Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
37-39)
TIM GODWIN,
CATHERINE LEE
AND JOHN
KENNEDY
20 JANUARY 2009
Chairman: I now welcome Tim Godwin of
ACPO, Catherine Lee, director of delivery and communications,
and John Kennedy, head of local delivery—I will not speculate
as to what those terms convey—of the Office for Criminal
Justice Reform. I ask Julie Morgan to begin.
Julie Morgan: Tim Godwin, how would you
describe the relationship between the police and the CPS?
Q37 Chairman: I did say that the
witnesses could make introductory statements. Tim Godwin, you
may wish to answer that question in your introductory statement.
Tim Godwin: From my personal perspective,
I am currently chair of the London Criminal Justice Board and
chair of ACPO's Criminal Justice Board in addition to my role
in the Met. Five years ago the relationship with the CPS and the
other justice agencies was pretty poor. There was no consensus
about data; each collected its own. As a result there was no real
consensus about what problems and issues confronted the criminal
justice process across all the collaborative agencies. Criminal
justice boards were formed. The Office for Criminal Justice Reform
was formed. As a result there was far more collaboration and joint
understanding. I think the first journey was to get the data sets
right so we could understand the issues, the performance challenges
and problems. We have now progressed to the point where the vast
majority of local criminal justice boards will start to plan collaboratively
how to achieve common objectives. The relationship with the CPS
as we speak now is one that I would call a prosecution team. Certainly,
a significant amount of joint work is going on to reduce bureaucracy,
streamline processes and reduce cost through integrated prosecution
teams and the development of virtual courts. All those things
drive efficiencies but at the same time improve our effectiveness.
In that sense we have a very good relationship at the strategic
level nationally and, in the vast majority of cases, at local
level. It would be disingenuous of me to say there is not the
occasional rub in the police station where a charging decision
may be perceived by the police to be appropriate but is regarded
by the CPS as inappropriate. There are issues to be resolved about
how we access charging decisions et cetera, but there is great
willingness for the two agencies to work together to resolve those
problems. I am pretty confident that it is a good working relationship.
Chairman: I suggest that for a moment
we concentrate on the police and CPS relationship and we then
go on to the local criminal justice boards when I shall invite
Catherine Lee or John Kennedy to give a brief overview from the
point of view of their organisation.
Q38 Julie Morgan: Would you like
to see any changes to the current procedure?
Tim Godwin: The change we are
looking for is a change to the charging process which has emerged
from the joint HMIC and HMCPSI report on charging. It is probably
the biggest issue between the two agencies because up to now it
operates a bit like a doctor's surgery. Sixty per cent of charging
decisions still remain with the police, but for more serious cases—actual
bodily harm and above—we have to refer the matter to the
CPS. That means making an appointment and waiting your turn et
cetera when in reality we should be able to access those services
24/7 when we are ready to charge.
Q39 Chairman: Are you saying it happens
because a lot of charging takes place outside office hours?
Tim Godwin: Yes.
| 
