This is an aspect in which the Area could do better, particularly in the review ofperformance following implementation. The Area’s ability to make informeddecisions has sometimes been hampered by a lack of integrity in data, and also by notalways having the right performance measures in place and evaluated.

Review

STANDARD: POLICY AND STRATEGY ARE DEVELOPED, REVIEWED AND UPDATED

11.6 We recognise the significant effort that has gone in to developing the CJS in Essex.The Area has developed detailed plans and protocols to support implementation ofnew initiatives. Some plans are the subject of reviews by outside consultants, whereasother will have formal post-implementation reviews.

49

11.7 There is a small group of people that undertakes almost all of the pilot work in theArea. The Area will wish to facilitate development opportunities and involve staffmore widely where appropriate.

Communication and implementation

STANDARD: POLICY AND STRATEGY ARE COMMUNICATED AND IMPLEMENTED

11.8 Most staff were aware of the major thrust of the Area’s strategy in terms of approachto pilots and new initiatives. There was less clarity at the detailed level for those notdirectly involved in some of the project work.

11.9 Major policy decisions are discussed at AMT, the operation of which is discussed atchapter 13. Planning has not always been matched by implementation. We were toldof frustrations that agreed actions were simply not carried out. Reports from the mini-inspections note failings in response and the Visual Interviewing of Suspects initiativemost staff have chosen to disregard as too time consuming. Steps have not been takensuccessfully at management level to see it through or convey the imperative to staff.


* Implementation of the Visual Interviewing of Suspects initiative.

50

12 PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

KEY REQUIREMENTS:

* THE AREA IS PROACTIVELY TAKING ACTION TO IMPROVE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN

THE CJS AND CPS, AND MEASURES THE RESULTS OF ITS ACTIVITY

* RESULTS INDICATE THAT THE NEEDS OF VICTIMS AND WITNESSES, AND CJS

PARTNERS ARE MET, AND THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS RESPECTED

Overview

12.1 We have discussed the aspects which affect public confidence directly and indirectlyunder the relevant chapters above regarding witness care; liaison with WitnessService; relationships with and service to other CJS agencies; performancemeasurement and effective implementation of strategies. The Area will wish to inspirepublic confidence by consistent and measurable improvement in performance in keyoutcomes such as discontinuance (including discharged committals).

Complaints

STANDARD: COMPLAINTS ARE EFFECTIVELY MANAGED TO INCREASE SATISFACTION

AND CONFIDENCE

12.2 Each unit maintains satisfactory logs of complaints, indicating timely responses.Those complaints that we considered on site confirmed this.

12.3 Unit Heads are generally responsible for dealing with complaints and writingresponse letters. Samples we considered on site were of a generally satisfactorystandard, using appropriate language and adequately dealing with the points raised.

Minority ethnic communities

S T A N D A R D: THE AREA ENSURES THAT HIGH CASEWORK STANDARDS ARE

MAINTAINED IN CASES WITH A MINORITY ETHNIC DIMENSION IN ORDER TO

INCREASE THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE FELT BY MINORITY ETHNIC COMMUNITIES IN

THE CJS

12.4 The Area does not deal with a large volume of cases that are racially aggravated albeitthere has been a considerable increase in the minority ethnic population. Indeed it wasunable to supply the requested number of cases for our sample. In common withother Areas there may be an element of under-reporting by victims. This makesproper identification and handling of such cases when they arise the more importantto raise confidence in the process.

12.5 There were ten cases in our file sample where racially aggravated offences had beencharged. Another was identified as racially aggravated albeit no racially aggravatedoffence was charged or pursued. Two submitted were in fact wrongly categorised.

51

12.6 The Area’s Position Statement on the 2002-2003 Equality and Diversity Plan showsan employment level of minority ethnic staff of 4% across all grades against a localworking population of 2.6%.

Community engagement

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE

COMMUNITY

12.7 The Area recognises the need to engage more with the black and minoritycommunities or their representatives. It is represented on the CJS race group, a sub-group of the Local Criminal Justice Board, although the representative does notusually attend. It is not represented at meetings of the Racial Incident Panels. Apresence at these meetings, which is attended by the chairman of the local RacialEquality Council, would assist in informing the Area about the extent of local racialcrime, and would increase confidence.

12.8 Work is underway to try and improve liaison with community groups. A minorityethnic casework group has been established but its impact is yet unclear. The regionalEquality and Diversity Officer (EDO), who happens to be sited at Chelmsford, isinvolved in trying to forge relationships.

12.9 Work undertaken in the Area includes: meetings with a women’s refuge, participationin domestic violence groups and attendance at various race hatred/harassmentmeetings. More remains to be done to achieve an Area-wide approach to communityissues. Some members of staff in the Area have been individually pro-active and theseefforts have been brought to the attention of staff as a whole at training days.

Aspect for improvement

* Continued development of Area-wide community engagementstrategy, including with minority ethnic groups.

Media engagement

STANDARD: THE AREA ENGAGES WITH THE MEDIA

12.10 The Area has regular communication with the local press in individual cases attractingmedia attention. It has also notably been involved with a high profile piece ofjournalism; a BBC Radio 4 broadcast on two consecutive weeks, called “Inside theCrown Prosecution Service”, looking at the work of the CPS from the perspective ofvarious parties. There was a focus on a well-publicised murder case with a successfuloutcome. Again participation in such an exercise is to the Area’s credit.

