Effective use of magistrates courts hearings

Transcription

1 Crow Prosecutio Service Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 798 Sessio February 2006

2 The Natioal Audit Office scrutiises public spedig o behalf of Parliamet. The Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral, Sir Joh Bour, is a Officer of the House of Commos. He is the head of the Natioal Audit Office, which employs some 800 staff. He, ad the Natioal Audit Office, are totally idepedet of Govermet. He certifies the accouts of all Govermet departmets ad a wide rage of other public sector bodies; ad he has statutory authority to report to Parliamet o the ecoomy, efficiecy ad effectiveess with which departmets ad other bodies have used their resources. Our work saves the taxpayer millios of pouds every year. At least 8 for every 1 spet ruig the Office.

3 Crow Prosecutio Service Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs LONDON: The Statioery Office Ordered by the House of Commos to be prited o 13 February 2006 REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 798 Sessio February 2006

4 cotets This report has bee prepared uder Sectio 6 of the Natioal Audit Act 1983 for presetatio to the House of Commos i accordace with Sectio 9 of the Act. Joh Bour Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral Natioal Audit Office 10 February 2006 The Natioal Audit Office study team cosisted of: Geraldie Barker, Tracey Paye, Robert Reeve, Sophie Buttle, Adam Crossley, Heea Depala, James Edmads, Carolie Harper, Noveed Ahmed, James Osbore ad Victoria Roper uder the directio of Jaice Lawler This report ca be foud o the Natioal Audit Office web site at For further iformatio about the Natioal Audit Office please cotact: Natioal Audit Office Press Office Buckigham Palace Road Victoria Lodo SW1W 9SP Tel: [email protected] Natioal Audit Office 2006 Executive summary 1 Part 1 Itroductio 8 Most crimial prosecutios are dealt with i a 9 magistrates court Orgaisatio ad role of the 10 Crow Prosecutio Service Cotested cases ivolve a umber of hearigs 10 Successful prosecutio depeds o the Crow 12 Prosecutio Service workig well with the police ad the courts The Govermet s crimial justice strategy aims 13 to improve joit workig betwee the crimial justice agecies The Crow Prosecutio Service is i the process 14 of implemetig the Govermet s crimial justice strategy The study s scope ad methodology 15 Part 2 Problems i the prosecutio process 16 result i uecessary court hearigs 62 per cet of magistrates courts trials i did ot go ahead as plaed 28 per cet of magistrates court hearigs, other 17 tha trials, are ieffective

5 Prosecutio delays arise for a variety of reasos 19 Lack of preparatio ca lead to mistakes i court 25 There is iadequate prioritisatio of cases which 26 require urget actio Poor case trackig results i files beig mislaid 26 The majority of prosecutio delays are the 26 result of icomplete evidece o file Part 3 Chages i the Crow Prosecutio 30 Service s workig practices would reduce the umber of ieffective hearigs ad brig fiacial savigs Appedices 1 Our methodology 40 2 Glossary 42 3 Cracked ad ieffective trials by area 45 4 The Crow Prosecutio Service s 46 admiistrative processes for brigig a case to the magistrates court 5 Calculatio of uit costs of hearigs 48 Failed hearigs cost the taxpayer 173 millio 31 a year Some cases eed prioritisig to esure that 34 they are ready whe they come to court Makig more lawyer time available for review 34 ad preparatio The Crow Prosecutio Service eeds to 36 review the time spet by lawyers o magistrates courts cases Improved techology will remove duplicatio 37 ad release resources There is a eed to improve joit workig 37 with other crimial justice agecies Photographs courtesy of ID8 ad Digital Visio

6 executive summary executive summary

7 executive summary 1 The Crow Prosecutio Service is the pricipal prosecutio authority i Eglad ad Wales. It works closely with the police ad the courts to brig offeces to justice i the magistrates courts. The Crow Prosecutio Service has a aual expediture of 568 millio, employs over 7,800 staff ad, i , prosecuted about 1.25 millio people for crimial offeces. The vast majority (92 per cet) i terms of umbers of cases were i the magistrates courts. 2 This study cosiders the performace of the Crow Prosecutio Service i makig effective use of magistrates court trials ad hearigs. It estimates the umber of ieffective hearigs i the magistrates courts, i particular those due to the Crow Prosecutio Service (as opposed to the police) although most ieffective trials ad hearigs are to do with defece-related problems. 1 With the help of Her Majesty s Courts Service, we recorded the outcome of over 6,000 hearigs ad reviewed case files relatig to over 1,300 hearigs to produce a statistical sample o which to base our coclusios ad recommedatios. As a result we have estimated that ieffective trials ad hearigs cost the crimial justice system 173 millio, of which the Crow Prosecutio Service is resposible for about 24 millio. The study idetified examples of good practice, recommeds chages to the Crow Prosecutio Service s workig practices ad recogises that the crimial justice agecies eed to work together more closely to improve the efficiecy of the prosecutio of magistrates courts cases. 3 The Crow Prosecutio Service is curretly udertakig a busiess chage programme to improve its performace ad ehace its cotributio to the performace of the crimial justice system. It is playig a key role i deliverig the Govermet s objectives for the crimial justice system through the crimial case maagemet programme. This icludes the chargig programme, which meas prosecutors ow decide the charge, ad the No Witess, No Justice iitiative, which is desiged to improve witess attedace at court. Reducig the proportio of ieffective trials is a crimial justice system Public Service Agreemet target towards which the police, the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the courts have made good progress. Better value for moey across the crimial justice system could evertheless be achieved i relatio to magistrates courts hearigs if the Crow Prosecutio Service were to implemet the recommedatios outlied i paragraph 20. Overall coclusios 4 The cost of prosecutios icludes both case preparatio ad time at court, icludig that of other crimial justice agecies. Pre-trial hearigs, for example, require the attedace of prosecutio ad defece lawyers, magistrates ad courts staff. Trials additioally ivolve witesses, icludig the police, ad sometimes probatio staff ad priso escorts. Adequate preparatio for hearigs ad trials is, therefore, importat, to avoid uecessary adjourmets or the droppig of charges, oce the case reaches court. 1 The Natioal Audit Office reported o this i Facig Justice: Tacklig defedats' o-attedace at court (HC 1162 Sessio ). Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 1

8 executive summary 5 I this report we cosider the Crow Prosecutio Service s role i the effective use of magistrates hearigs, specifically whether it: plas ad prepares cases to make effective use of hearigs; uses court time for the purposes of the hearigs listed; ad is takig actio to improve its performace i magistrates courts. 6 From our examiatio we estimate that 28 per cet of all pre-trial hearigs (784,000 aually) are ieffective. The defece is resposible for just over 478,000 of these, ofte where the defedat fails to atted, ad the prosecutio (that is the Crow Prosecutio Service or the police or both) 2 for about 165,000, of which we estimate that about 71,000 ca be attributed to the Crow Prosecutio Service. I additio, published statistics show that 62 per cet of magistrates courts trials were ieffective 3 or cracked 4 i Similarly, the defece was resposible for the majority of failed trials but early 17 per cet (19,500) were attributable to the Crow Prosecutio Service. Together, we calculate that ieffective hearigs ad cracked ad ieffective trials cost the taxpayer 173 millio each year, of which just uder 24 millio was attributable to the Crow Prosecutio Service. 7 Idividual prosecutors deal with a large volume of cases, ofte at very short otice. Nevertheless, we foud that problems with the Crow Prosecutio Service s plaig ad preparatio for magistrates courts hearigs cotribute to ieffective hearigs. There is isufficiet oversight of cases; lawyers ofte do ot have eough time to prepare for hearigs; there could be more effective systems for prioritisig ad progressig urget or high-risk cases; evidece is sometimes icomplete; ad files are mislaid. The police ad the courts cotribute further to the iefficiecies that result i prosecutio delays: ofte the police do ot provide the evidece i time for the hearig; ad Her Majesty s Courts Service staff move cases betwee courtrooms, so that prosecutig lawyers have to preset cases they have ot prepared. 8 Natioally, the Crow Prosecutio Service is seekig to improve its performace through iitiatives such as No Witess, No Justice, which aims to support prosecutio witesses through the courts process, ad the Chargig Iitiative which passes resposibility for determiig charges from the police to the Crow Prosecutio Service. Also, it is playig a key part i Local Crimial Justice Boards to promote joit workig with the other crimial justice agecies. We foud good examples of local actio by Crow Prosecutio Service offices to improve performace at magistrates court hearigs, but geerally the Crow Prosecutio Service eeds to do more to re-orgaise ad moderise its maagemet of magistrates court casework. Mai Fidigs 9 Statistics published by the Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs show that i there were 190,466 trials, of which 117,922 (62 per cet) did ot go ahead as plaed. The defece was resposible for just over half, most frequetly because the defedat pleaded guilty o the trial date. I additio 38 per cet (45,366) of the trials that did ot go ahead, fell either because the prosecutio case was ot ready or the Crow Prosecutio Service dropped the charges o the day of the trial. The Crow Prosecutio Service was resposible directly for just uder 17 per cet of the 117,922 trials which did ot go ahead. 10 I additio, there were over 2.8 millio other hearigs i magistrates courts relatig to Crow Prosecutio Service cases. 5 These hearigs are where the defedat pleads guilty (ucotested cases), or prelimiary hearigs that precede a trial. There are o statistics o the umber of ieffective hearigs. We therefore coducted a statistical exercise which showed that 28 per cet (784,000) of all hearigs were ieffective ad that they ca occur at ay stage. For example, 24 per cet of first hearigs ad 33 per cet of committal hearigs were ieffective. As with trials, the defece (specifically the failure of the defedat to atted court) was the most frequet cause of ieffective hearigs (at least 61 per cet); but the prosecutio 6 was resposible for at least 21 per cet, ad caused more delays at committal hearigs tha the defece. This meas that, i additio to the 45,366 trials, we ca have 95 per cet cofidece that aually betwee 150,000 ad 180,000 ieffective hearigs are due to the prosecutio. 2 Throughout the report the prosecutio refers to the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police, if ot otherwise specified. 3 Ieffective hearigs are those that do ot proceed o the scheduled day ad are adjoured to a later date. 4 Cracked trials are cocluded o the day without the case beig heard for example because the defedat pleads guilty or the prosecutio offers o evidece. 5 Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Crow Prosecutio Service maagemet iformatio. 6 The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police. 2 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

9 executive summary Commo reasos for the prosecutio problems Isufficiet evidece (44 per cet), for example CCTV footage, a medical report or foresic evidece was ot available The Crow Prosecutio Service had failed to make a legal decisio or to take actio (32 per cet), such as to amed the charges or to discotiue the case Material had ot bee disclosed to the defece i time for the hearig (10 per cet) Poor admiistratio (10 per cet) where files or correspodece had bee mislaid Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis Example A defedat was charged with assaultig a adult ad child i October Despite repeated requests from the Crow Prosecutio Service, the police delivered the foresic evidece (a compariso of blood o the defedat s clothes with that of the victim), oly o the day of the trial i April 2005, which showed that the blood did ot match. The prosecutio witess was also cosidered ureliable. The police had lost cotact with the complaiat, but the Crow Prosecutio Service allowed the case to cotiue for aother three moths util the trial date, whe the case was fially dismissed after te hearigs. The prosecutio had ot disclosed to the defece the schedule of uused material i a drivig without due care case, despite three letters of request from the defece solicitor. A Crow Prosecutor took a file to court for the wrog hearig date ad the took it home. Whe the case was actually scheduled for hearig it was uavailable, resultig i a uecessary adjourmet. 11 To uderstad the reasos for prosecutio problems, we carried out court observatio ad file review for 1,300 hearigs icludig a sample of cases where the outcome had bee usuccessful. From this we obtaied iformatio o 622 ieffective hearigs. We foud that 26 per cet of these failed hearigs were attributable to the prosecutio (a higher proportio tha the 21 per cet recorded i the statistical exercise referred to i paragraph te above). Of the failed hearigs caused by the prosecutio; 43 per cet were caused by the Crow Prosecutio Service, 43 per cet by the police; ad the remaiig 14 per cet were due to both orgaisatios. The table above shows the most commo reasos for prosecutio problems. 12 Each prosecutor has to deal with a large volume of cases, may of which may be received just prior to presetig the case at court, for example, because defedats were take ito custody overight. Eve whe there is sufficiet time to prepare cases, courts staff may move cases betwee courts with the result that the prosecutor has to preset ew, usee cases. Agaist this backgroud, we foud that further avoidable problems withi the Crow Prosecutio Service arose for the followig reasos: a lack of owership of cases: there is a lack of cotiuity i presetig cases. We foud that i a sample of 234 cases with more tha oe hearig, 54 per cet had bee preseted by a differet advocate at each hearig, ad oly 15 per cet of cases had bee preseted by the same prosecutor throughout; a lack of preparatio before hearigs: lawyers receive the files less tha 24 hours before hearigs ad may ot have time to prepare fully for the hearig if they are already i court. The problem is exacerbated whe court staff move cases betwee courts durig the day to use spare capacity elsewhere so that cases are give to other lawyers at the last miute; iadequate prioritisatio of cases which require urget actio: urget cases, for example, those give a short adjourmet are ot prioritised sufficietly. As a result, the ecessary actio may ot be take i time for the ext hearig; poor case trackig results i files beig mislaid: details of locatio may ot be updated o the file iformatio system, a lawyer may have take a file home, or it may have bee misfiled; ad icomplete evidece is o the file: i 35 per cet of ieffective hearigs caused by the prosecutio, delays had arise because the police had ot provided the Crow Prosecutio Service with the evidece. The Crow Prosecutio Service caot direct the police to follow up a lie of ivestigatio or to collect evidece. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

