Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
23 JANUARY 1998
DAME BARBARA
MILLS, QC, and MR
F MARTIN
Chairman
1. This afternoon we are considering the
Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on the Crown Prosecution
Service. The main witness is Dame Barbara Mills, Director of Public
Prosecutions. Welcome, Dame Barbara.
(Dame Barbara Mills) Thank you very
much.
2. As you are flying solo and you have nobody
to introduce we will go straight into the questions. I will start
with paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 in the report which say that only
around half of police files meet the prescribed time guidelines
and around half meet the quality guidelines. And together, only
one third of the files meet both. The timeliness and quality of
the files that you receive can obviously clearly impact on the
speed and effectiveness with which you can process cases through
the criminal justice system. When do you expect the joint performance
management initiative to produce substantial improvements in the
timeliness and quality of police files[1]?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Well, first
of all I think it is very difficult to forecast how other people
are going to respond. Can I just say straight away that one of
the good news pieces is that we have got 41 out of 43 police forces
now running joint performance management, two more joining by
Easter, so that will be everyone. We will have the whole country
coming together. I think it is really quite a painful process
in some ways for people to go through because what you are actually
doing is exposing the fact that on agreed standards, both of quality
and timeliness, you are not meeting them. One has got to recognise
that to start with. I personally think that what we are going
to see is a gradual improvement, I do not think we are going to
see a dramatic improvement, but where we started off, for example
in Preston, we saw there an improvement of something like three
per cent cumulatively. If you get three per cent cumulatively
it really is going to make quite a big difference to us. If we
just had joint performance management in the future that is what
I would say. It is not just going to be joint performance management
because if, in fact, the Narey proposals are put in about speediness
and throughput in the courts something different is going to have
to happen.
3. I am sure a number of colleagues will
want to come back on that and I will return to one aspect of it
shortly. For the moment I will move on to paragraph 4.6 which
refers to variations in the Area rates of discontinuance, ranging
in 1996-97 from 15 per cent to nine per cent. What are you doing
to establish which Areas may have an unjustifiably high discontinuance
rate-I repeat that, "unjustifiably high" rate-to determine
the underlying causes and to reduce the rate to a more acceptable
level?
(Dame Barbara Mills) What we are
doing is getting the figures on a branch by branch basis. I am
sure the Committee understands that at the moment we are in quite
a state of flux on general structure and reorganisation. If we
can get those figures on a branch by branch basis then we can
look at them much more closely and find out what exactly is going
on. Again, it is very much influenced by the work that comes in
to us. If, for example, one police force has a major policy of
caution for one sort of offence and another one does not then
you are going to get a difference. I agree with you, I think the
differential is too big and we need to examine why. Also it will
be addressed through the joint performance management[2].
I do not want to make that sound as if it is the absolute be all
and end all of everything but it does actually look at this. You
can look at it on a type of case basis to see where the problems
lie.
4. I move on again to figure 8 which shows
that since 1994 the number of lawyers in post has been falling,
and I note your estimate in paragraph 2.20 that the planned level
of staff in 1997-98 will be six per cent below that in 1996-97.
Concern has been expressed that resources at branch level are
increasingly stretched, indeed some will be cruel enough to say
some of these cuts are more at the sharp end than otherwise. How
are you managing these reductions in staff numbers to ensure that
performance, especially in the delivery of the service at the
local level, is not adversely affected?
(Dame Barbara Mills) A number of
features here. The fact is that all Government departments, or
most of them, are actually having their budgets cut and we have
got to manage more efficiently. There are a number of ways in
which you can do that. First of all, you can manage more efficiently
because you get the work coming in more on time and in a better
state, that is joint performance management. Secondly, you look
at the other side of doing our job and look at the courts: what
is the court listing practice, how can we help to work with that
more efficiently because you can waste an awful lot of lawyers'
time by inefficient court listing practices. We deal with that
again at a local level and talk to them. As far as the actual
organisation is concerned what you do is you make sure that the
money and the resources are targeted at the branches. If I might
say so, over this period we have in fact had an increase in the
conviction rate. I do not think it is the be all and end all,
we have had an increase in the contested cases and the convictions
we have obtained. I think you can see we are actually managing
reasonably well although I accept when I go out to the branches,
and I do that very regularly, you can see that the lawyers in
particular are not there as often as they used to be, they have
got to do more sessions in court.