52

13 LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

KEY REQUIREMENT: LEADERS DEVELOP VISION AND VALUES THAT LEAD TO LONG

TERM SUCCESS AND IMPLEMENT THESE VIA APPROPRIATE ACTIONS AND

BEHAVIOURS. IN PARTICULAR, WORKING ARRANGEMENTS ARE IN PLACE, WHICH

ENSURE THAT THE AREA IS CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED TO ACHIEVE ITS AIMS AND

OBJECTIVES CONSISTENTLY AND WITH PROPRIETY

Overview

13.1 The AMT is a comparatively new team which was in a transitional stage at the time ofthe inspection, and was not surprisingly in need of further development.

Vision and values

STANDARD: VISION AND VALUES ARE DEVELOPED AND SUPPORT A CULTURE OF

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

13.2 The CCP has a clear vision for the future of CPS Essex. This involves activeinvolvement in a number of major initiatives that should help deliver betterperformance. It is desirable to consult staff on issues that affect them and the AMTwill wish to involve a variety of staff, as appropriate, in its considerations.

Management structure

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED AN EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

TO DELIVER AREA STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES

13.3 As part of its strategy to be in the vanguard of development work, the Area has twolawyers who work temporarily in the Secretariat, and are dedicated to project work.One is included in the AMT. This has enabled the Area to raise a very positive profileand forge some strong relationships with other CPS and CJS staff, many of whom areinvolved in multiple initiatives.

13.4 Two of the five Unit Heads were working on a temporary basis at the time of theinspection. The appointment of a permanent TU Head should bring greater stabilityand continuity. This is particularly important in light of our recommendations withregard to the need to improve TU systems and structures.

13.5 There had been some lack of cohesiveness in the AMT in the past, but this hasimproved in recent times. We encountered perceptions of a two-tier structure in themanagement team. The Area now recognises the importance of its management teamhaving a strong culture of corporacy for it to be effective and in order to carry staff.

13.6 We have also discussed the gap between planning and implementation. The AMT hasrecognised that it can improve further, and plans to improve the management skillsthrough teamwork and training were being considered.

53

Strengths

* Dedicated projects team to facilitate major initiatives.


* Collaborative and unified AMT.

Organisational structure

STANDARD: THE AREA HAS DEVELOPED AN EFFECTIVE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

TO DELIVER AREA STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES

13.7 The Area has a very large TU team, although it is recognised that they have taken onsome police responsibilities. We consider that there is a need for an urgent review ofthe unit. The CJUs can be hard pressed in times of absence, and the Area needs todevelop a more flexible staffing strategy to counter this difficulty. These issues areoutlined in more detail in chapter eight. We understand that this review process isnow in hand.

Action plans

STANDARD: EFFECTIVE PLANS OF ACTION, WHICH IDENTIFY KEY ISSUES, AND WHICH

REFLECT CPS AND CJS STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, AND LOCAL NEEDS, ARE IN PLACE

13.8 The Area has developed an improved Business Plan this year. The ABM is aware ofthe desire for a more consultative approach and will look to do so in the future.

13.9 We have already discussed the various initiatives undertaken in Essex to addressnational priorities.

Criminal justice system co-operation

STANDARD: THE AREA CO-OPERATES WITH OTHERS IN ACHIEVING AIMS SET FOR

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

13.10 The Area has worked well with other agencies at a strategic level in driving forwardnational initiatives and agendas. It has also provided extensive advice and guidance toa number of CPS Areas that are taking on various initiatives, such as Glidewell, at aslower pace. The project managers both participate in national fora and haveaddressed CPS senior management conferences.

13.11 One example is its involvement in the national Case Preparation Project pilot,concerned with the progression of cases through the magistrates’ courts and CrownCourt. The two lawyer project managers are working together with representativesfrom the other agencies, including a defence representative, to agree a programme

54

whereby the progress of cases is actively timetabled and directed. The agreed plan isdue to roll out in Southend Magistrates’ Court in September. There is a positive andenthusiastic attitude being taken by those concerned and it is hoped that it will have apositive impact on timely preparation for trials and effective listing.

Strengths

* Comprehensive, county-wide implementation of co-located units.

* Collaborative approach to major initiatives with other agencies.

ANNEX 1

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE MODEL INSPECTION MAP

KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS

* The Area is making significant progress, in conjunction with partners in the CJS, towards achieving PSA targets.* Performance in key areas of casework and case presentation shows continuous improvement.* Justice is delivered effectively through proper application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors and by bringing offenders

to justice speedily, whilst respecting the rights of defendants and treating them fairly.

(Defining elements: KPR1 - 14)

PEOPLE RESULTS* Results indicate that staff are deployed

efficiently, that work is carried out cost effectively, and that the Area meets its responsibilities, both statutory and those that arise from internal policies, in such a way that ensures the development of a modern, diverse organisation which staff can take pride in.

(Defining elements: PR1 - 9)

CUSTOMER RESULTS SOCIETY RESULTS

PROCESSES

CASEWORK & ADVOCACY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

QUALITY OF SERVICE DELIVERYAT COURT

DIRECT COMMUNICATIONWITH VICTIMS

MANAGEMENT OF FINANCIALRESOURCES

* Human resources are planned to ensure that staff are deployed efficiently, that theArea carries out its work cost-effectively and that the Area meets its statutory duties as an employer, and those that arise from internal policies.

* The Area has a clear sense of purpose and managers have established a relevant direction for the Area, complemented by relevant policies and supported by plans, objectives, targets and processes, and mechanisms for review.