10 executive summary 13 We calculate that ieffective hearigs cost the taxpayer 173 millio, of which just uder 24 millio is due to failigs i preparatio, ad delays i decisio makig, by the Crow Prosecutio Service, takig ito accout both the costs of the crimial justice agecies i brigig the prosecutio, ad icreased crimial legal aid paymets to defece solicitors. If the Crow Prosecutio Service were to reduce the umber of ieffective hearigs ad cracked ad ieffective trials for which it is resposible, this would release savigs of aroud 2.4 millio for every te per cet by which these hearigs were reduced. 14 Some Crow Prosecutio Service areas are tryig to address these problems. For example, the Cardiff office is re-orgaisig its teams so that lawyers assiged to discrete police divisios joitly moitor ad preset cases i specified court rooms. This icreases cotiuity of presetatio, reduces delays i decisio-makig ad assists with file-trackig. There would be merit i developig this approach elsewhere so that: admiistrative staff are located ad work closely with lawyers to help moitor ad actio cases. At preset, admiistrative staff i most of the offices we visited are maaged i separate teams carryig out routie clerical support such as filig ad post opeig, but failig to provide the proactive support lawyers require; ad admiistrative staff are traied to carry out more complex admiistrative tasks such as liaisig with the police, defece solicitors ad courts, to free up the time of lawyers for review ad preparatio of cases. 15 The Crow Prosecutio Service is makig efforts to release lawyer resources by usig desigated case workers to preset more straightforward cases i magistrates courts. I , magistrates courts scheduled oly eough cases to occupy desigated case workers for 60 per cet of their time; icreasig this to 80 per cet would release the equivalet of 33 lawyers for other work ad achieve savigs of 2.3 millio. 7 To achieve this will require the co-operatio of Her Majesty s Courts Service. 16 More geerally, ot eough use is made of the iformatio about the use of resources. No recociliatio is made of the fuds provided for magistrates court work with the resources allocated to it. From our iterviews with Chief Crow Prosecutors ad our observatios at the area offices, there appears to be a imbalace i the staffig mix, with fewer lawyers ad more admiistrative staff tha eeded. Without a system of time recordig, however, it is ot possible to determie whether resources for magistrates court work are beig diverted to Crow Court cases. 17 The Crow Prosecutio Service is seekig to improve case maagemet ad trackig of files by the itroductio of its electroic case maagemet system, Compass. Further improvemets could be made by providig lawyers with the meas to record iformatio electroically at court. At preset, details recorded maually at court are later trascribed oto Compass by admiistrative staff. Elimiatig this duplicatio would both speed up the processig of files ad save the equivalet of aroud 60 full-time admiistrative staff, givig a et savig of 5.5 millio over five years. 7 Crow Prosecutio Service report o Higher Courts Advocates ad Desigated Case Workers. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

11 executive summary 18 A umber of the improvemets ecessary to prevet ieffective hearigs require the co-operatio of the police ad the courts. I Greater Machester, case progressio officers have prove to be effective i reducig the umber of ieffective trials, but while the Crow Prosecutio Service has established successful joit workig betwee itself ad the Courts i Trafford, this has ot bee possible i other areas, such as Machester City, where the court appoited a case progressio officer oly recetly. Icreasig cotiuity of presetatio will also require the co-operatio of Her Majesty s Courts Service to list cases from particular police divisios together i desigated court rooms. 19 We foud examples where local Crow Prosecutio Service offices were workig successfully with the other crimial justice agecies to resolve problems across their orgaisatioal boudaries. For example, Machester Crow Prosecutio Service has persuaded Her Majesty s Courts Service to arrage for District Judges to coduct pre-trial reviews. For its part the Crow Prosecutio Service has eabled its lawyers to sped more time preparig for committal hearigs, ad thus reduce the umber of adjourmets requested. Both the Associatio of Chief Police Officers ad the Crow Prosecutio Service told us that the Chargig Iitiative was icreasig co-operatio betwee them ad reducig the umber of o-viable cases goig to court. The Crow Prosecutio Service, together with the Local Crimial Justice Boards, should take the lead i settig up more of these mutually beeficial arragemets. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 5

12 recommedatios 20 The Crow Prosecutio Service should: Improve joit workig with other crimial justice agecies a Chief Crow Prosecutors should cotiue to take the lead at a local area level i settig up arragemets with the police ad courts to improve the efficiecy of prosecutio of magistrates court cases, icludig: appoitig case progressio officers; listig cotested cases accordig to the origiatig police divisio; brigadig cases that ca be preseted by a desigated case worker without the support of a crow prosecutor; extedig the use of desigated caseworkers; ad establishig a Crow Prosecutio Service cotact poit otified to police, courts ad defece lawyers for all magistrates court cases (paragraph 3.20). Maitai proper oversight of the cases b c d e establish case maagemet teams i each area resposible for reviewig, ad presetig, a trache of cases from a sigle police divisio where possible i a discrete magistrates court (paragraphs ). The size of the teams should be determied by the size of the police uit with which they are aliged, but typically would be o more tha lawyers; assig to the case maagemet teams a desigated case worker ad admiistrative staff who would be located ad work closely with the lawyers (paragraphs ); exted the traiig programme to all lawyers to equip them for their ew role either as casework team maagers or members (paragraphs 3.11 ad 3.13); ad coduct case work review i all areas to esure the quality ad efficiecy of decisio makig is satisfactory (paragraphs ). 6 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

13 executive summary Make more prosecutor time available for review ad preparatio f g h provide traiig for caseworkers o magistrates court procedures ad their roles ad resposibilities i the case maagemet team (paragraphs 3.11 ad 3.13); itroduce time recordig for legal ad admiistrative staff to establish the curret resources egaged o magistrates court cases (paragraphs ); ad compare the Crow Prosecutio Service s Activity Based Costig model with the actual resources egaged o magistrates court cases to esure there is the correct mix of staff (paragraphs ). Prioritise cases to esure that they are ready whe they come to court i develop procedures to idetify ad prioritise urget ad high-risk cases such as those with short adjourmet dates or requirig medical evidece, to esure the evidece is obtaied i time for the ext hearig (paragraphs 2.27, 2.28, ). Remove duplicatio ad release resources j provide Crow Prosecutors with electroic equipmet to eable them to update the case maagemet system at court (paragraphs ). Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 7

14 part oe Part oe Itroductio 8 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

15 part oe Most crimial prosecutios are dealt with i a magistrates court 1.1 All crimial prosecutios begi with a magistrates court hearig. I , the Crow Prosecutio Service prosecuted about 1.25 millio people for crimial offeces, ragig from mior offeces such as usig abusive laguage to the most serious ad complex crimes such as murder. Oly some eight per cet of cases were trasferred for trial to the Crow Court so the vast majority of prosecutios were also decided i the magistrates courts (Figure 1). 1.2 The most commo offeces tried i magistrates courts are road traffic offeces; other typical cases are disorderly behaviour, drug offeces ad theft. I , 61 per cet of defedats i magistrates courts pleaded guilty. A further 15 per cet of defedats (maily i motorig offeces) failed to atted court, ad the case was proved i their absece. A additioal five per cet were foud guilty after a trial. This cotributed to a overall covictio rate by the Crow Prosecutio Service of 81 per cet (Figure 2 overleaf). 1 Categories of crimial offece Summary cases (for example, motorig offeces ad disorderly behaviour) are the least serious offeces ad are tried oly i magistrates courts. Either-way cases (for example, theft ad some categories of assault) are more serious cases ad may be tried either by magistrates or i the Crow Court. They are committed to the Crow Court if the defedat elects for trial by jury, or if the gravity of the case is likely to warrat a more severe setece tha magistrates powers allow. Idictable-oly cases (for example, murder, rape ad robbery) are the most serious cases ad are always set from magistrates courts to the Crow Court, which has greater setecig powers. Source: Natioal Audit Office Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 9

16 part oe 2 Most Crow Prosecutio Service cases are coducted i magistrates courts Key facts o prosecutios i magistrates courts i ,168,000 of the Crow Prosecutio s cases were coducted i magistrates courts. (A further 94,000 started i magistrates courts but were trasferred to the Crow Court for trial) 81 per cet of magistrates courts prosecutios resulted i a covictio: 716,000 defedats (61 per cet) pleaded guilty (of whom 37,000 did ot plead guilty util the day of the trial) 170,000 defedats (15 per cet) failed to atted court ad the case was proved i their absece 58,000 defedats (5 per cet) were foud guilty after a trial 19 per cet of magistrates courts prosecutios did ot result i a covictio: 146,000 cases (13 per cet) were discotiued by the Crow Prosecutio Service 53,000 cases (4 per cet) could ot be completed because the defedat abscoded 22,000 cases (2 per cet) were acquitted by magistrates o the trial date 3,000 cases (less tha 1 per cet) due to be committed to the Crow Court were discharged by magistrates due to isufficiet evidece Source: Crow Prosecutio Service Aual Report ad Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs Orgaisatio ad role of the Crow Prosecutio Service 1.3 The Crow Prosecutio Service is the pricipal prosecutig authority i Eglad ad Wales employig some 7,800 8 people with a aual expediture of 568 millio. It is orgaised ito 42 areas, each headed by a Chief Crow Prosecutor, who is resposible for prosecutig both magistrates ad Crow Court cases. I most areas structure ad staffig is split betwee magistrates ad Crow Court work, with separate maagemet of admiistrative ad legal staff (Figure 3). The Chief Crow Prosecutors report to the Director of Public Prosecutios o prosecutio ad legal issues, ad to a Chief Executive o the maagemet of day to-day busiess. 1.4 At case level, resposibility for progressig cases is split betwee legal ad admiistrative staff. The Crow Prosecutio Service employs about 2,700 Crow Prosecutors, who are qualified solicitors or barristers. They advise the police o the appropriate charges to brig, are resposible for takig decisios o whether there is sufficiet evidece, ad preset cases at court. The Crow Prosecutio Service also supplemets its resources by usig agets (private sector lawyers) to preset cases i magistrates courts. 9 No-legally qualified staff iclude 233 desigated caseworkers who prepare ad preset o-cotetious cases i magistrates courts (maily motorig offeces) ad who cover ie per cet of magistrates courts sessios 10 ; ad some 4,800 caseworkers ad admiistrative staff 11 who prepare files for court, liaise with the police ad others, ad maitai the Compass 12 case maagemet system. Cotested cases ivolve a umber of hearigs 1.5 The process of prosecutig cases ca be log ad complicated, ad may ivolve a umber of hearigs. Defedats who plead ot guilty will appear first at a early admiistrative hearig, where they will eter their plea. Subsequetly they will atted a trial, oce both the prosecutio ad defece have bee give time to prepare their case. I additio, a pre-trial review may be set to deal with specific issues ahead of the trial; ad a setecig hearig may be ecessary where a defedat has pleaded guilty or has bee covicted at a trial but magistrates eed additioal iformatio, such as a probatio report, before passig setece (Figure 4). 8 Crow Prosecutio Service aual report ad accouts for The Crow Prosecutio Service does ot record the umber of full-time equivalet agets employed aually. 10 Jauary March 2005 (Crow Prosecutio Service Resources ad Performace Report). 11 Crow Prosecutio Service aual report ad accouts for Compass is a atioal case maagemet iformatio system desiged to track ad assist the maagemet of cases hadled by the Crow Prosecutio Service. 10 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

17 part oe 3 The Crow Prosecutio Service s orgaisatio at local level is usually split betwee magistrates ad Crow Court work Chief Crow Prosecutor Trials Uit Head 1 Crimial Justice Uit Head 2 Area Busiess Maager 3 Uit Busiess Maager Caseworkers Crow Prosecutors Uit Busiess Maager Desigated Caseworkers Crow Prosecutors Area Secretariat Maager Admiistrative Maager Admiistrative Maager Admiistrative Maager Admiistrative Staff Admiistrative Staff Admiistrative Staff Crow Court Cases Magistrates Court Cases Source: Natioal Audit Office NOTES 1 Trials Uits deal with Crow Court cases. 2 Crimial Justice Uits deal with magistrates courts cases. 3 Area Busiess Maagers provide busiess maagemet support to Chief Crow Prosecutors. 4 Types of magistrates court hearigs Early First Hearig The prelimiary court hearig for all cases where the defedat is expected to plead guilty (because, for example, they have made admissios i their police iterview). The Crow Prosecutio Service prepares oly brief iformatio o the offece. Early Admiistrative Hearig The prelimiary court hearig for all cases where the defedat is likely to eter a ot guilty plea. Issues, such as legal aid ad advace iformatio, ca be dealt with at the earliest opportuity after a perso has bee charged to expedite progress of the case. Pre-trial Review This may be coducted i advace of a trial. The aim is to aticipate problems that might prevet the trial goig ahead ad to esure everythig is i place for the trial date. Trial At the trial, the evidece for the charges is preseted i court ad the case is decided by the magistrates. Committal Hearig A short hearig is held at which the case is trasferred to the Crow Court. This arises where the charges are sufficietly serious to be outside the scope of the magistrates courts, or where the defedat elects for trial by jury. Setecig Hearig A separate setecig hearig takes place where there is isufficiet iformatio, such as a probatio report, o the defedat to eable a decisio to be made at the trial. Source: Natioal Audit Office Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 11

18 part oe Successful prosecutio depeds o the Crow Prosecutio Service workig well with the police ad the courts 1.6 The police, the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the courts are all idepedet of each other, but close co-operatio betwee them is essetial to the successful prosecutio of offeders. Figure 5 shows the mai parties i the process of brigig offeders to justice, ad their respective roles. These may be summarised as follows: The police are primarily resposible for ivestigatig offeces, iterviewig witesses, arrestig suspects, brigig charges, collectig evidece ad attedig court as witesses; The Crow Prosecutio Service reviews the cases submitted by the police for prosecutio. Before proceedig with a case, Crow Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is eough evidece to provide a realistic prospect of covictio agaist the defedat ad that such a prosecutio is i the public iterest; 5 The Crow Prosecutio Service works with a variety of stakeholders i progressig magistrates court hearigs from charge decisio to trial Her Majesty s Courts Service: Admiisters flow of work through the magistrates courts Defece Lawyer: Makes represetatios to the magistrates court o behalf of the defedat (depedet upo a plea of guilty or ot guilty) o the basis of iformatio supplied by the defedat, Crow Prosecutio Service, Her Majesty s Priso Service ad/or Natioal Probatio Service Natioal Probatio Service: Verifies iformatio about the defedat ad prepares setecig reports Witesses: Both civilia ad police witesses atted the magistrates court to give evidece at the trial Magistrates: Crow Prosecutio Service: Decides the correct charge ad advises the police o the evidece required Provides iformatio to the defece solicitor or defedat i the form of disclosure material Represets prosecutio at court ad reviews cases as they progress from first hearig to trial Police: Arrests ad iterviews the suspect ad ay witesses Provides the Crow Prosecutio Service with detailed iformatio about the defedat ad the case agaist them The three lay magistrates, or a sigle professioal District Judge, i a magistrates court hearig decide the outcome of a case ad pass setece accordigly Defedat: The defedat s primary resposibility is to atted the magistrates court o the date ad at the time set for them Witess Care Uit: The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police work together to maage the eeds ad care of victims ad witesses from the chargig of a defedat to the coclusio of a case Her Majesty s Priso Service ad the Natioal Offeder Maagemet Service: Moitors bail coditios ad arrests the defedat if they break a coditio or fail to atted a magistrates court hearig Arrage for the trasport of prisoers to the magistrates court or arrage for a video lik joitly with the courts Source: Natioal Audit Office 12 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