5. The next question is somewhat topical
given the report at the end of last week. The report identifies
a serious problem with briefs being returned by counsel, this
is paragraphs 6.19 to 6.21. Your survey of over 400 cases at nine
court centres where you had experienced particular problems found
that threequarters of briefs were being returned. And in a third
of these cases, the counsel subsequently appointed was judged
to have been of inappropriate quality, which I take to mean inadequate
quality. I note that you do not routinely collect data on the
extent of this problem. I have a number of questions about this
but what action are you taking to identify and reduce the level
of returned briefs [3]
and particularly collecting data in the first instance?
(Dame Barbara Mills) As of today
we are, in fact, monitoring what goes on in all sets of chambers
on a monthly basis. They will be making returns to us of the briefs
that have been returned with reasons as to why they were returned.
I think that is the best step forward. I think that it will be
very important for us to analyse why these briefs have been returned.
I speak as a member of the Bar, as I was, so I know quite a lot
about it. It is not always the chambers' fault, it is sometimes
a problem with listing or a case that has overrun or a witness
who was not available so the case has had to be adjourned for
a day or two. I think that will give us what we need to have which
is proper figures where we can then do benchmarking between chambers
because I do not accept that one set of chambers ought to have
a much higher return rate than another unless there are factors
which are quite different. That is what we are doing. We would
have introduced it a bit earlier but the Bar was not quite ready
to be up and running and we did not want to start it with some
sets and not with others. That is why we started it yesterday,
or rather today.
6. It literally started today?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Yes, literally
today.
7. I wondered whether that was a term of
art or whether you literally meant today.
(Dame Barbara Mills) No, literally
today. It says 1 February but it actually means today.
8. That information or that survey implies
in the courts that a quarter of cases overall were not prosecuted
to a proper standard which presumably means that guilty people
had a better chance of getting off scot-free?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Yes, except
the figures show differently and I am a great believer in actually
looking at the figures. I think it is not just a question of convictions.
We do not measure everything just on conviction and acquittals,
that is far too simple and sometimes I think a slightly misleading
way of looking at something. You are talking also about the calibre
of the person prosecuting the case because it is very important
we have someone, for example in child abuse cases, who has the
right, sympathetic, proper approach to the types of problems they
are dealing with. We may have to take someone at a short notice
return who has not got that sort of approach. It is not just legal
experience, date called and so on, there is much more to it than
that. We want to choose our barristers, not to be told who we
are having.
9. Nevertheless at the end of the day, Dame
Barbara, your job is to prosecute and hopefully to get the guilty
convicted.
(Dame Barbara Mills) Yes, we want
to get the guilty convicted certainly but there is much more to
it than that. There is something called fairness, proper presentation,
and all sorts of things.
10. I am sure there will be plenty who will
want to come back on those issues. Can I just put one question
to you on this and that is is there a single or a small number
of changes that you can foresee could actually help you solve
this problem? I know you are monitoring more carefully but are
there any particular issues that could be resolved or changed
to help you solve that problem?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Yes, there
are a lot of things but it is really a package. Having listing
which pays a bit more attention to the prosecuting counsel. Listing
is a very difficult job and I do not want to be critical but the
fact is defence counsel tend to get more consideration if they
have got a clash than we do with prosecuting counsel. I can see
the argument behind that, which is defence counsel has met the
client, but it is sometimes a bit awkward for us. Secondly, there
is a question of what fees we can pay. Some of these returns are
undoubtedly fee-related. I am sure you have noticed that there
is a disparity these days between the fees that we can pay and
the fees that legal aid pay. I have to say that there is very
little private-paid work in this sort of line. So those two things
taken together would help a great deal.
11. As I say, I am sure others will come
back on those points because they clearly are of some significance.