* The Area plans and manages its external and internal partnerships and resources in ways that support its policy and strategy and the efficient operation of its processes.

LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE

* Leaders develop vision and values that lead to long term success and implement these via appropriate actions and behaviours. In particular, working arrangements are in place, which ensure that the Area is controlled and directed to achieve its aims and objectives consistently and with propriety.

(Defining elements: L&G1 - 10)

(Defining elements: CR1 - 6) (Defining elements: SR1 - 3)

* Results indicate that the needs of victims and witnesses, and CJS partnersare met, and the rights of defendants respected.

* The Area is proactively taking action to improve public confidence in the CJS and CPS, and measures the results of its activity.

(Defining elements: CAP1 - 21)

* The Area designs, manages and improves its casework and advocacy processes in order to deliver key performance, customer and society results, to ensure that all processes are free from bias and discrimination,and to support policy and strategy.

* Performance and risk are systematically monitored and evaluated, and used to inform futuredecisions.

(Defining elements: PM1 - 6)

* The Area delivers a high quality of service to the court, other court users, and victims and witnesses, which contributes to the effectivenessof court hearings.

(Defining elements: QSD1 - 4)

* Decisions to discontinue, or substantially alter a charge are promptly and appropriately communicated to victims in accordancewith CPS policy, and in a way which meet the needs of individual victims. (Defining elements: DCV1 - 8)

* The Area plans and manages its finance effectively, ensuring probityand the delivery of a value for money approach, taking into account the needs of stakeholders.

(Defining elements: MFR1 - 5)

PEOPLE

(Defining elements: P1 - 8)

POLICY & STRATEGY

(Defining elements: P&S1 - 5)

PARTNERSHIPS & RESOURCES

(Defining elements: P&R1 - 5)

CPS ESSEX STAFF STRUCTURE

CHIEF CROWN PROSECUTOR

AN

NE

X 2

UNIT HEADCOLCHESTER

CJU

UNIT HEADHARLOW

CJU

UNIT HEADLAINDON

CJU

UNIT HEADSOUTHEND

CJU

TU B3 BUSINESS

MANAGER

HEADOF TU

SPECIALCASEWORK

LAWYER

AREABUSINESSMANAGER

LEVEL DLAWYER

LAWYERSx 7.9

DCWsx 1.6

PA

VIO

LAWYERSx 9

B2MANAGER

B2MANAGER

B1 BUSINESS MANAGERS

x 1.4

PERSONALSECRETARY

RECEPTIONIST

LEVEL CLAWYER

LAWYERSx 5.6

DCW

PA

VIO

LAWYERSx 5.2

DCW

PA

VIO

LAWYERSx 4.2

DCW

B1

PAx 0.85

VIO

COURTCOVERAGE

B1 MANAGERA2 CASE-

WORKERS x 6.46

CASEWORKSUPPORT

B1 MANAGERA1/2 CASE-

WORKERS x 6.46

WITNESS CAREB1 MANAGER

A1/2 CASE-WORKERS

x 6.46

CASE BUILDINGB1 MANAGER

A1/2 CASE-WORKERS x 6.46

TYPISTS x 5.6

COMMITTALPREPARATIONB1 MANAGER

A1/2 CASE-WORKERS x 6.46

TYPISTS x 6

LISTINGB1 MANAGER

A1/2 CASE-WORKERS

x 6.46

CASE-WORKERS

x 14.6

ADMINSUPPORT

x 1.4

ANNEX 3

1. Magistrates’ Court - Types of case Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Advice 7,199 20.4 64,456 4.5Summary motoring 12,629 35.7 527,110 36.7Summary non-motoring 4,609 13.0 269,632 18.8Either way & indictable 10,810 30.6 565,570 39.4Other proceedings 108 0.3 8,853 0.6Total 35,355 100 1,435,621 100

2. Magistrates’ Court - Completed cases Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Hearings 20,897 74.5 990,500 72.7Discontinuances 3,393 12.1 172,072 12.6Committals 1,278 4.6 92,649 6.8Other disposals 2,480 8.8 107,091 7.9Total 28,048 100 1,362,312 100

3. Magistrates’ Court - Case results Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Guilty pleas 14,778 70.4 811,583 81.5Proofs in absence 4,824 23.0 126,518 12.7Convictions after trial 1,001 4.8 40,391 4.1Acquittals: after trial 375 1.8 15,452 1.6Acquittals: no case to answer 14 0.1 1,745 0.2Total 20,992 100 995,689 100

4. Crown Court - Types of case Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Indictable only 536 22.6 39,221 31.2Either way: defence election 307 13.0 15,051 12.0Either way: magistrates' direction 621 26.2 40,274 32.0Summary: appeals; committals for sentence 905 38.2 31,163 24.8Total 2,369 100 125,709 100

5. Crown Court - Completed cases Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Trials (including guilty pleas) 1,240 84.7 78,109 82.6Cases not proceeded with 172 11.7 13,440 14.2Bind overs 13 0.9 1,231 1.3Other disposals 39 2.7 1,766 1.9Total 1,464 100 94,546 100

6. Crown Court - Case results Essex NationalNumber Percentage Number Percentage

Guilty pleas 912 72.1 58,624 73.5Convictions after trial 202 16.0 13,099 16.4Jury acquittals 126 10.0 6,573 8.2Judge directed acquittals 25 2.0 1,500 1.9Total 1,265 100 79,796 100

ANNEX 4

TABLE OF RESOURCES AND CASELOADS

AREA CASELOAD/STAFFINGCPS ESSEX

MAY 2003 JULY 2000

Lawyers in post (excluding CCP) 39.3 34.2

Cases per lawyer (excluding CCP)per year 899.6* 854.9

Magistrates’ courts contested trialsper lawyer (excluding CCP) 35.4 42.3

Committals for trial and “sent” casesper lawyer (excluding CCP)

32.5 49.3

Crown Court contested trials per lawyer(excluding CCP)

9 14.1

Level B1, B2, B3 caseworkers in post 30.2 31.5

Committals for trial and “sent” casesper caseworker

42.3 53.5

Crown Court contested trials percaseworker

11.7 15.3

Running costs (non ring fenced) £4,997,684 £3,420,800

NB: Caseload data represents an annual figure for each relevant member of staff.