19 part oe Her Majesty s Courts Service 13 provides facilities ad support to magistrates ad District Judges ad is idepedet of both the police ad the Crow Prosecutio Service. Its focus is o maagig cases to idetify early guilty pleas ad to esure trials are properly prepared; to maximise use of courtroom availability ad to maage magistrates workloads; Defece lawyers advise the defedat ad, i the evet of a ot guilty plea, prepare the defece case by evaluatig all the prosecutio evidece agaist the defedat. They will also ascertai if there are ay witesses that ca support the defece case i court. The Govermet s crimial justice strategy aims to improve joit workig betwee the crimial justice agecies 1.7 Figure 6 shows the lies of accoutability for the mai bodies i the crimial justice system. The Govermet has recogised the eed for closer co-operatio betwee the crimial justice agecies to esure there is o coflict of iterest betwee the respective parties i carryig out their resposibilities, ad to secure improvemets i the delivery of justice. To this ed, 42 Local Crimial Justice Boards were established i April 2003 to improve joit workig betwee the crimial justice agecies ad to focus o delivery of joit Crimial Justice Systems targets. The Local Crimial Justice Boards agree delivery plas with the Natioal Crimial Justice Board, to whom they are accoutable, ad are held resposible for achievig targets set by Miisters. These iclude icreasig the umber of offeces brought to justice each year ad reducig the umber of ieffective trials (i.e. those uable to proceed o the day they were scheduled, ad re-listed for aother day). 6 Accoutability of mai bodies i the crimial justice system Home Office Crow Prosecutio Service Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs Natioal Crimial Justice Board 42 Local Crimial Justice Boards Chief Costable Area Chief Probatio Officer Local Priso Goveror/ Area Maager Chief Crow Prosecutor Her Majesty s Courts Service Area Director Departmetal lies of accoutability Local accoutability with oversight by the departmet New lies of accoutability through Crimial Justice Boards Source: Natioal Audit Office 13 Her Majesty s Courts Service is a agecy of the Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 13

20 part oe 1.8 I July 2004, the crimial justice departmets published their Strategic Pla for Crimial Justice 14 which icludes the Crimial Case Maagemet Programme, the mai aims of which are to: icrease the umber of offeces brought to justice; reduce the umber of hearigs; icrease the umber of early guilty pleas; reduce the umber of cracked 15 ad ieffective trials; ad reduce defedats failure to atted, ad icrease attedace by witesses. They aim to achieve these objectives primarily through three iitiatives: The Chargig Iitiative which passes resposibility for decidig which charges to brig, i all but the most straightforward cases, from the police to the Crow Prosecutio Service; No Witess, No Justice which itroduces joit police ad Crow Prosecutio Service witess care uits to improve commuicatio with, ad support for, prosecutio witesses; ad The Effective Trial Maagemet Programme which imposes greater court oversight of all parties, with the aim of icreasig the proportio of trials, which proceed as plaed o the set date. The Crow Prosecutio Service is i the process of implemetig the Govermet s crimial justice strategy 1.9 The Crow Prosecutio Service has played a key part i establishig ad implemetig these iitiatives. Chief Crow Prosecutors have bee appoited as the Chair of the Local Crimial Justice Board i over a quarter of all Areas. I additio, the Service has: established the full, 24 hour, seve days a week, chargig scheme i 15 priority areas by locatig some of its lawyers at police statios to provide face to face advice betwee 9 to 5, ad for the remaiig time the Service has set up a telephoe service CPS Direct to advise the police after hours ad at weekeds. As a result, they are o had to make decisios o how to deal with cases: for example, whether to cautio the offeder or issue a fixed pealty or, if a prosecutio is appropriate, which charges to brig. 16 At the ed of November 2005, the statutory chargig scheme had bee implemeted i 26 areas. Elsewhere the Crow Prosecutio Service has established a office hours ( shadow chargig) scheme pedig implemetatio of the full statutory scheme by March 2007; set up, i collaboratio with the police, 81 witess care uits with at least oe uit i each of the 42 areas 17 with a view to establishig 165 uits across all areas by the ed of December 2005; ad take part i the Effective Trial Maagemet Programme i six pilot areas, evidece from which idicates that improvemets to the maagemet of the trial process reduce the umber of ieffective trials. The programme has succeeded i reducig the umber of ieffective magistrates courts trials from 31 per cet i 2002 to just uder 25 per cet i The pilot areas established full-time case progressio officers to work with couterparts, particularly withi the magistrates courts, to resolve particular problems with cases that are due for trial. Elsewhere, o specific actio has bee take, as the areas cosider that they have adequate systems i place to maage case progressio. 14 Cuttig Crime, Deliverig Justice A Strategic Pla for Crimial Justice, published by the Office for Crimial Justice Reform i July Cracked trials are cocluded o the day without the case beig heard for example because the defedat pleads guilty or the prosecutio offers o evidece. 16 The police will cotiue to make these decisios i respect of summary oly cases such as beig druk ad disorderly, ad straightforward either way cases, which are ulikely to be cotested because, for example, the defedat has admitted guilt whe iterviewed. 17 Crow Prosecutio Service aual report ad accouts for Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

21 part oe The study s scope ad methodology 1.10 A previous report by the Natioal Audit Office examied the fiacial impact of the failure of defedats to atted court hearigs. 18 I this report we cosider whether the prosecutio is makig effective use of magistrates courts hearigs. I particular, we assess whether the Crow Prosecutio Service: plas ad prepares cases to make effective use of hearigs; uses court time for the purposes of the hearigs listed; ad is takig actio to improve its performace i magistrates courts. I part two we focus o aspects of the prosecutio s performace that hider the effectiveess of magistrates court hearigs. These iclude both the actios of the Crow Prosecutio Service ad those of other crimial justice agecies, icludig the police, that may impact o the Crow Prosecutio Service s ability to deliver effectively The methods we used to carry out the study are summarised i Figure 7 ad described i more detail i Appedix 1. A glossary of terms is at Appedix 2. 7 Study methods Observed 553 cases at magistrates courts ad reviewed case files relatig to 1,376 hearigs Coducted a data collectio exercise of all cases heard i oe week i magistrates courts i six areas (6,743 cases) Aalysed the Crow Prosecutio Service s atioal statistics, performace iformatio ad activity based costig data Iterviewed magistrates courts staff, police officers ad members of police civilia staff Held focus groups of magistrates ad their legal advisers Iterviewed staff i ie of the 42 Crow Prosecutio Service areas Coducted a survey of all Chief Costables Source: Natioal Audit Office I part three we idetify chages i workig practices by the Crow Prosecutio Service that would help to reduce the umber of ieffective hearigs; ad quatify the fiacial beefits arisig from such chages. 18 Facig Justice: Tacklig defedats' o-attedace at court (HC 1162 Sessio ). Followig this report the Committee of Public Accouts made a umber of recommedatios to tighte maagemet of defedats while o bail ad to clarify commuicatios. The Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs, Office for Crimial Justice Reform, Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police have take steps to implemet may of the Committee s recommedatios ad to develop existig iitiatives with some success. Sice our report, the umber of ieffective trials caused by defedats failig to atted court has dropped i magistrates courts from 4.8 per cet to 2.8 per cet ad i Crow Courts from 3.1 per cet to 2.3 per cet. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 15

22 part two Part two Problems i the prosecutio process result i uecessary court hearigs 16 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

23 part two 62 per cet of magistrates courts trials i did ot go ahead as plaed 2.1 The Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs publishes aual statistics o the umber of trials i magistrates courts that do ot proceed o the day they were scheduled. These iclude trials where lawyers (prosecutio or defece) request a adjourmet: ieffective trials, ad those where o the trial date the defedat decides to plead guilty, or the prosecutio offers o evidece: cracked trials. Appedix 3 summarises performace i respect of cracked ad ieffective trials for each of the 42 areas. I , oly 72,544 (38 per cet) out of a total of 190,466 trials wet ahead as plaed. Of the trials that did ot proceed, 38 per cet were due to the prosecutio (that is the police, the Crow Prosecutio Service or the prosecutio witesses): i just uder oe i 11 trials (16,546), the prosecutio was ot ready, ad i a further 15 per cet of cases (28,820), it dropped the charges o the day of the trial (Figure 8 overleaf). 2.2 Figure 9 overleaf shows that, of the 45,366 trials that did ot proceed for reasos attributable to the prosecutio, just uder half (48 per cet) were due to the failure of the prosecutio witess to atted court. A failure to obtai sufficiet evidece for the case to proceed accouted for 34 per cet. 28 per cet of magistrates court hearigs, other tha trials, are ieffective 2.3 I additio to the 190,466 trials i , there were over 2.8 millio other hearigs i magistrates courts relatig to Crow Prosecutio Service cases. 19 This is because i the majority of cases the defedat pleads guilty, ad therefore o trial is ecessary, although a additioal setecig hearig may be required if isufficiet iformatio is available at the first hearig (Figure 4). For cotested cases, there are at least two hearigs: the first where the defedat eters his plea, followed by the trial itself. I additio, except for summary motorig offeces, there is a pre-trial review to esure all ecessary evidece will be ready for the trial. I practice, cases that go to trial ofte have more tha three hearigs. 2.4 Whereas statistics are published o the umber of trials that are ieffective, o such figures are available for the 2.8 millio o-trial hearigs. I order to ascertai their umber, therefore, we collected data, with the assistace of Her Majesty s Courts Service, o 566 half-day court sessios i six Crow Prosecutio Service areas for oe week, 6,743 hearigs i all. I four per cet of cases, o outcome was oted but of those hearigs where the outcome was recorded, 28 per cet (1,818) were ieffective. 19 Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Crow Prosecutio Service maagemet iformatio. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 17

24 part two 8 62 per cet of magistrates' courts trials i were ieffective or cracked Percetage , ,921 28,820 19,473 16,546 13, Effective trials Defedat pleads guilty o the trial date Prosecutio dropped o the trial date Defece ot ready Prosecutio ot ready Lack of court time/other Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs NOTE 1 There were 11,211 ieffective trials ad 1,951 cracked trials caused by lack of court time or other reasos. 9 Failure of the prosecutio witess to atted ad lack of evidece are the mai reasos for the prosecutio requestig adjourmets or droppig charges o the day of the trial Failure to complete disclosure Other 14% 4% 2.5 For these cases, we asked Her Majesty s Courts Service to record additioally the reaso for the hearig beig postpoed or the case fiishig. I six per cet of cases, o reaso was recorded but of the remaider, a high proportio, some 61 per cet of hearigs, were due to problems with the defece, maily where the defedat eeded time to obtai legal advice or failed to atted court; 21 per cet of failed hearigs were attributable to the prosecutio 20 ; ad 17 per cet were due to other parties, such as the Natioal Probatio Service or Her Majesty s Courts Service. I oe per cet of cases the failure of the hearig was attributed to more tha oe party. Lack of evidece 34% Source: Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs Failure of witesses to atted court 48% 2.6 These fidigs idicate that approximately 784,000 magistrates courts hearigs were ot effective, of which we estimate that 478,240 were caused by the defece. Statistically, we ca have 95 per cet cofidece that betwee 150,000 ad 180,000 were due to the prosecutio (the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police) (Figure 10). This is i additio to the 117,922 trials that were ieffective or cracked, of which 45,366 were attributable to the prosecutio (paragraph 2.1). 20 The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police. 18 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

25 part two 10 Over 750,000 of magistrates court hearigs are estimated to be ieffective sample Extrapolated (6,743 hearigs) to 2.8 millio % hearigs Total umber of ieffective ,000 magistrates courts hearigs of which: Ieffective for a ,240 defece reaso Ieffective for a ,640 prosecutio reaso Ieffective for a court/ ,280 probatio/other reaso Ieffective for more tha 1 7,840 oe reaso Source: Natioal Audit Office data , The data collected by Her Majesty s Courts Service showed further that such hearigs were a problem at each stage of the court process, with 24 per cet at first hearigs ad 33 per cet of committal hearigs ieffective (Figure 11 overleaf). The defece is more ofte resposible for delays tha the prosecutio, particularly i the early stages, but the prosecutio causes early as may delays to pre-trial reviews as the defece, ad the prosecutio causes more delays at committal hearigs (Figure 12 overleaf). Both these types of hearigs are at stages i the court process where the prosecutio 21 must esure that it has all the evidece eeded ad has complied with disclosure requiremets, before proceedig to trial. Prosecutio delays arise for a variety of reasos 2.8 I order to corroborate this evidece, ad to gai a greater uderstadig of the reasos for prosecutio delays, we observed at court, ad reviewed the case files of a sample of hearigs across six Crow Prosecutio Service areas. I a further two areas, we coducted a file review of cases that had eded usuccessfully for the prosecutio. I all, we obtaied iformatio o 1,248 hearigs (excludig trials), of which 623 were ot effective. Of these ieffective hearigs, 164 hearigs (26 per cet) were attributable to the prosecutio. 21 From our review we idetified that 43 per cet of prosecutio delays were due to the Crow Prosecutio Service, 43 per cet to the police ad the remaiig 14 per cet to problems caused by both orgaisatios. 2.9 The most commo causes of delays by the prosecutio 21 are give below, together with examples i Figure 13 overleaf: isufficiet evidece (44 per cet): the Crow Prosecutio Service did ot have the evidece it eeded to proceed with a hearig: for example, CCTV footage, medical reports or foresic material had ot bee collected; failure to take actio (icludig legal decisios) (32 per cet): for example, whether to amed the charges or to discotiue the case; failure to disclose material (te per cet) i time for the ext hearig 22. Typically this icluded advace disclosure at the begiig of cases ad specific types of evidece such as records of taped iterviews with the defedat ad witess statemets; ad poor admiistratio (te per cet): files or correspodece had bee mislaid, or set to a icorrect address, or i relatio to the wrog case. 21 The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police. 22 The Crow Prosecutio Service is required to give details of the prosecutio evidece to all defedats charged with either-way offeces. This is kow as advace iformatio ad may help a defedat to decide whether or ot to ask for the case to be committed to the Crow Court. The Crow Prosecutio Service must also disclose to the defece, schedules of, ad access to, ay other material that may udermie the prosecutio case. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 19

26 part two 11 Ieffective hearigs occur at each stage of the judicial process Source: Natioal Audit Office data First hearig Adjoured Committal Pre-trial Bail/custody Setece All hearigs first hearig review hearigs 1 % % % % % % % Did ot progress Progressed Cocluded Outcome ot recorded clearly NOTE 1 Magistrates courts may remad defedats i custody for a maximum of four weeks. If the case is ot due back i court withi that period a further hearig must be held to reew the remad, although the case will ot progress. 2 This equates to 28% of all hearigs where the outcome was recorded as stated i paragraph The defece causes most delays overall but prosecutio delays are a sigificat factor i the later stages of cases First hearig Probatio/court/other Prosecutio Defece Adjoured first hearig Committal Bail/custody hearig Pre-trial review Setecig Percetage of ieffective hearigs due to defece, prosecutio, probatio/court/other Source: Natioal Audit Office data 20 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

27 part two 13 Mistakes by the police, the Crow Prosecutio Service or both may lead to ieffective hearigs or the droppig of cases Isufficiet evidece failure to progress cases where urget actio was required; poor case trackig; ad icomplete evidece o file I order to idetify why these problems occurred, we iterviewed ad work shadowed Crow Prosecutio Service staff i the ie areas we visited. Appedix 4 shows the curret processes for maagig magistrates court cases. Idividual prosecutors have to deal with a large umber of cases, may of which they may receive just before the hearig either because defedats were take ito custody overight or because courts have moved cases betwee court rooms with the result that prosecutors do ot preset the cases they have prepared (Figure 14 o pages 22 ad 23). We foud that where problems occurred it was due usually to oe of the followig factors: The defedat was charged with throwig a missile at a football match. I its statemet, the police said the icidet was recorded o CCTV footage but the tape could ot be foud. Without this there was isufficiet evidece so the case was discotiued. It took a year for the police ad the Crow Prosecutio Service to ascertai that there was o tape. Failure to make a decisio or take actio to discotiue a case The Crow Prosecutio Service failed to establish that the police had lost cotact with the complaiat ad allowed the case to cotiue for aother three moths util the trial date, whe the case was fially dismissed after te hearigs. Failure to disclose evidece to the defece The prosecutio failed to disclose to the defece the schedule of uused material i a drivig without due care case, despite three letters of request from the defece solicitor. Poor admiistratio The Crow Prosecutor took a file to court for the wrog hearig date ad the took it home. Whe the case was actually scheduled for hearig it was uavailable, resultig i a uecessary adjourmet. Source: Natioal Audit Office file review lack of owership ad oversight of the case; lack of preparatio by the presetig lawyer before the hearig; Problems occur whe there is o effective owership of a case 2.11 Cotiuity of advocacy leads to greater familiarity with cases, i particular the actios required i readiess for a hearig. We therefore examied the Crow Prosecutio Service s processes for allocatig cases to lawyers, especially i relatio to cotested cases where several hearigs may be expected before the case is cocluded O receipt from the police, case files are split ito guilty ad ot guilty pleas. Those where a ot guilty plea has bee etered are assiged by the Crimial Justice Head of Uit to a allocated lawyer, who is resposible for that case. His role is to advise the police o ay further evidece that eeds to be gathered ad to take ay legal decisios o, for example, whether to chage or to drop a charge. The Crimial Justice Head of Uit also draws up a rota for the followig week, allocatig prosecutors to court sessios I order to assess how well the process worked i practice, we reviewed a sample of 234 cases where there had bee more tha oe hearig. We foud that i 126 cases (54 per cet) there had bee a differet advocate at each hearig, ad oly 35 cases (15 per cet) had bee allocated to the same presetig prosecutor throughout all hearigs. Figure 15 o page 24 gives the average umber of advocates for the cases we examied. This situatio occurs as the courts procedures for listig cases i a court room do ot take ay accout of cotiuity of advocacy but seek to maximise use of courtrooms ad magistrates time. Problems occur whe the Crow Prosecutio lawyer is ot dealig with their ow file ad prohibited from makig active decisios. This ofte results i the case havig to be adjoured for the reviewig lawyer to look at the file. Source: Natioal Audit Office focus group of magistrates ad legal advisers Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 21

28 part two 14 A day i the life of a prosecutor Source: Natioal Audit Office 22 EFFECTIvE USE OF MAGISTRATES COURTS HEARINGS

29 part two 09:00 Arrived at Court ad wet to the small Crow Prosecutio Service room that I share with four other prosecutors. Sorted through the files for the 20 cases that I am dealig with today. They re all first hearigs, so I had out copies of the key witess statemets to the defece lawyers ad discuss with them whether their cliets will be cotestig the cases. 09:30 Ito Court wet through my cases with the court clerk to check I had files for all the cases o the list. Nipped ext door to aother courtroom to ask a colleague for a file for a case which the Court has ow decided should be heard i my courtroom. I have oe file still missig so the court clerk photocopies the charge sheet from the court file for me. I phoe the police to get them to fax through the rest of the paperwork. 10:00 12:00 Court sessio I explai each case to the magistrates. If the defedat pleads guilty I make represetatios o appropriate setece. I cases where the defedat pleads ot guilty I explai to the Court what the Crow Prosecutio Service view is o whether the case should be tried i the Crow Court, whether the defedat should be grated bail ad whe we will be ready for a trial. As each case is heard, I ote the result o the file ad ay actio that eeds to be doe before the ext hearig. Three ew cases tur up at court durig the morig of people who were arrested last ight. The police brig the files directly to court. I get a few miutes to read the police summary of the cases while the magistrates retire to make a decisio about setece i aother case. 13:00 14:00 Magistrates break for luch ad I grab a sadwich at a local café ad have aother look at this afteroo s files. 14:00 16:00 Court sessio agai I have early fiished all my cases by 15.00, but the courtroom ext door is strugglig so they trasfer five cases ito my court room. The magistrates go ad have a cup of coffee for 10 miutes while I look through the files. After te miutes, it s o with the sessio as before ad we fiish at :15 16:45 Drive back to Crow Prosecutio Service office. 16:45 17:10 Before I ca start preparig tomorrow s cases I fiish actioig today s icludig checkig a legal poit. I pass the files to the admiistrative staff to do the other actios such as askig the police for the full evidece. 17:10 17:55 Preparig for Court tomorrow first, I check with the most recet hearig list (faxed through from the Court this afteroo) that I have files for all the cases o the list. The Court have added aother couple of cases today ad the admiistrative staff are still tryig to fid the files. The police say they delivered them by had yesterday but they ca t be foud. I m the allocated lawyer for about five of tomorrow s cases which meas that I advised o ad/or reviewed the iitial charge. I have t see the other cases before. I read them all to check for ay difficulties. I ask oe of the admiistrative staff to rig the police to see if they have details of the compesatio claimed by oe of the victims that ca be faxed over to Court first thig tomorrow. 17:55 18:00 I put the 25 files o to my trolley ad head home. I m ot i Court the day after tomorrow charge advice istead. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 23

30 part two 15 Average umber of advocates for a sample of cases with two or more hearigs Number of hearigs per case Average umber of advocates per case Two hearigs 1.7 Three hearigs 2.5 Four hearigs 3.0 uecessary hearigs, as decisios to drop cases are ot take, eve though presetig lawyers have oted o file that there was a lack of evidece (Figure 17); ad difficulties resolvig problems betwee hearigs as the police ad defece lawyers are uable to discuss the case with the allocated lawyer, which may lead to further delays I additio, we examied the reasos for delays i actioig cases i time for their scheduled hearig. As paragraph 2.9 illustrated, problems arise where the allocated lawyer has ot reviewed a file or reached a decisio about, for example, chagig the charges. Our court observatios, work shadowig ad iterviews with Crow Prosecutio Service staff idicated that i most cases this was due to the uavailability of the allocated lawyer, who was o aual leave, a traiig course or providig chargig advice to the police. I other istaces the prosecutor was i court egaged o other cases. I such circumstaces, work o allocated cases was ot reassiged to someoe else to carry out the ecessary preparatory work Uder the curret system, files eedig the attetio of allocated lawyers are placed o their desks, together with files for their ext court hearig. Admiistrative staff do ot idetify ad retrieve the files that eed attetio, as they are egaged o clerical tasks, such as iputtig data ito Compass ad likig post to files. I some areas, however, we foud examples of more experieced admiistrative staff usig their iitiative to progress cases i the absece of lawyers Where there has bee iadequate review the cosequeces ca be: Five hearigs 3.6 Six hearigs 4.4 More tha six hearigs 5.4 Source: Natioal Audit Office requests for adjourmets, as decisios or actios are ot take i time for the hearig. This may lead to dismissal of the case or, more ofte, to the case beig discharged 23 istead of beig committed to the Crow Court for trial (Figure 16); 16 Repeated requests for adjourmets may lead to the case beig discharged Case observed at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court o 6 July 2005 The defedat was origially charged with possessig a article with a blade or sharp poit i a public place; destroyig or damagig property ad motor vehicle iterferece. At the first hearig the charge of destroyig or damagig property was withdraw ad a committal hearig was set for 6 July. Due to the late arrival of the police file from the Crimial Justice Uit, the Crow Prosecutor had isufficiet time to review the case, ad requested a oe-week adjourmet. Magistrates agreed, settig the hearig for 13 July o coditio that the prosecutio would be ready by that date. The Crow Prosecutor oted o the file that committal papers should be prepared i time. However, the file was ot checked util 12 July 2005, too late for effective actio. A further adjourmet applicatio was refused ad the case was discharged o 13 July I our follow-up examiatio of the file o 2 September 2005, we foud a ote dated 9 August 2005 that the Crow Prosecutio Service had authorised the police to re-charge the defedat. However, there was o evidece either o the file or o Compass that a authorisatio to re-charge had bee set to the police. The Crow Prosecutio Service cofirmed that the reviewig lawyer had failed to otify the police. Source: Natioal Audit Office court observatios 17 Failure to make timely decisios may result i uecessary hearigs A commo assault ad theft case was witessed by Germa tourists o 20 March The Crow Prosecutio Service was told o 20 April 2005 that the Germa witesses were ot prepared to come back to Eglad to give evidece at the trial, which was set for 10 May However, the Crow Prosecutio Service failed to discotiue the case, resultig i a uecessary trial at which o prosecutio evidece was preseted. Source: Natioal Audit Office file review 23 If magistrates discharge a case at committal stage, the Crow Prosecutio Service ca restart the case from the begiig by arragig for the police to charge the defedat agai. 24 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

31 part two Lack of preparatio ca lead to mistakes i court 2.17 Our file review showed that o average, presetig lawyers received their files less tha 24 hours before a hearig, except for trials, where the average was two days. This poses particular problems for lawyers who are ufamiliar with the case, as it is ot always easy to grasp from the file, the case history or actio required. Also, if they are already presetig cases i court, there is little time for prosecutors to review or actio the followig day s cases. I practice, we saw a umber of prosecutors make streuous efforts to collect evidece ad to cotact witesses while presetig other cases at court but the lack of time available to them to prepare their cases ca give rise to mistakes The problem is exacerbated whe court staff move cases betwee courts to use spare capacity elsewhere to esure that cases are dealt with as quickly as possible. As a result, cases which prosecutors have reviewed ad prepared may be replaced with ufamiliar oes. This may lead to the impressio that the Crow Prosecutor has ot prepared for court as illustrated by the commet below. I reality the prosecutor may ot be adequately prepared for the hearig but for reasos outside the Crow Prosecutio Service s cotrol. Figure 18 gives a example of errors which may arise due to a lack of preparatio. I have the impressio that the Crow Prosecutio Service advocate is ofte readig the file as he presets it ad that he is ot prepared. Source: Natioal Audit Office focus group of magistrates ad legal advisers 18 Isufficiet time for preparatio ca lead to cofusio ad errors at court The defedat was charged with: 1 iterferig with a motor vehicle 2 crimial damage to the same motor vehicle 3 possessio of a class C drug 21 May 2004 The defedat pleaded guilty to charges 2 ad 3 (crimial damage ad possessio of drugs). However, the guilty plea to the crimial damage charge was ot recorded o the Crow Prosecutio Service file. 4 Jue 2004 The defedat s solicitors wrote to the Crow Prosecutio Service requestig that charge 1 (motor vehicle iterferece) be dropped, as the defedat had already pleaded guilty to the more serious charge of damagig the vehicle ad to the drugs charge. It was the oted o the Crow Prosecutio Service file that the motor vehicle iterferece charge should be discotiued. 30 Jue 2004 The Crow Prosecutio Service prepared letters to the defece ad the court discotiuig the motor vehicle iterferece charge but ot i time for the ext hearig to be cacelled. 2 July 2004 At Court the Crow Prosecutio Service aget mistakely asked the Court to discotiue the wrog charge (crimial damage rather tha motor vehicle iterferece), which they did. The prosecutor had misread the file ad the problem was exacerbated by the fact that the guilty plea to the crimial damage charge had ot bee recorded o the file. Source: Natioal Audit Office file review Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 25