Now, Appendix 5 on page 86 illustrates the variations in area
performance against your timeliness targets for case preparation.
I said I would come back to this issue. What are you doing to
work with poorly performing areas to identify the reasons for
poor results and to help them improve their performance? You might
want to mention Glidewell in passing.
(Dame Barbara Mills) I do not want
to keep on mentioning Glidewell, but this is obviously an important
feature of our lives at the moment. I think the answer is that
we are 42 areas at the moment, with a small "a", and
I think that what we are going to be able to do is again to do
the family groupings referred to, look at this, see why it is
that some similar areas do better than others, and "What
is your problem?" I think is the big question and, having
isolated what the problem is, because you have got to do that,
then see what we can do to help. But I think it is going to be
a very interesting and difficult balance, which I would like to
draw to this Committee's attention, between the extent to which
headquarters is involved in this and the role of the 42 areas,
to what extent is this the responsibility of the 42 areas and
to what extent can headquarters help and give guidance, and I
think that is something we are going to have to work out very
carefully and also in the context of my responsibilities as accounting
officer.
12. I see that other criminal justice agencies,
including the police and the magistrates' courts, have fully independent
external inspectorates, but that your Inspectorate is internal
to the CPS. The reference to this is paragraph 3.27. Do you intend
to bring your Inspectorate into line and enhance public confidence
by having it fully independent and separate from the CPS?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Dare I say
Glidewell, but add to this the Attorney General. I think that,
without wanting to split hairs, it is very important to find out
what the word "independent" means here and also to realise
that our Inspectorate does something which no other inspectorate
does. Our Inspectorate inspects the quality of the decision-making.
It does not inspect how many cases we deal with, it does not inspect
the facilities and the branches or anything like that, but it
is exclusively directed towards the quality of decision-making,
with the ancillary things that come in, such as, has the Code
been properly followed, has the timeliness guideline been followed
and so on, so it is very different from the others. To answer
your question, I think it is very important that we always have
within our Inspectorate, whatever structure it has, to whomever
it reports, people who can judge that properly, lawyers, experienced
prosecutors, wherever they come from. Should it be independent
in the sense that it does not report to me, so that I do not deal
with its pay and rations, then that, I think, is an issue which
Sir Iain Glidewell is going to look at and I am sure the Attorney
General will, but, if I might say so, in your press release which
proposed that it should report to the Attorney General rather
than to me, I have no problems with that at all. I do not know
if he has because I have not discussed it with him, but I have
got no problems with it. What I do want to have is I do not want
to lose what we have got already which I think is tremendously
important, the ability to judge the quality of the decision-making
because I have to say I come back to my point that convictions
and acquittals are not the be-all and end-all, but it is important
to get that right as well.
13. I have a feeling of a gently returned
lob there, but we may well return to that. My final question for
you, we always have a tradition in this Committee of this sort
of question: I note that in 1989 your predecessor told this Committee
that the CPS estimated that the new case-tracking computer system
would be implemented by 1993/94, but that by September 1997 it
had been introduced in only just over half of your branches, which
is in paragraph 2.25. When do you now expect to have a standard
system operating throughout the CPS?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Can I answer
that question in a slightly different way?
14. I cannot say I am surprised.
(Dame Barbara Mills) It is not that
I am dodging it, but the answer I would give would not really
deal with the problem you are raising. This has not been one of
our success stories, let us be frank about it, and I wish I could
come here and say I have a very good, very efficient, well-functioning
computer system throughout the Service. I do not, but that is
what I want to have. Now, the situation has been that SCOPE, as
it is called, as you know, has taken longer and has cost more
and I dare say that this Committee have heard that before. Why?