* The apparent increase in cases per lawyer (contrasting with the decrease in all othercategories) is almost certainly a result of the inclusion of advice cases, in relation towhich see paragraph 1.7.

ANNEX 5

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS FROM REPORTPUBLISHED IN OCTOBER 2000

RECOMMENDATIONS POSITION IN MAY 2003

R1 That the CCP, BCP and PTLsimplement an effective system toensure that advice is provided to thepolice within 14 days (in all save themost substantial cases).

Much advice is now dealt with underAuld but some standard advices remain.Of those in our sample where it could beascertained, advice was timely in 88% ofcases.

R2 That the CCP ensures that all oraladvice is properly recorded and isconfirmed in writing to police.

Again much subsumed within Auld.Logs are kept. The proper counting ofadvices is doubtful (see chapter 9).

R3 That the CCP, BCP and PTLsimplement monitoring systems toensure that appropriate and effectivereview is being undertaken and casesproceed expeditiously.

The Area has adopted the CPS CaseworkAssurance Scheme involving dipsampling. Reviews are now betterevidenced but key performance resultstable shows a more directive approach isstill needed at review to progress cases.

R4 That prosecutors ensure that, whereapplications are made for remands incustody, the grounds for opposing bailare clearly recorded on the files,together with the magistrates statedreasons for their decision.

File sample and court observation showsthat the standard of endorsement hasimproved and is now of a generally goodlevel.

R5 That the CCP ensures that:

* Adverse case reports are checkedand reconciled with the caseoutcomes shown in the Area’s PIs;

* There is a system to monitor theintegrity of the Area’s PIs both interms of accuracy and timelycompletion; and

* The Area draws upon the issues,guidance and good practiceidentified in the Inspectorate’sThematic Review of PerformanceIndicator Compliance and CaseOutcomes.

Adverse case reports generally identifythe correct outcome but the PI problemhas not improved. Rather, the issue haschanged by removing part of theresponsibility for finalising cases to thepolice at CJUs, where a backlogdeveloped. Lack of understanding of theappropriate operation of PIs has led topersistent inaccuracy, thus distortingfigures and affecting funding (seechapters 4 and 9).


R6 That the CCP implements an effectivesystem to ensure that prosecutors andcaseworkers are given the appropriateinformation about the results of cases,both successful and otherwise, in boththe magistrates’ court and Crown Courtand that attention is drawn to points ofgeneral application.

While there is some feedback toindividuals as a result of case sampling,the geographical and cultural dividebetween CJUs and TUs has exacerbatedthe problem. There is no effective formalsystem to communicate results acrossteams. Learning from experience isdiscussed at chapter 4.

R7 That prosecutors ensure that all reviewdecisions are properly recorded and thatthe record includes reference to theappropriate evidential and publicinterest factors.

Standards have improved. Our filesample showed satisfactory reviewendorsements in 75% of magistrates’court files and 78% of Crown Courtfiles.

R8 That prosecutors ensure that in relevantcases all sensitive material is properlyhandled and decisions properlyrecorded.

Insufficient in case sample to makeparticular observation on handlingsensitive unused material; logs arepresent on Crown Court files but are notused consistently and there is somegeneral inconsistency in the approach todisclosure (chapter 4).

R9 That the AMT sets up an effective filemanagement system to ensure that:

* The location and status of every fileis more easily identifiable;

* The timely movement of files; and

* Actions that need to be takenurgently are properly prioritised.

There are still difficulties locating filesin the TU and occasions when files aremissing for magistrates’ court (chapter4). There is concern over theeffectiveness of systems for committalpreparation in the TU. Although actionsare expedited within teams the overalleffect contradicts this (chapter 4).Actions in the CJU are generally timelyand prioritised.

R10 That the AMT sets up an effectivesystem for dealing with post, withdefined management responsibilities interms of monitoring adherence toensure that (in conjunction with arevised file management system) postcan be linked to the appropriate fileexpeditiously.

Co-location has changed administrativeand line management responsibilities tothe police in the CJUs. Swift linking andensuring the speedy attention of theresponsible lawyer can still be a problemboth there and in the TU (chapter 4).


R11 That the CCP and the PTLs introduce arigorous system for the preparation ofsummary trials.

Processes are in place for administrativeactions and there are checklists inexistence. This does not necessarilyensure the evaluative part of preparation(chapter 4).

R12 That the CCP and PTLs introduce as amatter of urgency a system wherebysummary trial files are checked beforethe trial date to ensure that the file hasbeen properly prepared for trial and thatappropriate action can be taken toremedy any outstanding matters.

See notes above. Team meeting minutesindicate issues about loading of PTRcourts and the lawyer doing themeffectively having to do all the vetting.