32 part two There is iadequate prioritisatio of cases which require urget actio 2.19 Some cases eed to be dealt with urgetly, either because they have bee adjoured for a short time, or because additioal work is required before their ext hearig. We foud that ofte these cases were ot prioritised. I additio to the delays caused where the allocated lawyer is uavailable to make decisios, other factors may delay the preparatio of a case for a hearig: admiistrative bottleecks: after each hearig the case file is brought back from court; admiistrative staff record o Compass the outcome of the hearig ad ay further actio required; redistribute the file to the lawyer ad, where ecessary, cotact the police to request ay actio arisig from the hearig. I all, this ca take up to 48 hours. At oe hearig we observed the case had bee adjoured the day before to allow the defedat to obtai legal advice. Whe the case was heard the followig day, the Crow Prosecutio Service advocate did ot have the file as it was still i trasit after the previous day s hearig; distributio of post: the post goes to admiistrators to be sorted ad placed o the appropriate file before it is passed to the allocated lawyer to actio. However, there is o system for idetifyig ad prioritisig correspodece which requires urget attetio. Poor case trackig results i files beig mislaid 2.20 Some adjourmets are requested by the Crow Prosecutio Service whe they caot locate the case file i time for the hearig. We foud that case files are mislaid for a umber of reasos: lawyers have ot updated the case maagemet system, Compass, to show that they have passed the file to aother lawyer or back to the admiistrative staff for filig. As a result admiistrative staff caot locate the file to give to the presetig lawyer; eve whe Compass correctly records the ame of the lawyer to whom the file has bee passed, it is ot always easy to locate: the file may be o the lawyer s desk, at court or at home. I oe case the lawyer had take the file to court o the wrog day (Friday) ad ot retured it to the office, so it was uavailable for the correct date (the followig Moday); i the period immediately after a court hearig, files must be collected from the courtroom, retured to the Crow Prosecutio Service office, updated o Compass ad the either filed or passed to the appropriate perso for review. Durig this process it ca be difficult to fid files; ad if o more work is required o a case before the ext hearig it will be stored cetrally i drawers uder the ext hearig date. If it is placed accidetally uder the wrog date, it ca be located oly by maually searchig all the drawers. The majority of prosecutio delays are the result of icomplete evidece o file 2.21 Our review of cases shows that most prosecutio delays were the result of icomplete evidece o files (paragraph 2.9). The Crow Prosecutio Service advises the police o the evidece eeded for a hearig but the police are resposible for gatherig it, ad presetig the file to the Crow Prosecutio Service. I so doig they may have to liaise with others, for example, doctors, foresic scietists ad providers of CCTV footage, such as shoppig cetres ad local authorities. Full files with all the evidece required to prove the charge are usually prepared oly after the first hearig, oce it is cofirmed that the defedat will cotest the charge. 24 The type of evidece required will deped o the ature of the offece beig tried, but typically a file for a cotested case will cotai: typed copies of all relevat witess statemets, icludig those of ay police witesses ad of ay medical or scietific experts; a record of taped iterview with the defedat; copies of all relevat evidece such as CCTV tapes ad photographs; up to date details of witesses availability to atted trial; ad a schedule of all the material collected durig the ivestigatio that is ot beig used as evidece that must be disclosed to the defece. 24 The police provide files for the first hearig which cotai a case summary writte by the officer resposible for the case, the mai witess statemet(s), a short descriptive ote of the defedat s iterview ad a record of ay previous covictios of the defedat. As a result of statutory chargig, i a small umber of cases a full file is beig prepared before charge. 26 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

33 part two Problems arise whe the police do ot provide the Crow Prosecutio Service with the evidece they eed i time for the hearig 2.22 Ieffective hearigs may arise because the Crow Prosecutio Service has failed to advise the police of all the evidece eeded for a hearig but i 35 per cet of the hearigs we examied where there had bee police or Crow Prosecutio Service errors, delays had arise because the police had failed to provide oe or more items of evidece i time for the hearig (Figure 19). There seems to be a lack of co-ordiatio, especially with the police who have their ow targets. These two agecies do ot seem to be workig together. Source: Natioal Audit Office focus groups with magistrates ad Legal Advisers 2.23 We foud that i eight per cet of the usuccessful cases we reviewed, the case had collapsed because key witesses had ot bee advised of the trial date, or had bee told the wrog date; or the trial had bee set for a date whe they could ot atted. Oce the trial date has bee set, the Crow Prosecutio Service must iform the police, who i tur advise the witesses whe they will eed to atted. Problems arise whe the court is give iaccurate iformatio by the police o the dates witesses are available to atted, or because the Crow Prosecutio Service has ot passed the trial date to the police, or because the police have ot wared the witess. I oe case we reviewed, the British Trasport Police had failed to record the witesses addresses ad cotact details whe they were first iterviewed. This wet uoticed util the day of the trial whe the witess did ot atted court. The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police are seekig to address problems with witess attedace through the No Witess, No Justice project The mai causes of delays i police case preparatio that we observed were: operatioal difficulties; police traiig; ad techical difficulties (especially with CCTV footage). While most police divisios have a civilia uit that liaises with the Crow Prosecutio Service ad is resposible for file buildig, operatioal police officers do most of the evidece gatherig. For example, operatioal police officers provide their ow statemets where they are witesses, take statemets from civilia witesses, ad sed evidece for foresic aalysis. 25 There are barriers to frot-lie police officers performig these tasks efficietly: 19 The police may ot provide the evidece requested by the Crow Prosecutio Service i time for the hearig This case cocered a assault agaist a adult ad child that took place i October The police charged the defedat i Jauary 2005 ad the trial took place i April Despite repeated requests from the Crow Prosecutio Service, the police took more tha six moths to get the foresic evidece, which was a compariso of the blood o the defedat s clothes with the victim s blood. The police delivered the foresic evidece o the day of the trial, which showed that the blood did ot match. I additio, prosecutio witesses were cosidered ureliable by the magistrates ad the case was dismissed. Source: Natioal Audit Office file review evidece-gatherig may ot take priority over other tasks, such as respodig to calls from members of the public ad ivestigatig usolved crimes; ad shift work ad itermittet access to telephoes make it difficult to liaise with the Crow Prosecutio Service ad those from whom the police are seekig evidece, such as doctors. Also, secure betwee the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police exists i most areas but is ot always used. I Newcastle, we foud that there was a pilot scheme to provide frot lie officers with civilia support staff who would carry out some of the evidece gatherig tasks. It is too early to assess the beefits of the pilot but it has a obvious advatage i that civilia support staff work similar office hours to the Crow Prosecutio Service. 25 This makes it easier to prove that the material tested is the material that was seized by the police. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 27

34 part two 2.25 We also foud that further traiig may be eeded by the police o the amout of evidece required. Our file review showed that i some cases the Crow Prosecutio Service had to request further evidece after the police had provided what they cosidered to be a full evidetial file. Examples of further evidece iclude CCTV footage, mobile phoes, ad foresic tests, such as blood matches ad drug aalysis. Prosecutors ad police officers told us that the Chargig Iitiative, whereby Crow Prosecutio Service lawyers based i police statios discuss evidece requiremets with police officers, is icreasig police awareess of the evidece required to prove cases i court I six of the 167 usuccessful cases we reviewed, the lack of CCTV evidece i the correct format led to the Crow Prosecutio Service droppig the case or its dismissal 26. Problems arise because the courts, most Crow Prosecutio Service offices ad the defece solicitors use stadard VHS video equipmet, whereas most CCTV footage is ow o DVD. I order for a case to progress the police have to obtai the evidece, arrage for it to be reformatted ad provide copies for the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the defece. This evidece eeds to be available with the full file as it is ofte coclusive, leadig either to early guilty pleas or to early dismissals, thus avoidig the additioal costs of a trial. Medical reports from Accidet ad Emergecy departmets are ot always provided promptly 2.27 Similarly, the police may experiece difficulty i obtaiig evidece from other agecies. I te cases, we foud that medical evidece had to be requested after the full file of evidece had bee received from the police. Medical reports are ot geerally required for mior assaults but may be critical i determiig the gravity of the charge i more serious assault cases. Providig statemets for court proceedigs is ot part of doctors Natioal Health Service duties ad cosequetly the police pay doctors a fee for each statemet. However, some areas foud that the delays occurred with Natioal Health Service admiistrative staff, who i practice prepared the statemet from patiets cliical otes for the doctor to sig. It was ot clear whether the admiistrative staff were paid for this work by doctors from the police fees. 66 per cet of the 35 Chief Costables 27 who respoded to our survey said that obtaiig medical/ foresic evidece cotributed to delays at magistrates courts i their areas While some failigs i evidece preparatio may seem mior, they are resposible solely, or i combiatio with others, for some cases beig delayed ad fially dismissed by magistrates after a log period i preparatio. Figure 20 illustrates a series of procedural ad evidecegatherig failigs that led to oe such dismissal. Moitorig of casework quality is patchy 2.29 The Crow Prosecutio Service has a atioal system of casework quality assurace. Uder curret guidace, Uit Heads or team leaders are advised to carry out a mothly review of oe file for each of their lawyers ad desigated caseworkers to esure professioal stadards are beig maitaied. This procedure was itroduced i April 2003 but it is ot madatory, as it was cosidered too burdesome for some areas. We foud from our fieldwork that, while some maagers are examiig files regularly ad providig feedback to staff, this does ot apply throughout. I Greater Machester, for example, casework moitorig was suspeded for three moths, with the agreemet of headquarters because of other pressures o staff, icludig the itroductio of the Chargig Iitiative. Similarly, i oe short-staffed Lodo office seior lawyers were egaged o prosecutig cases at court ad did ot have time to moitor casework. I Cardiff we were told that i practice, casework quality assurace lacks substace, as maagers were cocered more with whether a review had bee recorded o Compass, tha with the quality or outcome of the review Our fidigs reflect those of the Crow Prosecutio Service s Ispectorate who recetly reported o the scheme as follows: 28 The Casework Quality Assurace Scheme should be the corerstoe of Crow Prosecutio Service casework performace moitorig. It is particularly importat, i the wake of the itroductio of statutory chargig, that the Crow Prosecutio Service is able to demostrate that the quality of decisio-makig is good, that casework is beig hadled as efficietly as possible ad that, where deficiecies or failures are idetified, immediate actio is take to effect improvemets. However, the scheme as it curretly operates caot provide this assurace. 26 I oe of the six cases the police had additioally failed to war witesses to atted court. 27 There are 43 Chief Officers of police i Eglad ad Wales. 28 Her Majesty s Crow Prosecutio Service Ispectorate Review of the Crow Prosecutio Service Casework Quality Assurace Scheme August Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

35 part two 20 Failigs by differet parties i the prosecutio process cause cases to collapse The defedat was charged with: 1 havig a offesive weapo i a public place 2 possessig caabis 3 frauduletly allowig aother perso to use his vehicle tax disc 15 August 2003 First hearig adjoured for the defedat to obtai legal advice. 26 August 2003 Defedat fails to atted court 11 February 2005 The defedat is arrested ad brought back to court 18 moths after he fails to atted. The Crow Prosecutio Service caot fid the origial file but assembles eough iformatio from the police ad the court to create a dummy file. The case is adjoured for the Crow Prosecutio Service to update the evidece. 25 February 2005 Charge 3 is withdraw but a trial date is set for charges 1 ad 2 for 6 May May 2005 The Crow Prosecutio Service decides to discotiue charge 2 (possessio of caabis) as the police have failed to carry out the foresic test to ascertai whether the material seized is i fact caabis. The decisio to discotiue the drugs charge is take oly two days before the trial. 6 May 2005 Police officers i the case fail to atted court. No evidece was offered at the trial ad the case was dismissed by the magistrates. Source: Natioal Audit Office file review Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 29

36 part three Part THREE Chages i the Crow Prosecutio Service s workig practices would reduce the umber of ieffective hearigs ad brig fiacial savigs 30 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

37 part three Failed hearigs cost the taxpayer 173 millio a year 3.1 I part two, we estimated that there are 784,000 failed hearigs each year. Together with the waste caused by ieffective ad cracked trials, we calculate that this costs the taxpayer some 173 millio a year, takig ito accout expediture withi the crimial justice agecies i brigig the prosecutio, ad icreased crimial legal aid paymets to defece solicitors. While the defece is resposible for over 95 millio of this figure, we calculate that some 55 millio is attributable to the prosecutio. The Crow Prosecutio Service accouts for 43 per cet of this (just uder 24 millio) (Figure 21 overleaf). For every te per cet by which the Crow Prosecutio Service were to reduce the umber of ieffective hearigs there would be savigs of aroud 2.4 millio. 3.2 From our court observatios, work shadowig of Crow Prosecutors ad file review, we established that the five mai causes of problems were: a lack of oversight ad owership of cases; a failure to prioritise cases which required urget or special actio; isufficiet time for prosecutors to prepare before presetig cases i court; poor trackig of case files; ad icomplete evidece o file. 3.3 I this part of the report we cosider how the Crow Prosecutio Service might overcome these difficulties by addressig the followig: allocatig cases to discrete teams, rather tha to idividuals, to oversee ad actio cases; adaptig procedures to cope with urget or more complex cases; makig more lawyer time available for review ad preparatio by: improvig the traiig ad maagemet of admiistrative staff; makig more use of desigated case workers; ad assessig the time spet by lawyers o magistrates court cases; usig improved techology to remove duplicatio withi existig processes ad to improve commuicatios; ad by improvig joit workig with the police ad the courts. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 31