I think that probably there are a variety of reasons and I am
sure other people will want to ask me about it, so I will not
go into those in detail, but for the future what we have decided,
and we decided this in December after this report was published,
was that really going on with SCOPE and putting it into all the
other branches (it is in 53 out of 96 [4]
at the moment) was pointless. It is an old-fashioned system, it
does not have the flexibility that we need nowadays, we are into
a completely different world in IT from the world of 1989-90 when
it was designed and so on, we are into e-mail, we are into the
Internet and it is something not even thought of in those years,
so, to answer your question, what we are now going to do is to
go for PFI [5]
initiative and we have already started on that and we have cut
off SCOPE, we are not doing any more with that except to update
it and deal with the year 2000 problem which we have all got as
well, so the costs will not be as substantial as you have in this
report because our decision was taken after that. Our costs now
will be somewhere in the region of £10 million as opposed
to the figures put in the report, but I am not arguing with the
report because this decision was taken afterwards.
Chairman: I am sure others will return
to it and I will probably ask you again at the end for a note
on it[6].
I must admit, I am rather fearful when you talk about the Internet
because I hope we will not have our judgments over the Internet
in the future.
Mr Clifton-Brown
15. Could I ask you, firstly, in paragraph
2.22, it deals with the introduction of integrated teams of prosecutors
and case-workers, the so-called "team working".
(Dame Barbara Mills) Yes.
16. What benchmarking has been done to assess
whether this approach is more cost-effective than the old model?
(Dame Barbara Mills) I do not think
we have done proper benchmarking yet because, to my way of thinking,
proper benchmarking means that you look at all the costs of exactly
what has happened, but what we can say without a doubt, and we
are heavily into this now, activity-based costings and so on which
you no doubt see in the report, what we can undoubtedly say is
that unless we had done what we did, we simply could not have
survived the changes and the cut-backs that we have had over the
last two or three years because what we have done is to work much
more efficiently and I assume you know the previous system, do
you, or would it be tedious to explain the big differences we
have done?
17. Very briefly.
(Dame Barbara Mills) Okay, very
briefly. We used to have cases dealt with up to committal stage,
that is when they go to the Crown Court, by the lawyers who then
at that point bowed out altogether and the case went to the case-workers,
or the law clerks as they were then called, papers were ripped
up, you start all over again, and lawyers had absolutely no input
in the Crown Court at all. That would have been completely disastrous
if we had gone on like that because, apart from anything else,
the law has changed yet again and cases will go directly to the
Crown Courts and we have got to have lawyer involvement, so I
think the answer to your question is it is difficult to cost it
precisely, but there is no doubt that we could not have managed
if we had not done it.
18. As I understand it, that is the reason
why your computer program ran into difficulties, because you introduced
this system.
(Dame Barbara Mills) One of the
reasons.
19. Given, you say, that it is absolutely
essential that you introduce this team working, why have you not
put a stop to your existing computer program quicker than you
have done and what is the present state of play with your existing
computer program? Have you put a stop to it pending using the
new PFI initiative?
(Dame Barbara Mills) Why did we
not stop our computer program dead? I do not think we had honestly
realised at that stage that team working was going to cause us
that amount of upheaval to the computer program. I think we also
under-estimated the skills of our staff on computer literacy and
also, do not forget, we were more or less simultaneously hit by
some very substantial changes in the law which meant that the
program had to be changed. For example, custody time limits were
coming in at the same sort of time, so I agree, it should have
been done better. I have got no problems with that. It was not
and the big question now is, "How do you get out of this
particular difficulty?" As I said to the Chairman just now,
we decided in December, we took a very tough decision in December
because we could have gone on and said, "We are going to
put case-tracking into all these various other branches, bring
them up to that", but we decided that this was wrong, that
this was a waste of money, a waste of effort and we just had to
go off on a different tack. Now, whoever is the Director of Public
Prosecutions in whatever year it comes back to you, I am sure
will have the same sort of questions down the line because these
are difficult decisions to make. I rather agree with you. I rather
wish we had made it a little bit earlier, but we have still got
the year 2000 problem which is hitting everyone which we have
got to sort out as well.
1 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 32 (PAC 238). Back
2
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 2, page 32 (PAC 238). Back
3
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 30 (PAC 238). Back
4
Note by Witness: The figure should, in fact, be 93. Back
5
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 30 (PAC 203). Back
6
Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 30 (PAC 203). Back
|
