CPS advocacy takes a 'backwards step'

In-house Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers risk becoming deskilled because they are spending too much time on administrative tasks and not enough time in trial, according to a report.

The review by the CPS Inspectorate took place against a significant background of change for the CPS with 25 per cent budget cuts and a 32 per cent reduction in the number of crown advocates. There has also been a 20 per cent decrease in the level of crown advocate deployment.

HMCPSI chief inspector Michael Fuller said that a combination of dwindling capacity at national level and little appetite to drive the advocacy strategy forward due to office closures, a reduced workforce and financial constraints, were all partly to blame.

'Notwithstanding these difficulties, it is a concern the CPS appears to have taken a step backwards in some aspects of its delivery. The high level of external agent deployment poses a real threat to in-house prosecutors' courtroom skills,' he continued.

'This is compounded by the lack of exposure to crown court advocacy and scant opportunity to progress to crown advocacy. This means with things as they are, there will be an inevitable drop in prosecution standards in the courts. The CPS needs to evaluate its advocacy provision. With current deployment practices in CPS, it is hard to see how the most able staff can develop their careers.'

The use of external lawyers in the magistrates' courts has risen from 9.7 per cent to 25.6 per cent between 2011 and 2014. Meanwhile, the level of CPS crown prosecutors at court hearings has fallen from 58 per cent to 45 per cent during the same period.

In 2013-14, the CPS spent £7.3m employing external lawyers in the magistrates courts, compared to £3m in 2011-2012.

The CPS's use of local self-employed counsel to represent the crown in regional courts has led to fears that the careers of CPS prosecutors are becoming 'stranded' as they spend increasing amounts of time reviewing cases instead of developing their skills in court.

Value for money

Fuller added that it was vital there was a sustained focus on delivering quality prosecution advocacy and case presentation which would in turn offer value for money for the taxpayer.

The report also included evidence that only 20 per cent of CPS advocacy assessments captured high quality contested advocacy in the crown court.

Furthermore, a key failing of CPS' strategy is that it fails to explain how to monitor, measure and evaluate the success of its advocates.

Other common themes emerging from the report include poor preparation, deployment of inappropriate magistrates' court style of advocacy in the crown court, losing a jury's attention during trial, and presenting cases rather than prosecuting them.

The report also suggests that, in the crown court, there was a lack of presence, self-confidence, flair and imagination by CPS advocates, as well as examples of unstructured cross-examination techniques.

In addition, the quality of CPS cross-examination in the magistrates' courts needed improvement. Criticism was directed at prosecutors who failed to prepare properly in non-contested advocacy and did not present the case properly.

Due to limited progress being made by the CPS since its last report in 2012, the HMCPSI stand by its previous advocacy strategy recommendations.

John van der Luit-Drummond is legal reporter for Solicitors Journal
john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD