| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The Attorney-General was asked--
Crown Prosecution Service
28. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): What recent representations he has received about the efficiency of the CPS. [80373]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): There is a continuing interest in the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General and I regularly receive inquiries from people--including hon. Members--about the service. The Glidewell report on the CPS made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of the service. Additionally, the Government decided to restructure the CPS into 42 geographical areas to improve efficiency and accountability. The CPS is making good progress in considering and implementing the recommendations. Additionally, recently, the new 42 chief Crown prosecutors were appointed to take forward the changes.
Mr. Amess: Although I readily accept that there is much praise for the work of the Crown Prosecution Service from certain quarters, is the Solicitor-General aware that an increasing number of my constituents are complaining about the time that the CPS is taking to examine cases? In addition, there is no information as to how investigations are proceeding. Is the Solicitor- General prepared to say that when many of the cases are ultimately dropped, justice is being sacrificed because Her Majesty's Government simply are not putting enough money into the staffing of the bureaucracy that is necessary to deliver the services offered by the CPS?
The Solicitor-General: On the whole, cases moves quickly through the CPS. However, the hon. Gentleman
has a valid point in relation to the handling of victims and the relations of victims. Sir Iain Glidewell made a specific recommendation about that--one of a handful of recommendations on which we have not yet reached a final decision. We have accepted the principle that the matter must be dealt with much more thoroughly.
The Government's paper "Speaking up for Justice" contains a number of recommendations about how victims, relatives of victims and witnesses should be better informed. The legislative aspects of that are being taken forward in the Access to Justice Bill.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford):
The new chief Crown prosecutor for the Staffordshire office has introduced himself to me, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the work of his office. Now that we have the aligned boundaries between the CPS and the police, can the Solicitor-General tell me what improvements in performance my constituents and I can expect?
The Solicitor-General:
All hon. Members should have received letters from chief Crown prosecutors in their area, and I would encourage them to make contact with them. CCPs now have greater autonomy in their areas. In addition, the areas are coterminous with the police authorities, so there should be more efficient operation of both the CPS and the police.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
We, too, welcome the 42 new chief Crown prosecutors. Does the Solicitor-General recognise that the business of putting them in post has taken almost twice as long as was first announced in May 1997, when the Attorney-General came to office?
Is there not a further example of the sluggishness that affects so many Departments in what is happening with electronic mail? I saw successful e-mail pilots in Ipswich three years ago. The new strategic plan for the criminal justice system proudly mentions that Stockport is the first police force to have such a pilot and that it is hoped in due course to have pilots working between courts, the CPS and the police. As we had successful pilots so long ago, is not that yet another example of sluggishness, as opposed to the Government's hype? When will all CPS areas be in e-mail contact with their courts and police stations, which is not a very complicated matter?
The Solicitor-General:
We have been in power for less than two years. We have acted quickly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office for a long time. As soon as we took office we appointed Sir Iain Glidewell to review the CPS. It was only proper that he should consider it carefully, and his report has been widely commended. We are now acting on it. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) a moment ago, a decision has been reached on all but a handful of the recommendations.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the use of electronic sources to further efficiency. That is being implemented. He has seen the operation of e-mail pilots in Stockport; I have seen it in Durham, and I know that it exists in other places as well.
29. Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest):
What steps he is taking regarding the appointment of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government. [80374]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston):
Following the implementation of his new appointment procedures, in accordance with which the vacancies are widely advertised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently appointed 48 junior counsel to the Crown C panel. An advertisement inviting applications for the London A and B panels was placed last month, and he will make new appointments to those panels in the summer. Appointments to the provincial panel are expected before the end of the year.
Mr. Lock:
I declare an interest as a former practising barrister who is still a door tenant in chambers, although my duties in the House and to my constituents prevent my practising. Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the advances that have been made in the legal world, and especially in the Bar outside London, in the past 15 years? Will he ensure that the new openness, which is extremely welcome, will be reflected in the appointment of more barristers to do Government legal work outside the Inns of Court and the hallowed Temple, who live perhaps more in the real world, in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds?
The Solicitor-General:
It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not able to apply for a position on the panel. The new procedure attracted a large number of exceptionally good applicants, and we have made some very good appointment. It was important to open up the procedure and make it transparent.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the appointments of counsel in the provinces. As I said, we are in the process of advertising for that panel as well.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Can the Solicitor- General confirm that all appointments of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government are determined strictly by market testing, overseen by officials, and that, beyond giving the formal seal of approval or imprimatur to the winners, there is no other ministerial involvement?
The Solicitor-General:
I can certainly give that assurance. The decisions were made by a panel appointed by the Attorney-General, but neither he nor I had any involvement in the process.
30. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
If he will ensure that debriefing sessions take place between the CPS and the barristers it instructs following acquittals where the pre-trial assessment by the CPS pointed to a high likelihood of conviction. [80376]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston):
Such cases should always be considered carefully so that the reasons for the acquittal can be established. In some cases the reasons are clear. Where they are not, the Crown Prosecution Service is sympathetic to holding such
Mr. Prentice:
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but debriefing sessions should happen as a matter of course when a case comes to court and the police, the CPS and everyone else have a clear expectation that the jury will bring in a verdict of guilty. The Solicitor-General knows of the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, whose son Lee was killed in a road accident in Staffordshire in 1997. Seven young men were packed into a car that went whizzing down the motorway at 120 mph. The driver was inexplicably found not guilty by the jury. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, cannot fathom why the CPS in Stafford did not hold a debriefing session with the prosecuting counsel. If that were done as a matter of course, it would inform research into why juries bring in the verdicts that they do.
The Solicitor-General:
I am aware of the very sad case to which my hon. Friend referred. Juries sometimes come to inexplicable conclusions, as anyone who has been involved with jury trials knows. That does not mean that the jury was wrong, or that it was wrong for the CPS to bring the case. It is simply the nature of the process. Juries can come to unexpected conclusions.
There is a good case for debriefing on a regular basis. The CPS has entered into discussions with the Bar Council about how that can be done routinely so as to provide key information to the people involved.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
I support the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), especially with regard to the quality of the prosecution barristers. A constituent of mine who was a witness in a case feels that she was ripped apart with irrelevant questions about her personal life when she was giving evidence against someone. She was not defended by the prosecution lawyer, and the case was subsequently lost. The quality of the people employed seems to be appalling. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?
The Solicitor-General:
I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he writes to me, I shall
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |