Select Committee on Public Accounts Sixty-First Report


2  Modernising the Crown Prosecution Service

8. The Crown Prosecution Service lacks a time recording system and relies instead on a system of activity based costing, which is used primarily to allocate funding to its area offices according to the number of cases processed and the amount of work undertaken in previous years. In the absence of a time recording system, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot be sure that it has the right mix of legal, caseworker and administrative staff. Such systems are commonplace in commercial firms and their absence makes it difficult to monitor the flexible working systems the Crown Prosecution Service has in place. The development and introduction of an appropriate time recording system for Crown Prosecution Service staff, in line with those operated in the private sector, is long overdue.[9]

9. Having procured and implemented an electronic case management system (COMPASS) at a cost of £300 million over ten years, the Crown Prosecution Service has yet to make full use of the system's capabilities. Staff failure to update the information held in the system on file location results in files being mislaid, and correspondence being misfiled or sent to the wrong address. Difficulties with the introduction of the magistrates' courts computer system (LIBRA) have meant that the Crown Prosecution Service will not be able to integrate COMPASS with LIBRA for at least another year, reducing its usage and effectiveness.

10. Duplication of work and transcription errors result from lawyers making hand-written file notes at court, which are subsequently entered into COMPASS by administrative staff. The Crown Prosecution Service agreed that it still had an old-fashioned culture and is lagging behind the Procurator Fiscal's office in Scotland, who issue their lawyers with handheld mobile devices, combining mobile telephone, e-mail and organiser in one unit, so that they can maintain contact with their offices.[10] Deployment of similar technology by the Crown Prosecution Service would eliminate duplication and realise financial savings.[11]

11. Equipment in use at Crown Prosecution Service offices and at courts for viewing closed circuit television evidence is outdated. This is being addressed gradually in magistrates' courts and by March 2007, seven in ten courts will be equipped with DVD facilities. But the current lack of facilities in the Crown Prosecution Service and in the courts causes difficulty in reviewing evidence prior to hearings and exhibiting the evidence at trial. Delays could be reduced by making greater use of DVD technology, which is relatively inexpensive, for example by equipping each Crown Prosecution Service office and magistrates' court with a DVD player on which to review and present evidence.[12]

12. An additional problem with viewing closed circuit television evidence has been the wide range of formats in which it is recorded, which causes problems in transferring the information to court. Translating this evidence onto a DVD that can be played in court is expensive, which may preclude its use in minor cases such as a punch-up outside a pub caught on closed circuit television, where the cost and added value of playing the evidence in court may not be justified. Engaging with the industry and other users to discuss the scope for adopting a national standard for closed circuit television formats would help the Crown Prosecution Service and the police develop more effective use of closed circuit television footage in court.[13]

13. Since the introduction of casework review in April 2003, there has been no mandatory requirement for Crown Prosecution Service offices to carry out monthly reviews. As a result, casework quality review is patchy and the Crown Prosecution Service is discussing with Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate how it might operate a more comprehensive scheme. Casework review is an essential aspect of delivering a consistent, equitable and professional service, particularly if a risk based approach to quality assurance were adopted, focussing on cases that were more likely to experience delays, and identifying lessons learned for periodical dissemination to staff.[14]


9   Qq 11, 154 Back

10   Qq 88-90 Back

11   C&AG's Report, para 2.20  Back

12   Qq 107-110 Back

13   Q 111 Back

14   Q 12 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 19 October 2006