3 Joint working within the criminal
justice system
14. Under the charging initiative, Crown Prosecution
Service lawyers now have early contact with the police and are
responsible for deciding what charge should be brought, so that
there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecution. Since
the initiative was introduced, the number of discontinuances has
declined. The effectiveness of the initiative will be hindered,
however, if the Crown Prosecution Service does not work with the
police to improve evidence gathering so that those cases charged
have the necessary evidence when they reach court. Figure 3
shows that 44% of prosecution delays were caused by the Crown
Prosecution Service not having the evidence to proceed with a
hearing. These difficulties need to be addressed as a matter of
urgency if the charging initiative, rolled out nationally from
April 2006, is to deliver better communication and evidence collection.[15]
Figure
3: Insufficient evidence is the most common cause of prosecution
delays
Source: National Audit Office
15. Greater co-operation is needed between the Crown
Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Courts Service to reduce
the number of ineffective hearings and to make better use of court
and prosecutors' time. Switching cases between courts at short
notice results in a last-minute change of prosecutor, reducing
the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service's case preparation
and increasing the risk of an ineffective hearing. Greater co-operation
between the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Courts
Service on courts listings would help mitigate these risks. In
addition, the Crown Prosecution Service has increased the number
of specially trained designated caseworkers available to review
and present straightforward cases requiring no legal input in
the magistrates' courts. More effective grouping of such cases
through improved joint working with Her Majesty's Courts Service
would deliver financial efficiencies and release lawyers to manage
the more complex cases. Twenty four hour courts, where those arrested
for minor offences could be dealt with quickly, would make better
use of court and prosecutors' time.[16]
16. In areas where a Crown Prosecution Service case
progression officer has been appointed to work closely with the
court's case progression officer, there have been fewer ineffective
hearings and improved communication, bringing benefits to both
organisations. At Trafford Court in Sale, co-operation and joint
working by the case progression officers identified cases requiring
more work up to fourteen days before a trial was due to start,
reducing the number of trials delayed by incomplete evidence.
A review of District Judges and magistrates in 2001 has already
established that District Judges have a particular suitability
for dealing with pre- trial reviews and case management. Increased
use of District Judges, particularly in city areas, could also
speed up the delivery of summary justice.[17]
17. Earlier discussion between prosecutors and the
defence about the readiness of cases for hearings and trials would
help to reduce the number of unnecessary hearings by encouraging
early guilty pleas. The Crown Prosecution Service was of the view
that the current Legal Aid fee structure does not encourage early
guilty pleas and pointed to the experience in Scotland of increasing
the number of early guilty pleas by introducing a fixed fee irrespective
of whether there was a trial or the defendant pleaded guilty.[18]
Nor is it known how many defendants are unrepresented at magistrates'
courts or the effect that this has on case progression.
18. Lawyers spend a significant proportion of time
at court, and it can be very difficult for the police, courts
and defence solicitors to contact the lawyer responsible for a
case. Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are not issued with pagers,
and more use could be made of everyday technology to maintain
contact, such as answering machines and email. Allocating cases
to smaller teams and nominating a member of the team to deal with
queries would help to improve communications.
19. Obtaining medical statements from hospitals is
a difficult and time-consuming process. To reduce delays, some
Crown Prosecution Service areas have entered into protocols with
local hospitals, which have helped reduce delays. This practice
should be extended by negotiation of a national protocol with
the National Health Service.[19]
15 C&AG's Report, para 2.21; Q 8 Back
16
Q 21 Back
17
Qq 174; Treasury response to the 22nd Report from the
Committee of Public Accounts, Facing Justice: tackling defendants'
non-attendance at court (HC 103, Session 2004-05); C&AG's
Report, Table 27 Back
18
Qq 68, 127 Back
19
Q 35 Back
| 