R13 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs ensurethat cases involving racially motivatedor aggravated offences are:

* Properly identified and marked; and

* Are afforded appropriate care andattention by the reviewingprosecutors to enable the cases tobe dealt with effectively andexpeditiously.

One case in our sample was incorrectlyidentified; two others gave some causefor concern. There is still room forimprovement (chapter 12).

R14 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs as amatter of urgency review the operationof the systems used to monitor custodytime limits to identify anymodifications that might be necessaryto the systems or staff training needs.

The current systems are potentiallyfallible. The Area is to undertake anotherreview.

R15 That the CCP ensures that sufficientlyexperienced prosecutors are selected asprosecutors in youth courts and thatwhere exceptionally agents areinstructed they have appropriateexperience and expertise.

Court observation showed soundhandling of a youth court by the CPSyouth lawyer. However agents stillconduct youth trials and their perceivedability is mixed.

R16 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs ensurethat regular scheduled team meetingsare held to facilitate effective two waydissemination of information with themeetings being minuted and reviewscarried out to ensure that any actionpoints raised are carried out.

Regular minuted meetings are conductedin the CJUs, fewer in the TU. Theyshould be better used for case discussion(learning from experience).


R17 That the AMT issues as a matter ofurgency a meaningful Area BusinessPlan, to be reviewed at each AMTmeeting, clearly showing key prioritiesfor the remainder of the financial yearand incorporating actions,responsibilities and time frames toensure successful achievements ofobjectives.

The Area Business Plan has improvedand is reviewed. The Area recognises theneed for wider staff involvement in theprocess.

R18 That the Training Committee meetsregularly and effectively reviews Areatraining requirements.

This is happening, but the anticipation ofneed and success of training is mixed.There is room for greater effectiveness.

R19 That the CCP ensures that appropriateguidance and support is provided tocasework support staff with regard totheir roles, priorities and basicprocesses as they need to be until thetransition to TU and CJUs is complete.

Co-location now well established. Thereis a need for review of roles in the TUand to communicate those new initiativesto staff affected.

R20 That the ABM issues guidance to staffabout reporting any incidents in thecourse of their employment where theirpersonal safety is compromisedwhether in or out of the office.

We were not made aware of any presentissues in this regard.

R21 That the AMT arranges as a matter ofurgency for the office to be cleared ofexcess material, sorting those files thatneed to be retained into appropriateorder and storing them in a designated,well signed location.

Improvements have been made inclearing work areas. The third floor,which is used as a staff canteen area,accumulates large quantities of paperwaste.

R22 That the AMT draws up an Area actionplan on race and other issues relating toequal opportunities and takes steps toimprove the Area’s relationship andstanding with members of ethnic minoritygroups in the community as a whole.

Plans are in place and steps being takentowards engaging in the community, butthis is still dependant to an extent onindividual efforts.

R23 That the CCP ensures that all complaints,including complaints made by telephone,are recorded and that a comprehensivelog of remedial actions is maintained.

Complaint logs are kept and complaintsgenerally soundly handled. It is unclearhow this is used to contribute towardslearning from experience.

SUGGESTIONS POSITION IN MAY/JUNE 2003

S1 That CCP, BCP and PTLs effectivelymonitor the quality of advice given tothe police to ensure that the quality ofadvice is consistently high as well asbeing clear and concise.

Dip sampling by Unit Heads includesadvice files although most are now dealtwith under the Auld pilot scheme. Weidentified a need for the Area to establishthe remit and quality criteria of these.

S2 That the BCP and PTLs check allrequests for advice which prosecutorsconsider to be inappropriate before thefile is returned to the police to ensurethat only inappropriate cases arereturned.

To encourage the police to subscribe tothe Auld pilot, the CPS has accepted allsubmissions, but the determining criterianow need to be adhered to more closely,so that appropriate cases are dealt withand there is no derogation from the rolesof the custody PS and DI in the police.

S3 That the PTLs in the course of theiradvocacy and other work take theopportunity to check the quality of boththe reviewing prosecutors’ decisionsrelating to mode of trial, and therecords of their reasons.

Our file sample showed that mode oftrial decisions are correctly recorded inthe majority of cases.

S4 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs ensurethat the Area youth specialist isafforded sufficient time and resourcesto undertake a positive liaison role tohelp co-ordinate the approach todealing with youth offenders and toimprove the Area’s performance inrelation to youth offenders.

Positive feedback was received about theyouth specialists in the Area. The Areafigures for persistent young offendershave been consistently good.

S5 That the CCP liaises with the police andVictim Support with a view to improvingwitness care in those cases that can beidentified as liable to involve reluctantor vulnerable witnesses, with a view toreducing the number of cases that haveto be dropped, particularly in the CrownCourt.

We identified issues about witness carearising in the witness liaison section ofthe TU. The introduction of SpecialMeasures has helped to address thequestion of witness reluctance.Cracked/ineffective trial statistics stillshow it to be one of the main prosecutionreasons for ineffectiveness/cracking.

S6 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs monitorperformance in relation to disclosure ofunused material to ensure that recentrefresher training has been effective andto identify and remedy any remainingshortcomings.

There is still some inconsistency inapproach, for example as to what ismarked for disclosure or inspection, butthe situation is now being overtaken bythe introduction of a new JOPI for whichwe understand training is planned.


S7 That the CCP provides that, in additionto any unused material and theappropriate schedules, correspondencerelating to disclosure is kept in theseparate unused material folder togetherwith a disclosure sheet record.

