2 Appointment of a new Chief Inspector
of the Crown Prosecution Service
Background
3. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
was established on a non-statutory basis on 1 April 1999 and on
a statutory basis on 1 October 2000 with the coming into force
of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000. It had
its origins prior to this as an internal unit of the Crown Prosecution
Service. The responsibilities of the Chief Inspector are set out
in the Act in broad terms as follows:
"The Chief Inspector shall—
a) inspect or arrange for the inspection of
the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service,
b) report to the Attorney General on any matter
connected with the operation of the Service which the Attorney
General refers to him, and
c) submit an annual report to the Attorney General
on the operation of the Service."
4. The Attorney General's Office described the
organisation as: "the independent Inspectorate for the Crown
Prosecution Service, the principal prosecuting authority for criminal
cases in England and Wales. Its purpose is to enhance the quality
of justice through independent inspection and assessment of prosecution
services, and in so doing, improve their effectiveness and efficiency."[4]
Appointment, tenure and terms
5. The Chief Inspector is appointed by the Attorney
General. The Attorney General wrote to us to say: "The candidate
will be informed that they are the preferred candidate, that the
post is subject to a pre appointment hearing and that the Attorney
General will not make a formal appointment until she has had an
opportunity to consider your Committee's report."
6. The appointment is for a five year fixed term
on a salary between £120,000 and £180,000 per annum
(the available information noted that it was anticipated that
the salary will be towards the lower/mid point of this range).
The agreed salary would be fixed for the term with no increments.
There was a notice period of 3 months for any reason (not just
performance related). There was no pension offered with this appointment.
The successful candidate would enjoy 30 days' annual leave plus
public holidays and sickness absence arrangements in line with
Civil Service policy. The terms and conditions for the post refer
to 'annual appraisal' and we believe that this should be spelt
out in advance as including a response to feedback from stakeholders
and peer review, preferably undertaken by one or two individuals
with current or recent experience of equivalent inspectorate roles.
Responsibilities
7. HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution
Service is an independent statutory office-holder reporting to
the Attorney General as the Minister responsible for superintendence
of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Chief Inspector's role includes
managing some 45 permanent staff, located in London and York,
and an annual budget of £3.788 million.
8. The principal elements of the role were described
by the Attorney General's Office as including:
- leading and developing an independent,
robust, creative and innovative Inspectorate whose work enhances
public confidence in prosecution services;
- enabling the Inspectorate to respond to changes
in the criminal justice landscape and help raise the overall standard
of prosecutorial practice and prosecution service delivery;
- leading the identification of strategic thematic
areas for improvement and offer inspected organisations advice
and support on key areas for development;
- working with and engaging a wide range of key
stakeholders across the wider criminal justice arena to improve
the overall quality and standards of prosecution and delivery
of increasingly effective and efficient prosecution services to
the public;
- increasing public awareness of prosecution services,
and enhancing the brand and reputation of both the Inspectorate
and the prosecution services; and
- delivering geographical and joint thematic Inspections
working with other key inspectorates to improve consistency of
standards and the sharing of best practice.
The candidate
9. The preferred candidate, Mr Michael Fuller,
QPM, BA, MBA, HonLLD, is a career policeman having joined the
Metropolitan Police Service as a cadet in 1975. He has served
in a wide variety of uniformed and CID positions throughout London,
with postings at New Scotland Yard including Special Branch, and
a two-year secondment to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. He has
been Chief Constable of Kent since 5 January 2004 (see Annex A
for more details).
10. Mr Fuller clearly has professional experience
indicative of his suitability to be a candidate for the role of
HM Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, including:
familiarity with the criminal justice landscape; experience of
the work of the Crown Prosecution Service from the perspective
of a serving police officer and lead investigator; experience
of both being inspected and the conduct of inspection; management
of a variety of offices, functions and organisations; and training
and qualification for the Bar.
The candidate's approach
INDEPENDENCE
11. Mr Fuller recognised that the Inspectorate
needs to be a fully independent operation, saying that this was
"essential". He described independence as a prerequisite
of the objective scrutiny that the Attorney General, the Director
of Public Prosecutions and Parliament requires of the inspection
process. Furthermore, he suggested that it is firmly in the best
interests of the Director of Public Prosecutions to have an "honest"
external voice that can determine and declare when new initiatives
are not working, or are not working as intended. We welcome this
approach.[5]
12. The independence of the inspection function,
and its unequivocal perception as such, is crucial for the conduct
of objective scrutiny, and for public confidence in the service.
We note that "annual appraisal" appears amongst the
terms and conditions for the appointment and we believe that the
process of assessing the performance of the Inspectorate should
include a review of feedback from stakeholders and periodic peer
review, preferably by one or more individuals with current or
recent experience of an equivalent inspectorate role.
EXPERIENCE
13. We raised three issues with Mr Fuller in
respect of his past experience in order to explore whether it
has any bearing on his new role, or perceptions of that role.