38 part three 21 Failed hearigs cost the taxpayer 173 millio a year Ieffective Ieffective Ieffective Ieffective Cracked Cracked hearigs 29 hearigs cost 30 trials 31 trials cost 32 trials 31 trials cost 33 Total cost millios millios millios millios Defece 478, , , Prosecutio, of which: 165, , , Crow Prosecutio Service 34 70, , , Police 70, , , Crow Prosecutio Service/Police 23, , , Court/other 133, , , More tha oe reaso 35 7, Total Source: Natioal Audit Office Cases should be allocated to small discrete teams that ca maitai proper oversight of them 3.4 I paragraphs , we described the problems that occur whe there is o effective owership of cases. This maifests itself i a lack of cotiuity of advocacy at court, ad limited review of cases by allocated lawyers betwee hearigs. This i tur leads to ieffective hearigs ad trials, ad to cases beig dropped. These problems are made worse by the lack of proactive admiistrative support i the maagemet of cases. 3.5 From our area visits we observed that the orgaisatio ad allocatio of cases, which varied eve withi areas, was a sigificat ifluece o performace. For example, i the Greater Machester area, we foud a marked differece i performace betwee the City of Machester Court, which had a ieffective hearig rate of 35 per cet i our survey ad that of the Trafford Court i Sale, which had a rate of ie per cet. As Figure 22 shows, there is a sharp cotrast i the way i which staff are orgaised ad cases allocated betwee the two teams, which we believe cotributes to the differece i performace. I the City of Machester Brach there are 50 lawyers split ito five teams each of which correspods to a sigle police chargig cetre. Betwee them they cover 35,000 cases. Because the courts do ot schedule each team s cases i a separate court room, each of the 50 lawyers has to preset at court ay of the 35,000 cases, ot just those of his or her ow team. I cotrast, the Trafford office team of te lawyers ad 11 admiistrative staff deal with 6,000 cases from oe police divisio, which are heard i five courts. Also Trafford has established successful joit workig betwee the Court s ad the Crow Prosecutio Service s case progressio officers. This has ot bee possible i Machester as the Courts did ot appoit case progressio officers to work with the Crow Prosecutio Service util recetly. The Trafford office model allows greater cotiuity i review ad presetatio, ad better workig relatios with the police ad the court. 29 Numbers of ieffective hearigs are extrapolated from the data collectio exercise carried out by Her Majesty s Courts Service for the Natioal Audit Office (Figure 10) ad rouded dow. The umber of hearigs caused by the prosecutio is take as the mid poit betwee 150,000 ad 180,000 (see paragraph 2.6). 30 The uit cost of a ieffective hearig is See appedix 5 for details of the cost calculatio. 31 Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs The uit cost of a ieffective trial is See appedix 5 for details of the cost calculatio. 33 The uit cost of a cracked trial is 1, See appedix 5 for details of the cost calculatio. 34 Numbers determied by apportioig 43 per cet of delays at hearigs ad trials to the Crow Prosecutio Service, 43 per cet to the police ad 14 per cet to either, or both, agecies. 35 Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs do ot attribute ieffective ad cracked trials to more tha oe reaso. 32 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

39 part three 22 Crow Prosecutio Service uits coverig larger courts have more ieffective hearigs The City of Machester Crow Prosecutio Service brach prosecutes 35,000 cases each year, aroud 6,000 of which are live at ay oe time. The cases emaate from three police divisios ad may be heard i ay of the 15 courtrooms at the City s Magistrates Court. There are 50 lawyers i the brach divided ito five teams. Each uit has about te lawyers ad oe desigated caseworker, who is maaged by a lawyer. Cases are allocated to the uits but all five teams may preset a case origiatig from ay of the three police divisios i ay of the 15 courts. There are 41 admiistrative staff who are located ad maaged separately from the lawyers. These staff are split ito two teams, oe for the orth of the city supportig three teams of lawyers ad two for the south, supportig two teams of lawyers. The courts appoited case progressio officers oly recetly. The courts schedule first hearigs o the basis of the police divisio where the defedat was charged but other court sessios, such as pre-trial reviews, will iclude cases from all over the City. Lawyers scheduled to cover that court will therefore have to deal with cases from aywhere i the City, ot just those from their uit. By cotrast Sale Crow Prosecutio Service Uit (also withi the Greater Machester area) prosecutes 6,000 Crow Prosecutio Service cases each year, of which aroud 1,000 are live at ay oe time. All the cases origiate from Trafford police divisio ad are heard i oe of five courts at Trafford Magistrates Court. The Uit has oe team of te lawyers ad 11 admiistrative staff, a desigated caseworker ad a case progressio officer. The Uit head has developed good workig relatioships with Trafford Magistrates Court staff ad has successfully established joit workig betwee the Court s ad the Crow Prosecutio Service s case progressio officers. The Uit head also meets regularly with the police divisioal commader. Source: Natioal Audit Office 3.6 We foud that other areas are seekig to establish more effective owership by groupig lawyers ito small discrete teams who have collective resposibility for reviewig ad presetig cases allocated to the team. For example, the Crow Prosecutio Service i South Wales is reorgaisig its team, ad allocatig its cases i Cardiff to resemble more closely that of its smaller office i Barry (Figure 23). Apart from icreasig owership of cases, this re-orgaisatio is makig it easier to keep track of files ad to liaise with the police ad courts. 3.7 I our view, extedig this approach to other Crow Prosecutio Service teams would: 23 The Crow Prosecutio Service i South Wales is seekig to gai the orgaisatioal advatages of smaller uits The Crow Prosecutio Service s Cardiff uit serves three police divisios ad o average prosecutes cases i te magistrates courtrooms each day. The uit is a multifuctioal oe, coverig Crow Court cases as well as magistrates courts cases. It is staffed by 30 geeral lawyers (icludig four youth specialists), three desigated caseworkers ad is led by a Crimial Justice Uit head, who is also resposible for the smaller eighbourig team for the Court at Barry. Barry s team, which comprises three lawyers, a desigated caseworker, ad three supportig admiistrative staff, is located i the police statio ear to the Court. It deals with all the cases from Barry police divisio, all of which are dealt with at Barry Magistrates Court. The Crimial Justice Uit head believed that there would be advatages i followig the model i Barry to orgaise case preparatio ad presetatio i Cardiff. He has therefore grouped the lawyers ito teams each assiged to the caseload of oe of the three Cardiff police divisios. Cardiff Magistrates Court schedules each police divisio s cases i separate courtrooms so that each team ca preset all the cases from their ow divisio. Withi each team the caseload is further split so that two lawyers deal with defedats surames begiig with A K, ad others with surames L Z. The Crow Prosecutio Service issues the ames of the lawyers allocated to each half of the alphabet to each police divisio so that defece lawyers, the courts ad the police kow immediately whom to cotact about a particular case. File-trackig is also easier as oly members of oe of the teams will be i possessio of the papers. The Chief Crow Prosecutor told us that the creatio of the teams has led to the developmet of a collective sese of resposibility by lawyers i the team ot to postpoe decisiomakig at court, as this will oly add to their workload at a later date. Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis icrease collective resposibility for progressig prosecutios promptly ad successfully by a small group of people who kow each other; provide greater cotiuity i presetig cases; ad improve commuicatio betwee the Crow Prosecutio Service, courts, police ad defece lawyers, which i tur improves efficiecy i the prosecutio of cases. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 33

40 part three Some cases eed prioritisig to esure that they are ready whe they come to court 3.8 As we idetified i paragraph 2.21, failure to gather all the ecessary evidece o time is the most frequet reaso why the Crow Prosecutio Service is ot ready to preset cases at court. Evidetial requiremets that cause particular problems are medical reports; typed records of iterviews with defedats; CCTV footage ad foresic evidece. We foud that i most of the areas we visited, the systems for dealig with such cases are the same as for straightforward cases that eed o further evidece. 3.9 Problems could be avoided if cases that require evidece that ca be difficult to obtai, such as CCTV footage or medical evidece, were prioritised after the first hearig, with a system of moitorig to esure that the evidece is ready for the ext hearig. For example, makig a priority of securig ad viewig CCTV footage, ad liaisig with the courts before a hearig to esure that viewig equipmet is available, would reduce the umber of dropped cases (where the footage does ot provide the aticipated evidece) ad ieffective hearigs (because of techical problems i viewig the footage). This could potetially prevet waste of over 300, Better liaiso with defece solicitors might also lead to more guilty pleas earlier i the process, if defedats realised that coclusive footage was available. Makig more lawyer time available for review ad preparatio Admiistrative staff eed better traiig ad maagemet 3.10 Crow Prosecutio Service lawyers do ot always have sufficiet time to review cases betwee hearigs ad to prepare for the presetatio of cases (paragraphs ). We foud, however, that may lawyers were takig o admiistrative duties such as: moitorig receipt of evidece from the police, ad chasig the police where ecessary; completig checklists o case progress; liaisig with defece lawyers ad the courts i betwee hearigs; ad moitorig time limits for cases where the defedat is remaded i custody May admiistrative staff do ot curretly have the experiece or traiig to carry out these more complex admiistrative tasks, which require judgemet ad iitiative. They receive little traiig apart from itroductory courses to Compass ad basic office software packages. Geerally, they are ot coversat with the magistrates courts process: may of those we spoke to had ot observed a magistrates court sessio. Admiistrative staff are also maaged separately from lawyers ad may be orgaised differetly. For example, i City of Machester the lawyers are split ito five teams but the admiistrative staff are split ito two teams, oe coverig two teams of lawyers ad the other three teams. I some offices this ca be a sigificat barrier to the developmet of close workig relatioships betwee legal ad o-legal staff Where problems occurred with the quality of admiistrative work, we foud that lawyers took o these tasks themselves to esure that work was complete, rather tha maage or trai staff to improve their performace. For example, i the Westmister Crow Prosecutio Service area, we were iformed that admiistrative staff had ot followed witess warig istructios ad therefore lawyers ow write ad sed the memos themselves whilst at court. This further reduces the time that lawyers have to review ad prepare cases. Traied ad well-maaged admiistrative staff would make a sigificat cotributio to effective case maagemet 3.13 Northumbria Crow Prosecutio Service has established a dedicated team of admiistrative staff to prepare cotested cases for trial i te courtrooms at Newcastle City magistrates court. We foud that the ieffective hearig rate caused by the prosecutio 37 i this locatio was oly ie per cet, compared with a average of 21 per cet. Admiistrative staff, icludig desigated caseworkers, could cotribute more, ad reduce the workload of lawyers, if they were located with lawyers i the magistrates court case maagemet teams, as suggested i paragraph 3.7. This would mea developig the model i operatio i Cardiff by allocatig admiistrative staff ad desigated case workers to each team of two lawyers, to udertake the duties outlied 36 This figure is icluded i the 24 millio quoted i paragraph The Crow Prosecutio Service, the police or both. 34 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

41 part three i Figure 24, uder the maagemet ad directio of lawyers. Lawyers would require additioal maagemet traiig to take o their ew role either as casework team maagers or members. This could be provided through the Crow Prosecutio Service s maagemet traiig programme (Trasform), which is beig rolled out to all staff with maagemet resposibilities. Likewise, admiistrative staff would require traiig i the prosecutio process ad case maagemet tasks. Makig more use of desigated case workers would free up lawyer resources 3.14 We foud that the Crow Prosecutio Service is takig steps to release lawyer resources by usig desigated caseworkers to preset more straightforward cases i magistrates courts (Figure 25). Magistrates i our focus groups were geerally very impressed by the stadard of advocacy of desigated caseworkers: 24 Case maagemet teams would esure that lawyers perform oly those tasks that require their expertise Lawyers tasks: decide whether the charges are correct; specify the evidece eeded to successfully prove the charges i court; ad decide whether prosecutios are i the public iterest; make decisios o whether to oppose bail ad o whether cases are suitable for trial i the magistrates courts; review ew evidece ad decide whether charges should be chaged or cases discotiued as a result; decide which material should be disclosed to the defece; prepare for Crow Court committals by checkig the evidece ad preparig idictmets; 38 preset cotested cases at court at pre-trial reviews ad trials; ad explai the reasos to victims where cases have cocluded usuccessfully. Desigated caseworkers tasks: preset ucotested cases at court ad proofs i absece; prepare, as ecessary, for ucotested cases (such as obtaiig details of compesatio claims from victims); ad preset cotested cases at court at first hearigs. Admiistrative staff s tasks: moitor ad chase evidece from the police; respod to straightforward correspodece from the defece, such as requests for iterview trascripts; liaise with the courts (for example to check that the courts have arraged special measures for vulerable witesses); ad complete checklists o case preparatio progress, ad prepare summaries of case progress for the lawyers attedig court. Source: Natioal Audit Office 25 May magistrates courts hearigs ca be preseted by desigated caseworkers Withi desigated caseworkers remit Proofs i absece i summary cases First hearigs whether or ot the defedat pleads guilty Hearigs to decide whether the case should be tried i the Crow Court Setece hearigs (icludig youth cases) Cases where the defedat seeks to avoid disqualificatio through additioal poits o their licece o the grouds of exceptioal hardship outside desigated caseworkers remit Proofs i absece i either-way cases Cotested bail applicatios Committals Pre-trial reviews Trials Source: Natioal Audit Office 38 Legal documets specifyig the alleged offeces which are required to begi Crow Court proceedigs. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 35

42 part three Lay preseters are geerally very good, i fact better tha the lawyers. Some are better tha the defece solicitors. They ow have the cofidece to get up there ad whack it, although that was ot the case at the begiig Source: Natioal Audit Office focus group of magistrates ad legal advisers There are, however, barriers to their use. A lawyer must atted the sessio, if there are ay cases listed which are outside a desigated caseworker s remit. To make best use of desigated caseworkers, therefore, ad to miimise lawyers time at court shadowig them, the Crow Prosecutio Service requires the co-operatio of the court i schedulig e bloc the types of hearigs they ca cover I magistrates courts scheduled oly eough cases for desigated caseworkers to sped aroud 60 per cet of their time o case presetatio, icludig preparatio. The Crow Prosecutio Service has calculated that more cases could be scheduled so that desigated caseworkers sped 80 per cet of their time presetig cases. 39 This would release the equivalet of 33 lawyers for other work, equivalet to 2.3 millio. 40 To achieve this will require the co-operatio of Her Majesty s Courts Service, which we cosider i paragraphs The Crow Prosecutio Service eeds to review the time spet by lawyers o magistrates court cases 3.16 Some Chief Crow Prosecutors i the areas we visited told us that their curret staffig mix was ot appropriate to their eeds, with too may staff at the lower admiistrative grades ad ot eough lawyers. We observed that lawyers had isufficiet time to review ad prepare cases ad that admiistrative staff appeared uder loaded, yet lawyers were carryig out some admiistrative tasks (see paragraphs ). Similar observatios have bee made by the Crow Prosecutio s ow ispectorate o the areas we visited about the eed to deploy staff at several levels effectively ad efficietly We looked for iformatio o the Crow Prosecutio Service s staffig requiremets to determie whether there is a imbalace i the staffig mix. The Crow Prosecutio Service s Activity Based Costig model calculates the resources eeded depedig o workload ad is used to allocate the total budget for staff ad private sector lawyers ( 447 millio 42 ) amog the areas. However, it does ot determie how the budget is spet i respect of the umber ad grade of staff ad agets, or how resources are split betwee magistrates ad Crow Court work. These decisios are made at area level. This iformatio is ot readily available as staff do ot record how they sped their time, ad there are differet orgaisatioal structures i each area: some have separate uits for magistrates ad Crow Court cases; others have joit uits, whilst yet others have a separate team for ucotested hearigs, ad group cotested magistrates court cases with Crow Court cases. I both of the latter cases, staff may work o both magistrates ad Crow Court cases To esure that adequate resources are devoted to magistrates court work ad to maage these resources effectively, Chief Crow Prosecutors eed to kow: the volume of work i magistrates courts; the umber ad grade of staff (icludig agets) workig o magistrates or Crow Court cases; ad the amout of travellig time to court for staff ad agets. At preset, some Chief Crow Prosecutors kow oly the volume of work i magistrates ad Crow Courts, ad the umber of staff i post, but ot the total resources devoted to magistrates court cases. The itroductio of a time recordig system for all staff would provide this iformatio. 39 Crow Prosecutio Service: Higher Courts Advocates ad Desigated Case Workers. 40 The weighted average atioal cost of a C2 lawyer is 68,817 icludig overheads. 41 Crow Prosecutio Service Ispectorate Regioal Reports o Northumbria ad Humberside. 42 This figure covers all of the Crow Prosecutio Service s activity as the service was ot able to provide separate figures from Crow Court ad magistrates courts work. 36 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