All unused material includingcorrespondence is kept in a separatefolder in the vast majority of cases. Thelog is not always completed.

S8 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs ensurethat cases involving child abuseoffences and other sensitive oraggravated offences are given priority,and in particular that there is a CPSpresence at court at all key stages of thecase.

Child abuse cases are generallyappropriately handled, but somedemonstrated more timely pro-activity ofreview/other actions desirable. We dididentify a need for closer attention toCPS policy in racially aggravated cases.One fatal traffic offence in the CrownCourt did not have a caseworker presentat a key stage when family were in court.

S9 That the CCP, through appropriate staff,engages in regular meetings with SocialServices Departments and considers theagreement of a protocol about theprovision of sensitive material.

A protocol has not yet been concludedalthough there has been somepreliminary liaison (interrupted by thematernity leave of the designatedmember of staff).

S10 That the CCP reviews the balance of hiscommitment between the Crown Courtand magistrates’ court in order toincrease his attendance as an advocatein the magistrates’ courts.

The CCPs external CPS activities andinvolvements mean that he has notincreased his attendance at court as anadvocate.

S11 That the AMT ensures that effectivemonitoring systems are introduced toassess the performance of advocatesappearing on behalf of the CPS,including CPS prosecutors agents in themagistrates’ courts and counsel in theCrown Court, and where appropriate toprovide feedback to the prosecutorsinvolved.

There was no formal system of monitoringat the time of our inspection, albeit UnitHeads use such opportunity as arises tolook at advocacy when they are at courtthemselves. Given the concerns over thevariable standard of agents this needsconsideration - we understand the Areais now reviewing the best approach toachieve appropriate monitoring.

S12 That the CCP, BCP and PTLs ensurethat systems are in place to provide thatwhen a member of staff is absentthrough sickness, their workload iscovered, to avoid degradation of serviceand backlogs developing.

A sufficiently robust system has yet to beachieved.


S13 That the CCP and/or ABM liaises withrepresentatives of the local Magistrates’Courts Service with a view toadequately ensuring the safety of CPSstaff in court buildings.

There do not appear to be anyoutstanding safety issues.

S14 That the AMT carefully assesses itsaccommodation requirements for thefuture, taking into account the changesthat the implementation of the TU andCJUs will bring about.

Co-location has imposed unsatisfactoryaccommodation on the CPS in two of theCJUs and this is the subject of ongoingdiscussion with the police.

ANNEX 6

TOTAL NUMBER OF FILES EXAMINED FORCPS ESSEX

Number of filesexamined

Magistrates’ courts cases/CJUs:Advice 20Trials 22Race crime 6Domestic violence cases 14Youth trials 10Cracked trials 15Ineffective trials 1Cases subject to custody time limits 10

Crown Court cases/TU:Advice 5Judge ordered acquittals 15Trials 10Child abuse cases 5Race crime 5Rape cases 5Cases subject to custody time limits 5

TOTAL 148

ANNEX 7

LIST OF LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES ANDORGANISATIONS WHO ASSISTED IN OUR INSPECTION

Crown Court

His Honour Judge P CleggHis Honour Judge B PearsonMrs V Reed, Court Manager, Chelmsford Crown Court

Magistrates’ Courts

District Judge GrayMrs M Bacchus JP, Mid-South Essex BenchMr R Caccavale JP, Chairman, South East Essex Youth PanelMr R Crisp JP, Chairman, Mid-South Essex BenchMrs A Charley JP, Mid-South Essex BenchMr B Cox JP, Chairman, South East Essex BenchMrs M Francis JP, Chairman, North East Essex Youth PanelMr A Purdy JP, Chairman, Mid North Essex Youth PanelMr V Rayner JP, Chairman, North East Essex BenchMrs L Rolfe JP, Chairman, North West Essex BenchMr P Sampson JP, Mid-South Essex BenchMr J Scowen JP, Chairman, South West/Mid-South EssexMr J Sheldrake JP, Chairman, Mid-North Essex BenchMrs J Spalding JP, Chairman, North West Essex Youth PanelMr A Waddoups JP, Mid-South Essex BenchMr B Wellman JP, Mid-South Essex BenchMrs M Wright JP, Chair, the South West Essex BenchMr P McGuirk, Justice’s Chief ExecutiveMr P Carr, Director of Legal ServicesMr D Evans, Clerk to the MagistratesMr F Garland-Collins, Clerk to the Magistrates

Police

Mr D Stevens, Chief ConstableDetective Chief Superintendent A SellersChief Superintendent J JeapesChief Superintendent I LearmonthChief Superintendent J MaugerChief Superintendent T SheenChief Superintendent P SheldrakeChief Superintendent M ThwaitesSuperintendent A AdamsSuperintendent S BotrillDetective Chief Inspector M JonesDetective Inspector GoodenDetective Inspector Everett

Sergeant I LevinsonMs T BrennanMs M GoodchildMr P KraylingMs J SoanesMs S WalkerMr N Wilson

Defence Solicitors

Mr R BriceMr I CliftMr M PearsonMr P Richards

Counsel

Mr R AnthonyMr J BishopMr M CannuttelaMr R CarronMr P ClarkMs N DaruwallaMr J DurrMr J EllisMrs L FleischmannMr R HarrisMs S LeighMr R OverburyMr C PaxtonMs D PigotMr R PorterMr S SpenceMs A Thain