14. First, we asked Mr Fuller whether he felt
the historically close relationship between police and prosecution
services could make his potential appointment as Crown Prosecution
Service inspector appear rather incestuous. Mr Fuller replied:
"I would reject that." He added: "Close working
[between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service] has led
to greater efficiency. The decision-making has always been independent
and that has been clear on both sides".[6]
15. Mr Fuller continued:
I think that the public would see me as somebody
who would bring independence and objective scrutiny where it is
needed and I think that is important. The public would be looking
for quality assurance. I am somebody who has clearly got the professional
knowledge and I think you need a certain degree of knowledge of
the CPS and how they work and, more important, the rubbing points.
I think I would be better placed having worked closely with them
and seen those rubbing points firsthand to be able to make recommendations
that are credible.[7]
16. Mr Fuller also emphasised the importance
of due process:
For me it is about delivering justice, so if there
is not sufficient evidence to prosecute somebody it is important
that they are not prosecuted and we do not waste resources. At
the end of the day we seek to deliver justice. As a cop, when
I first started I would have said it was 'getting people convicted'
but you cannot do that at all costs, there needs to be due process.
Nobody wants wrongful convictions, but we also do not want the
guilty people to go free through want of efficiency or want of
preparation. For me, it is about delivering justice and ensuring
that those people and organisations within the system recognise
the fact that they are interdependent and have got to work together
to secure efficient delivery of justice.[8]
17. Second, we asked Mr Fuller whether he felt
that his experience of the court environment was sufficient for
him to be confident about making decisions about the quality of
the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service operated in court
and the quality of the lawyers engaged in prosecution advocacy
and the presentation of cases. Mr Fuller said that there were
judgements that he would not necessarily make himself but would
delegate to credible specialists who commanded the confidence
of those they were inspecting. He drew an analogy with police
investigation work where there were many areas where a similar
approach was required and where specialists were called in to
conduct particular assessments. He emphasised his experience of
managing and running organisations with similar demands for multi-disciplinary
activity.[9]
18. Third, we asked Mr Fuller about his previous
comments about the inspection process as it affected the police.
In response, Mr Fuller referred to the 11 inspectorates which
were involved in scrutinising various aspects of police performance.
He acknowledged that "critical and close scrutiny" was
"right" but said he had been frustrated by the lack
of coordination on practical aspects that led to repetitious basic
information gathering and presentation; by conflicting recommendations
from different bodies; and by the fact that the cost implications
of recommendations were often not estimated. Nevertheless, he
identified increased accountability, the identification and sharing
of best practice and the detection of under-performance as the
key benefits of effective inspection.[10]
Overall
19. Mr Fuller identified a tight public expenditure
environment as the key challenge for the future. Mr Fuller pointed
to a more risk-based approach—focusing on under-performers
rather than examining every area—as one way of stretching
scarce resources cost-effectively.[11]
Mr Wooler, the current Chief Inspector, had indicated that this
was the direction of travel of Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution
Service Inspectorate but it depended on robust management information
gathered by Crown Prosecution Service at the centre.[12]
Mr Fuller also referred to his experience in Kent of increasing
the efficiency of backroom operations to free up a larger proportion
of resources for frontline and core work.[13]
Conclusion
20. We considered whether there is an argument
in principle against appointing a senior police officer as HM
Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; but we have
also taken account of Mr Fuller's personal qualities and the undesirability
of unduly restricting the field from which the Chief Inspector
can be recruited. Our conclusion is that we endorse Mr Michael
Fuller's suitability for appointment as HM Chief Inspector of
the Crown Prosecution Service. We also endorse his preliminary
view of the character and priorities of his role and that of the
Inspectorate. We welcome his grasp of the need for independence,
specialist expertise where necessary and for an understanding
of the criminal justice system as a whole. We expect him to call
upon all his experience—as a leader, manager and innovator
as well as a police officer—in pursuing his new responsibilities.
21. We look forward to a continuing dialogue
on progress in the way in which the Inspectorate carries out monitoring,
assessment and, where necessary, driving of improvements in Crown
Prosecution Service performance. We drew the attention of Mr Fuller
to this Committee's view that the Criminal Justice System needs
to focus on reducing the extent and seriousness of re-offending,
and the need for the Crown Prosecution Service to play its part
in pursuing that goal.[14]
We wish Mr Fuller success in this role.
4 Ev 22, para 1 Back
5
Q 76 Back
6
Q 65 Back
7
Q 66 Back
8
Q 54 Back
9
QQ 60-62 Back
10
Q 47 Back
11
Q 67 Back
12
QQ 10-13 Back
13
Q 75 Back
14
These issues were considered in our report, published on the
day following Mr Fuller's appearance us: Cutting crime: the
case for justice reinvestment, First Report from the Justice
Committee, Session 2009-10, HC 94-I and II. Back
| 