43 part three Improved techology will remove duplicatio ad release resources 3.19 I our view more extesive use of techology would also lead to value for moey gais, as well as cotributig to greater efficiecy. We observed at court that lawyers record i mauscript the outcome of a hearig, ad the actio eeded, o the cover of the paper file. This is the typed by admiistrative staff oto the Compass system whe the file is retured to the office. We calculate that if lawyers were able to record the iformatio electroically at court it would save the equivalet of aroud 60 full time staff at a savig of some 2 millio. 43 The et savig after ivestig i hardware, software, iitial traiig ad support 44 would be i the regio of 5.5 millio over five years. There would be improvemets also i the quality ad trackig of case files as the time take to pass files o for actio would decrease, ad there would be o errors due to trascriptio More extesive use of aswerig machies ad , combied with a team-based approach to case maagemet, would also improve commuicatios. It ca be very difficult for the police, courts or defece solicitors to cotact the Crow Prosecutio Service lawyer resposible for a particular case (Figure 26). Most lawyers are out of the office, ad either their office phoes do ot record messages or they are ot aswered i their absece. Although most uits desigate oe of the lawyers as the duty prosecutor for the day they ca be difficult to cotact, ad are ulikely to kow the detail of a case. Provisio of cotact umbers for the allocated team described i paragraph 3.7 ad better use of aswerig machies ad would eable the Crow Prosecutio Service to deal with urget matters more promptly ad would speed up the case preparatio process. 26 Crow Prosecutio Service commuicatio difficulties There is a eed to improve joit workig with other crimial justice agecies I some areas, the Crow Prosecutio Service is workig successfully with its crimial justice parters to improve co-operatio 3.21 May of the improvemets ecessary to prevet ieffective hearigs by the prosecutio require the co operatio of the other crimial justice agecies. For example, to give more cotiuity i presetatio will require the co-operatio of Her Majesty s Courts Service i listig cases from particular police divisios i desigated courtrooms. Durig our fieldwork we foud examples where the courts, police ad Crow Prosecutio Service were already fidig ways to improve co-operatio. For example, i Machester, the Crow Prosecutio Service ad Her Majesty s Courts Service idetified that they were causig problems for each other: the Crow Prosecutio Service was ofte late i preparig cases that were due to be committed to the Crow Court for trial. As a result two or more committal hearigs would have to be held; ad the courts agreed with the Crow Prosecutio Service s request for pre-trial reviews to be coducted by District Judges to overcome problems. Both the Associatio of Chief Police Officers ad the Crow Prosecutio Service told us that statutory chargig arragemets are icreasig co-operatio betwee them ad reducig the umber of o-viable cases that would otherwise go to court. Other examples of arragemets that would be of mutual beefit to the court, the police ad the Crow Prosecutio Service are give i Figures 27 ad 28 overleaf. A court listig officer whom we iterviewed durig our fieldwork told us that because of the difficulties i cotactig the Crow Prosecutio Service he fids it easier to list the case for a hearig to resolve the matter i court tha to speak with someoe at the Crow Prosecutio Service. Source: Natioal Audit Office miutes at 35p per miute (full cost of A2 grade staff) for each of 2.99 millio hearigs (icludig trials) makig a total savig of millio. 44 Costs of implemetatio per year: hardware 437,500 (2,500 palmtops at 350 each writte off over two years), traiig ad support 100,000 ( 40 each for 2,500 users); ad 250,000 aually for security software liceces x 5 years plus software developmet 500,000 = 4.4 millio. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 37

44 part three 27 Co-operatio betwee the courts ad the Crow Prosecutio Service brigs beefits to both parties Case example case progressio officers Sale Crow Prosecutio Service ad Trafford Magistrates Court have each appoited full time case progressio officers, who work as a team idetifyig cases that require more work before they are ready for trial. The court case progressio officer checks all cases 14 days before the trial date ad telephoes her Crow Prosecutio Service colleague if there are actios outstadig. The latter, i tur, remids the lawyers ad the admiistrative staff of ay ecessary actios. The court case progressio officer also liaises with defece solicitors. If the defece case preparatio is beig held up because, for example, the Crow Prosecutio Service has failed to provide somethig to the court, the case progressio officer will her couterpart i the Crow Prosecutio Service who will esure it is actioed. This bypasses the potetial delays related to post opeig, matchig correspodece to files ad the brigig the case to the attetio of the allocated lawyer. The case progressio officers also meet regularly to idetify uderlyig causes of late case preparatio ad possible improvemets. Case example pre-trial reviews The North Wales Crow Prosecutio Service has agreed with the Wrexham Magistrates Court that experieced court clerks ad experieced prosecutors should coduct pre-trial reviews. Both the Court ad the Crow Prosecutio Service are committed to usig pre-trial reviews to: establish ay issues i dispute; decide which witesses eed to atted court to give evidece i perso; check that the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the defece have all the evidece they require; check that the Crow Prosecutio Service is defiitely goig ahead o the curret charges ad that ay decisios to accept pleas to alterative charges or to discotiue the case have bee made; ad check that the defedat s solicitor has had a opportuity to discuss the evidece with the defedat who will have a last opportuity to plead guilty. Source: Natioal Audit Office 28 A example of the Crow Prosecutio Service workig with Her Majesty s Courts Service ad the police to improve workig practices The Crow Prosecutio Service i Hertfordshire ad the Watford West Court area realised that may police officers had ever visited a court, or acted as a witess i court. Commo problems were occurrig that impacted o the progressio of cases, for example, the failure to date charge sheets. The Crow Prosecutio Service ad the courts orgaised a traiig day with the police that icluded mock trials. The itetio of the day was to explai how to avoid errors that impact o case progressio, but that are easy to resolve. Source: Natioal Audit Office 3.22 The Crow Prosecutio Service could take the lead i settig up mutually beeficial arragemets by iitiatig discussios with the police ad courts at a local level. These arragemets are best egotiated at very local levels as the Crow Prosecutio Service eeds to build trust ad develop good workig relatioships with idividual police divisioal commaders ad court maagers to prosecute well i the magistrates courts. Figure 29 shows some issues we idetified which might form the basis for such discussios. We would see the local Crimial Justice Boards, which were established i April 2003 to improve joit workig betwee the crimial justice agecies, as havig a active role i takig this forward. 38 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

45 part three 29 Areas where chages i workig practices might be to the mutual beefit of all crimial justice agecies What the Crow Prosecutio Service could do to assist the other crimial justice agecies: tell the police ad the courts which team is dealig with a cotested case, ad provide a cotact umber for queries; list the specific requiremets for a full file; icrease the proportio of committals that are ready o time; comply with disclosure timetables i more cases; offer traiig to the police more widely so that they kow what evidece is eeded to prove a case. I retur the other crimial justice agecies could esure that: the courts schedule more sessios for desigated caseworkers; the courts keep more cases i the courtroom where they were listed; the courts issue complete fial lists of court hearigs earlier; the police alert the Crow Prosecutio Service ad courts to iitiatives that will lead to icreases i umbers of prosecutios (for example, police raids); police provide full files o time; defece lawyers have discussed cases fully with defedats before pre-trial reviews ad are ready to offer pleas or to defie issues i dispute. Source: Natioal Audit Office Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 39

46 appedix oe Appedix 1 Our methodology 1 We used a variety of methods durig the course of our examiatio of the Crow Prosecutio Service as follows: Aalysis of existig data 2 Compass is a atioal database that has bee fully operatioal sice April 2004 cotaiig iformatio o all Crow Prosecutio Service prosecutios by area. We aalysed this data to calculate the umber ad type of hearigs i Crow Prosecutio Service magistrates courts cases. 3 The Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs (ad from April 2004 Her Majesty s Courts Service) has collected data o cracked ad ieffective trials sice April We used this data to idetify the umber of trials that do ot proceed as plaed, ad the reasos for this. Data Collectio Exercise 4 A statistical data collectio exercise was udertake, with the assistace of Her Majesty s Courts Service, capturig iformatio relatig to adult hearigs (excludig trials) for all cases i six Crow Prosecutio areas (see paragraph 5 below) for oe week. 45 This exercise produced iformatio o 6,743 hearigs, specifically: whether the case wet ahead for the purpose for which it was listed ad, if ot, whether this was due to the defece, prosecutio, court or aother party. The data geerated has bee used to determie the umber of failed hearigs across Eglad ad Wales i a year ad i particular, those for which the prosecutio are resposible. Court observatio ad review of the Crow Prosecutio Service s case files 5 I order to gai a greater uderstadig of reasos for prosecutio delays we visited ie Crow Prosecutio Service areas: Cambridgeshire Humberside Lacashire Greater Machester North Wales Northumbria Devo ad Corwall Lodo (Westmister ad Baret teams) South Wales I six areas (Cambridgeshire, Humberside, Lacashire, Greater Machester, North Wales ad Northumbria) we observed 553 hearigs, ad reviewed the files relatig to the observed cases. This gave us iformatio o 842 hearigs (icludig 23 trials). We selected the six areas iitially to iclude a rage of performace ad operatig coditios, such as size of aual caseload ad whether the area was rural or urba. We also esured that we visited some areas that had take part i pilots for the effective trial maagemet programme ad No Witess, No Justice ad areas that had itroduced the full roud the clock chargig scheme. Lodo was selected for the secod roud of case work because 14 per cet of the Crow Prosecutio Services magistrate s courts caseload is heard i Lodo. Devo ad Corwall was chose because it has a particularly low usage of desigated caseworkers. 45 The data was collected i the week commecig 27th Jue 2005 except at the City of Machester Magistrates Court where it was completed i the week commecig 8th August due to circumstaces outside Her Majesty s Courts Service s cotrol. 40 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

47 appedix oe 6 For each case observed, we recorded details of the offece, charge ad all hearigs up to ad icludig the preset hearig. From the file review we obtaied iformatio o the umber of adjourmets, problems with case preparatio ad the umber of advocates presetig cases with more tha oe hearig. 7 We carried out a further review of 171 case files specifically targetig usuccessful prosecutios i Devo ad Corwall ad Lodo (Westmister team ad Baret team). From this we gathered more iformatio o the admiistrative causes of usuccessful outcomes, ad o how the police ad the Crow Prosecutio Service work together to esure evidece is available o time. Work shadowig, iterviews with staff ad systems mappig 8 I all ie areas that we visited, we work shadowed prosecutors ad desigated case workers, mapped admiistrative systems ad iterviewed key persoel from the Crow Prosecutio Service; police; magistrates courts; ad local defece solicitors. Survey of Chief Costables 10 We cotracted MORI to coduct a postal survey of all 43 Chief Costables i Eglad ad Wales with a respose rate of 81 per cet. The survey cotaied four questios relatig to this study, three requirig closed resposes ad oe requirig a ope respose. The questios focused o: the effectiveess of workig relatios betwee the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police i respect of magistrates court cases; factors affectig the workig relatios betwee the Crow Prosecutio Service ad the police i respect of magistrates court cases; ad factors cotributig to ieffective use of magistrates court hearigs. Expert referece parters 11 Her Majesty s Crow Prosecutio Service Ispectorate has acted as referece parter, reviewig our methodology ad providig expert opiio durig our fieldwork visits. Focus groups of magistrates ad courts staff 9 Focus groups were udertake by specialist exteral cotractors at each of the six Crow Prosecutio Service areas listed i paragraph 5. Attedees at the focus groups icluded lay magistrates, legal advisers ad i oe case a court case progressio officer. Each group was asked to address a series of questios based aroud the themes of preparatio, liaiso ad advocacy with a particular emphasis o how effectively the Crow Prosecutio Service uses magistrates court hearigs. 30 Summary of file review Number of cases Number of hearigs icludig trials Number of hearigs excludig trials Number of hearigs which were ieffective due to the prosecutio 46 First roud of file review Secod roud of file review Totals 724 1,376 1, Source: Natioal Audit Office 46 The Crow Prosecutio Service, the police or both. Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 41