Probation Service

Ms G Hirst, Assistant Chief Probation Officer

Victim Support

Mr T Elliott, Area Manager

Witness Service

Ms F Kramer, Basildon Witness Service Co-ordinatorMs F Sharp, Chelmsford Witness Service Co-ordinator

Local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

Mr P Pearson, Community Safety and Emergency Plans Local Crime & Disorder ReductionPartnerships

Youth Offending Teams

Ms T Gillett, Essex Youth Offending TeamMr D Eyre, Southend Youth Offending TeamMr J Ward, Operations Manager, Thurrock Youth Offending Team

Community Groups

Mr C Mardner, Director, Racial Equality GroupMr S Jalota, Consultant, Suffolk County Council

ANNEX 8

HMCPSI VISION, MISSION AND VALUES

Vision

HMCPSI’s purpose is to promote continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectivenessand fairness of the prosecution services within a joined-up criminal justice system through aprocess of inspection and evaluation; the provision of advice; and the identification of goodpractice. In order to achieve this we want to be an organisation which:

- performs to the highest possible standards;- inspires pride;- commands respect;- works in partnership with other criminal justice inspectorates and agencies but

without compromising its robust independence;- values all its staff; and- seeks continuous improvement.

Mission

HMCPSI strives to achieve excellence in all aspects of its activities and in particular toprovide customers and stakeholders with consistent and professional inspection andevaluation processes together with advice and guidance, all measured against recognisedquality 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, andapply the same standards and criteria to the evidence we collect.

thoroughness Ensuring that our decisions and findings are based on information that hasbeen thoroughly researched and verified, with an appropriate audit trail.

integrity Demonstrating integrity in all that we do through the application of ourother values.

professionalism Demonstrating the highest standards of professional competence, courtesyand consideration in all our behaviours.

objectivity Approaching every inspection with an open mind. We will not allowpersonal opinions to influence our findings. We will report things as wefind them.

Taken together, these mean:

We demonstrate integrity, objectivity and professionalism at all times and in all aspects ofour work and that our findings are based on information that has been thoroughly researched,verified and evaluated according to consistent standards and criteria.

ANNEX 9

GLOSSARY

ADVERSE CASEA NCTA, JOA, JDA (see separate definitions) or one wheremagistrates decide there is insufficient evidence for an either waycase to be committed to the Crown Court

AGENTSolicitor or barrister not directly employed by the CPS who isinstructed by them, usually on a sessional basis, to represent theprosecution in the magistrates’ court

AREA BUSINESS

MANAGER (ABM)Senior business manager, not legally qualified, but responsible forfinance, personnel, business planning and other operational matters

AREA CRIMINAL

JUSTICE STRATEGY

COMMITTEE (ACJSC)

A local forum for the heads of the criminal justice system agencies,including the resident judge, intended to oversee local initiatives at asenior level. In the course of being replaced by Local CriminalJustice Boards

AREA MANAGEMENT

TEAM (AMT)The senior legal and non-legal managers of an Area

ASPECT FOR

IMPROVEMENT

A significant weakness relevant to an important aspect ofperformance (sometimes including the steps necessary to addressthis)

CATS - COMPASS,SCOPE, SYSTEM 36

IT systems for case tracking used by the CPS. Compass is the newcomprehensive system in the course of being rolled out to all Areas

CASEWORKER

A member of CPS staff who deals with, or manages, day-to-dayconduct of a prosecution case under the supervision of a CrownProsecutor and, in the Crown Court, attends court to assist theadvocate

CHIEF CROWN

PROSECUTOR (CCP)

One of 42 chief officers heading the local CPS in each Area, is abarrister or solicitor. Has a degree of autonomy but is accountable toDirector of Public Prosecutions for the performance of the Area

CODE FOR CROWN

PROSECUTORS

(THE CODE)

The public document that sets out the framework for prosecutiondecision-making. Crown Prosecutors have the DPP’s power todetermine cases delegated, but must exercise them in accordancewith the Code and its two tests – the evidential test and the publicinterest test. Cases should only proceed if, firstly, there is sufficientevidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly,if the prosecution is required in the public interest

CO-LOCATIONCPS and police staff working together in a single operational unit(TU or CJU), whether in CPS or police premises – one of therecommendations of the Glidewell report

COMMITTAL

Procedure whereby a defendant in an either way case is moved fromthe magistrates’ court to the Crown Court for trial, usually uponservice of the prosecution evidence on the defence, but occasionallyafter consideration of the evidence by the magistrates

COURT SESSIONThere are two sessions each day in the magistrates’ court, morningand afternoon

CRACKED TRIALA case listed for a contested trial which does not proceed, eitherbecause the defendant changes his plea to guilty, or pleads to analternative charge, or the prosecution offer no evidence

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

UNIT (CJU)

Operational unit of the CPS that handles the preparation andpresentation of magistrates’ court prosecutions. The Glidewell reportrecommended that police and CPS staff should be located togetherand work closely to gain efficiency and higher standards ofcommunication and case preparation. (In some Areas the policeadministration support unit is called a CJU)

CUSTODY TIME LIMITS

(CTLS)The statutory time limit for keeping a defendant in custody awaitingtrial. May be extended by the court in certain circumstances

DESIGNATED

CASEWORKER (DCW)

A senior caseworker who is trained to present straightforward caseson pleas of guilty, or to prove them where the defendant does notattend the magistrates’ court

DIRECT

COMMUNICATION

WITH VICTIMS (DCV)

A new procedure whereby CPS consults directly with victims ofcrime and provides them with information about the progress of theircase

