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is outdated.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
| 