48 appedix two Appedix 2 Glossary Aget Advaced iformatio Bail Chargig iitiative Committal file Committal for setece CPS Direct Cracked trial Crimial Justice Uit Crow Prosecutor A private sector lawyer presetig magistrates courts cases o behalf of the Crow Prosecutio Service o a cotractual basis. The defece is etitled to see the prosecutio evidece i cases ivolvig eitherway offeces before the defedat decides whether he or she wishes to be tried i the magistrates courts or i the Crow Court. A court ca remad a defedat i custody or grat bail, with or without coditios attached. The police ca also grat bail before the first court hearig, with or without coditios attached. The trasfer of resposibility for decidig the correct charge from the police to the Crow Prosecutio Service. The police will cotiue to decide the charge i most cases where the defedat is expected to plead guilty at the early first hearig. I the remaider, they will ask for a decisio from the Crow Prosecutio Service. A full file cotaiig all the prosecutio evidece ad disclosure schedules which must be provided to the defece ad to the court before the magistrates ca commit the case to the Crow Court for trial. Procedure whereby a perso covicted i a magistrates court is set to the Crow Court for setecig, whe the magistrates cosider their setecig powers are isufficiet. A atioal out-of-hours telephoe service that allows Crow Prosecutors to work from their ow home to provide the police with chargig decisios through the ight ad at weekeds. A case that cocludes o the day a trial was scheduled to take place without the trial takig place. This icludes cases where the defedat pleads guilty o the trial date (thus removig the eed for a trial) ad cases where the prosecutio offers o evidece, for example, because a witess refuses to atted court. Operatioal uits i the Crow Prosecutio Service areas that hadle the preparatio ad presetatio of magistrates court cases, as opposed to Trials Uits which hadle Crow Court cases. Crow Prosecutors are lawyers employed by the Crow Prosecutio Service. They provide advice to the police o possible charges. They review files from the police, applyig the test set out i the Code for Crow Prosecutors, ad preset prosecutio cases at court. 42 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

49 appedix two Desigated caseworkers Disclosure Discotiuace Early First Hearig Effective trial Effective Trial Maagemet Programme Expedited file Either-way offeces Full file Idictable offeces No-legal Crow Prosecutio staff who have bee specially traied ad desigated by the Director of Public Prosecutios to review ad preset straightforward cases i the magistrates courts. Provisio to the defece of schedules of, ad access to, ay material which might reasoably be cosidered capable of udermiig the case for the prosecutio agaist the accused ad which has ot previously bee disclosed. Provisio of advaced iformatio is also sometimes described as disclosure. Magistrates court cases termiated by the Crow Prosecutio Service before evidece is offered, icludig those withdraw at court. The first court hearig for cases where defedats are expected to plead guilty. The court is geared to deal with such defedats swiftly ad to setece them immediately, uless a pre-setece report or other iformatio is required. A trial that goes ahead o the expected day, witesses give evidece ad the magistrates reach a coclusio o whether the prosecutio case has bee proved. A cross agecy programme desiged to reduce the umber of ieffective ad cracked trials. A file i straightforward cases where the defedat is expected to plead guilty which cotais oly the key witess statemets ad a case summary prepared by the police. Offeces which are more serious tha summary offeces ad which ca be tried i the magistrates court or i the Crow Court. Magistrates decide i cases ivolvig either-way offeces whether their setecig powers are likely to be adequate. If ot, they declie jurisdictio ad the case is committed to the Crow Court. If they accept jurisdictio, the defedat has the choice of whether to remai i the magistrates courts or to be tried by a judge ad jury i the Crow Court. A complete evidece file, cotaiig all statemets, exhibits, records of taped iterviews with the defedat ad schedules of uused material for disclosure to the defece. These are required for cases which are beig tried i the magistrates courts ad for cases which are beig committed to the Crow Court for trial. Offeces which ca be tried i the Crow Court (either-way offeces or idictable oly offeces). Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 43

50 appedix two Idictable oly offeces Ieffective trial List Local Crimial Justice Board No Witess, No Justice Office for Crimial Justice Reform Pre-trial review Remad hearig Summary trial Summary offeces Trials Uit Video lik Offeces which are so serious that they caot be tried by magistrates but must be dealt with i the Crow Court, for example robbery. These cases are set to the Crow Court at their first magistrates court hearig. A committal file is ot required before this ca happe. A trial that is uable to proceed o the day that it was scheduled to start, ad is adjoured to aother date. Commo reasos are missig evidece or the o attedace of witesses or the defedat. The list of cases to be heard o a particular date at a particular court. The list is ofte oly fialised the day before. Boards i each of the 42 crimial justice areas brigig together the chief officers of the police, Crow Prosecutio Service, Magistrates ad Crow Courts, Youth Offedig Teams, Probatio ad Priso Service to improve joit workig. The No Witess, No Justice iitiative is desiged to improve the services, iformatio ad support provided to victims ad witesses of crime. The Crow Prosecutio Service is workig with the police ad Witess Support i Witess Care Uits across Eglad ad Wales, to meet joitly the idividual eeds of victims ad witesses i crimial court cases. Supports the Crimial Justice System i Eglad ad Wales with the aim of brigig more offeders to justice ad improvig services to victims ad the public. 42 Local Crimial Justice Boards lead local actio, ad the Home Office, Departmet for Costitutioal Affairs ad Law Officers Departmets lead the reform process joitly at atioal level, through the Natioal Crimial Justice Board. A hearig that is iteded to reduce delays by checkig that cases are ready for trial. A copy of all of the evidece should be served o the defece before the pre-trial review. A four weekly court hearig to review cases where defedats are remaded i custody. These are ofte coducted usig video liks. Trial by magistrates, without a jury. Summary trials are for summary offeces ad either-way offeces (summary or idictable). Idictable offeces are more serious ad are tried by jury i the Crow Court. Less serious offeces which ca oly be tried i the magistrates courts. Resposible for all prosecutios i the Crow Court. These uits ofte take over resposibility for either-way cases as soo as it has bee decided that they are ot suitable for trial i the magistrates courts ad so cover committal hearigs i the magistrates courts. Video liks istalled betwee prisos ad magistrates courts so that prisoers do ot have to be brought to court for remad hearigs. 44 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

51 appedix three Appedix 3 Cracked ad ieffective trials by area Fourtee per cet of trials i Eglad ad Wales i did ot go ahead because either: the prosecutio (the Crow Prosecutio Service, the police or both) was ot ready; or the prosecutio was dropped o the trial date. This does ot iclude trials which did ot go ahead because of problems with civilia witesses. 31 Cracked ad ieffective trials as a percetage of all trials by crimial justice area Eglad ad Wales Bedfordshire Greater Lodo Nottighamshire North Yorkshire Lacashire Greater Machester Thames Valley Leicestershire Hertfordshire South Wales Merseyside Derbyshire West Midlads West Mercia Licolshire Gwet Humberside Northamptoshire Essex Cumbria Northumbria Hampshire ad Isle of Wight Ket Devo ad Corwall Cheshire Gloucestershire West Yorkshire South Yorkshire Staffordshire Dorset North Wales Suffolk Avo ad Somerset Sussex Cambridgeshire Surrey Clevelad Wiltshire Durham Norfolk Dyfed Powys Warwickshire Percetage Source: Natioal Audit Office aalysis of Magistrates Courts Busiess Returs Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 45

52 appedix four Appedix 4 The Crow Prosecutio Service s admiistrative processes for brigig a case to the magistrates court 32 The Crow Prosecutio Service s admiistrative process for brigig a case to the magistrates court Crime committed ivolvig victims ad witesses Police Crow Prosecutio Service Arrest Police supply file with case iformatio, for example: Case summary Charge sheet Mai witess statemets Defedat previous covictio/s Crow Prosecutio Service admiistrative staff: Register case o COMPASS (see Box right) Set up Crow Prosecutio Service file isertig police evidece ad other correspodece Court listig produced from COMPASS Crow Prosecutio Service lawyer splits cases ito guilty ad ot guilty pleas Assigmet to advocates (Crow Prosecutors) by a seior lawyer Crow Prosecutors review assiged cases Crow Prosecutio Service receives correspodece from the court, defece ad from the police, for example: Schedule of uused material Additioal evidece Dates to be avoided for civilia ad police witesses Full file (from the police) Source: Natioal Audit Office 46 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

53 appedix four Her Majesty's Courts Service Crow Prosecutio Service Magistrates Court Hearig Advocate edorsemet of file upo completio of hearig Crow Prosecutio Service admiistrative staff update COMPASS ad sort files ito oe of three groups: Not guilty pleas Committals dealt with as for ot guilty pleas, but by trial uit lawyers/ o-lawyers Guilty pleas archived Not guilty plea Crow Prosecutio Service admiistrative staff deal with advocate file edorsemets ad distribute files to lawyers for review, as well as filig ay correspodece Crow Prosecutio Service admiistrative staff carry out ay additioal work requested by the lawyers Crow Prosecutio Service admiistrative staff: Distribute files to lawyers for review File additioal correspodece If ecessary, further actio is take by the lawyer (subject to seior lawyer advice) Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 47

54 appedix five Appedix 5 Calculatio of uit costs of hearigs 33 Uit costs Type of hearig Crow Prosecutio Service costs Defece costs Her Majesty's Courts Service costs Her Majesty's Priso Service costs Uit cost per hearig or trial Ieffective hearig Ieffective trial (trial postpoed) Cracked trial (case eds o the trial date without trial) 1, , Source: Natioal Audit Office NOTES 1 The Crow Prosecutio Service s costs are calculated usig its ow Activity Costig model which calculates that the Crow Prosecutio Service speds miutes o preparig for each ieffective hearig, multiplied by a average rate of pay for the staff ivolved. 2 Defece costs are calculated by multiplyig miutes by the rate paid uder legal aid, plus 3.90 for a extra remider letter about the ext hearig from the solicitor to the defedat. 3 The cost of a magistrate s court sittig is 3.58 per miute. From our observatios we estimate a ieffective hearig takes two miutes. Court costs are take from the Effective Trial Maagemet Programme which agreed costs with all three crimial justice agecies. 4 The Effective Trial Maagemet Programme has calculated the cost of a day i remad as The average adjourmet betwee hearigs is 23 days. Oly three per cet of defedats i magistrates courts are o remad. Oly half of remad prisoers receive a custodial setece. Additioal costs arisig from ieffective hearigs are therefore calculated as x 3% x 23 days 2, which equals Based o iformatio from the Crow Prosecutio Service Activity Based Costig model ad the Effective Trial Maagemet Programme uprated for iflatio. Defece legal aid costs are estimates based o Legal Services Commissio fees rates ad paymet structures. 48 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

55 reports listig reports by the comptroller ad auditor geeral, sessio The Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral has to date, i Sessio , preseted to the House of Commos the followig reports uder Sectio 9 of the Natioal Audit Act, The reports are listed by subject category. Cross-Govermet Publicatio date Home Office: Workig with the Third Sector HC Jue 2005 Joit Targets HC October 2005 Culture Media ad Sport Procuremet i the Culture, Media ad Sport sector HC November 2005 Defece Drivig the Successful Delivery of Major Defece Projects: HC May 2005 Effective Project Cotrol is a Key Factor i Successful Projects Maagig the Defece Estate HC May 2005 Assessig ad Reportig Military Readiess HC Jue 2005 Major Projects Report 2005 HC November 2005 Educatio Securig strategic leadership for the learig ad skills sector i Eglad HC May 2005 Extedig access to learig through techology: HC November 2005 Ufi ad the leardirect service Employers perspectives o improvig skills for employmet HC December 2005 Improvig poorly performig schools i Eglad HC Jauary 2006 Eviromet, Food ad Rural Affairs Lost i Traslatio? Respodig to the challeges of Europea law HC May 2005 Eviromet Agecy: Efficiecy i water resource maagemet HC Jue 2005 Law, Order ad Cetral Public Guardiaship Office: HC 27 8 Jue 2005 Protectig ad promotig the fiacial affairs of people who lose metal capacity Home Office: Natioal Asylum Support Service: The provisio of HC July 2005 accommodatio for asylum seekers Returig failed asylum applicats HC July 2005 Natioal Offeder Maagemet Service: HC October 2005 Dealig with icreased umbers i custody The Electroic Moitorig of Adult Offeders HC February 2006 Crow Prosecutio Service: HC February 2006 Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs 49

56 reports listig Natioal Health Service Publicatio date Iovatio i the NHS: Local Improvemet Fiace Trusts HC May 2005 The Refiacig of the Norfolk ad Norwich PFI Hospital: HC Jue 2005 how the deal ca be viewed i the light of the refiacig A Safer Place for Patiets: Learig to improve patiet safety HC November 2005 Reducig Brai Damage: Faster access to better stroke care HC November 2005 Overseas Affairs The Foreig ad Commowealth Office: HC November 2005 Cosular Services to British Natioals Public Private Partership Progress o the Chael Tuel Rail Lik HC July 2005 The Wider Markets Iitiative HC Jauary 2006 Regulatio The Office of Fair Tradig: Eforcig competitio i markets HC November 2005 The Office of Gas ad Electricity Markets: Sale of gas etworks by Natioal Grid HC February 2006 Reveue departmets Filig of Icome Tax Self Assessmet Returs HC Jue 2005 Corporatio Tax: compaies maaged by HM Reveue ad Customs Area offices HC Jauary 2006 Trasport Maitaiig ad improvig Britai s railway statios HC July 2005 The South Easter Passeger Rail Frachise HC December 2005 Work ad Pesios Gaiig ad retaiig a job: the Departmet for Work ad Pesios' HC October 2005 support for disabled people Departmet for Work ad Pesios: HC November 2005 Dealig with the complexity of the beefits system Departmet for Work ad Pesios: HC Jauary 2006 Usig leaflets to commuicate with the public about services ad etitlemets Prited i the UK for the Statioery Office Limited o behalf of the Cotroller of Her Majesty s Statioery Office / Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs

57 Layout ad productio by NAO Iformatio Cetre DG Ref: 6615VB Prited o Cosort Reew Sati cotaiig 50% recycled fibre

58 Published by TSO (The Statioery Office) ad available from: Olie Mail, Telephoe, Fax & TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephoe orders/geeral equiries Fax orders Order through the Parliametary Hotlie Lo-call [email protected] Textphoe TSO Shops 123 Kigsway, Lodo WC2B 6PQ Fax Bull Street, Birmigham B4 6AD Fax Pricess Street, Machester M60 8AS Fax Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD Fax High Street, Cardiff CF10 1PT Fax Lothia Road, Ediburgh EH3 9AZ Fax The Parliametary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliamet Square, Lodo SW1A 2JX Telephoe orders/geeral equiries Fax orders TSO Accredited Agets (see Yellow Pages) ad through good booksellers ISBN Effective use of magistrates courts hearigs A report by the Comptroller ad Auditor Geeral The Statioery Office