DISCLOSURE,Primary andSecondary

The prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defence materialgathered during the investigation of a criminal offence, which is notintended to be used as evidence against the defendant, but which maybe relevant to an issue in the case. Primary disclosure is given wherean item may undermine the prosecution case; secondary is givenwhere, after service of a defence statement, any item may assist thatdefence

DISCONTINUANCEThe dropping of a case by the CPS in the magistrates’ court, whetherby written notice, withdrawal, or offer of no evidence at court

EARLY

ADMINISTRATIVE

HEARING (EAH)

Under Narey procedures, one of the two classes into which allsummary and either way cases are divided. EAHs are for cases wherea not guilty plea is anticipated

EARLY FIRST

HEARING (EFH)

Under Narey one of the two classes into which all summary andeither way cases are divided. EFHs are for straightforward caseswhere a guilty plea is anticipated

EITHER WAY

OFFENCES

Those triable in either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court, e.g.theft

EUROPEAN

FOUNDATION FOR

QUALITY MODEL

(EFQM)

A framework for continuous self-assessment and self-improvementagainst whose criteria HMCPSI conducts its inspections

EVIDENTIAL TESTThe initial test under the Code – is there sufficient evidence toprovide a realistic prospect of conviction on the evidence?

GLIDEWELL

A far-reaching review of CPS operations and policy dating from1998 which made important restructuring recommendations e.g. thesplit into 42 local Areas and the further split into functional units -CJUs and TUs

GOOD PRACTICE

An aspect of performance upon which the Inspectorate not onlycomments favourably, but considers that it reflects in manner ofhandling work developed by an Area which, with appropriateadaptations to local needs, might warrant being commended asnational practice

HIGHER COURT

ADVOCATE (HCA)In this context, a lawyer employed by the CPS who has a right ofaudience in the Crown Court

JOINT PERFORMANCE

MONITORING (JPM)

A management system which collects and analyses information aboutaspects of activity undertaken by the police and/or the CPS, aimed atsecuring improvements in performance

INDICTABLE ONLY

OFFENCESOffences triable only in the Crown Court, e.g. murder, rape, robbery

INEFFECTIVE TRIALA case listed for a contested trial that is unable to proceed when itwas scheduled to start, for a variety of possible reasons, and isadjourned to a later date

JUDGE DIRECTED

ACQUITTAL (JDA)Where the judge directs a jury to find a defendant not guilty after thetrial has started

JUDGE ORDERED

ACQUITTAL (JOA)Where the judge dismisses a case as a result of the prosecutionoffering no evidence before a jury is empanelled

LEVEL A, B, C, D, ESTAFF

CPS grades below the Senior Civil Service, from A (administrativestaff) to E (senior lawyers or administrators)

LOCAL CRIMINAL

JUSTICE BOARD

The Chief Officers of police, probation, the courts, the CPS and theYouth Offending Team in each criminal justice area who areaccountable to the National Criminal Justice Board for the deliveryof PSA targets

MG6C, MG6D ETC Forms completed by police relating to unused material

NAREY COURTS,REVIEWS ETC

A reformed procedure for handling cases in the magistrates’ court,designed to produce greater speed and efficiency

NO CASE TO ANSWER

(NCTA)

Where magistrates dismiss a case at the close of the prosecutionevidence because they do not consider that the prosecution havemade out a case for the defendant to answer

PERSISTENT YOUNG

OFFENDERA youth previously sentenced on at least three occasions

PRE-TRIAL REVIEWA hearing in the magistrates’ court designed to define the issues fortrial and deal with any other outstanding pre-trial issues

PUBLIC INTEREST

TEST

The second test under the Code - is it in the public interest toprosecute this defendant on this charge?

PUBLIC SERVICE

AGREEMENT (PSA)TARGETS

Targets set by the Government for the criminal justice system (CJS),relating to bringing offenders to justice and raising public confidencein the CJS

RECOMMENDATION

This is normally directed towards an individual or body and sets outsteps necessary to address a significant weakness relevant to animportant aspect of performance (i.e. an aspect for improvement)that, in the view of the Inspectorate, should attract highest priority

REVIEW, initial,continuing, summarytrial etc

The process whereby a Crown Prosecutor determines that a casereceived from the police satisfies and continues to satisfy the legaltests for prosecution in the Code. One of the most importantfunctions of the CPS

SECTION 9 CRIMINAL

JUSTICE ACT 1967A procedure for serving statements of witnesses so that the evidencecan be read, rather than the witness attend in person

SECTION 51 CRIME

AND DISORDER ACT

1998

A procedure for fast-tracking indictable only cases to the CrownCourt, which now deals with such cases from a very early stage – thedefendant is sent to the Crown Court by the magistrates

SENSITIVE MATERIALAny relevant material in a police investigative file not forming partof the case against the defendant, the disclosure of which may not bein the public interest

SPECIFIED

PROCEEDINGS

Minor offences which are dealt with by the police and themagistrates’ court and do not require review or prosecution by theCPS, unless a not guilty plea is entered

STRENGTHSWork undertaken properly to appropriate professional standards i.e.consistently good work

SUMMARY OFFENCESThose triable only in the magistrates’ courts, e.g. most motoringoffences

TQ1A monitoring form on which both the police and the CPS assess thetimeliness and quality of the police file as part of joint performancemonitoring

TRIAL UNIT (TU) Operational unit of the CPS which prepares cases for the CrownCourt

ANNEX 41

the inspectorate’s report on cps essex · former unit head seconded from colchester cju on...

Documents