*/
The Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) has defended the CPS policy of bringing advocacy in-house, following Bar Council allegations of “Alice in Wonderland” figures.
A Bar Council-commissioned report, Crown Prosecution Service: the choice between in-house and self-employed advocates – a critique of the CPS’s analysis, by independent consultants, Europe Economics, published in July, found the CPS’s calculations that it saved £17.1m in 2007-08 by using in-house advocates to be flawed and claimed the CPS figures for in-house advocates under-estimated their overheads.
“The CPS ... compares the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong, both economically and as a basis for policy-making.”
The Bar Chairman Desmond Browne QC said: “To claim that taking advocacy in-house will save money without taking account of the full cost smacks of Alice in Wonderland accounting.”
However, Keir Starmer DPP, said: “Our method was verified by the independent prosecution inspectorate. In the last four years, the CPS spent over £500m on counsel fees and less than £40m prosecuting cases in-house. It is evident where we should be looking to secure better value for money.” He said accommodation and other costs would not increase as a consequence of employing more CPS advocates.
In August, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee published a report, The Crown Prosecution Service: Gatekeeper of the Criminal Justice System, which stressed that the implications for the criminal justice system as a whole of the increased use of in-house advocacy must be taken into account, not just the organisational interests of the CPS.
According to the Committee, “the development of CPS advocacy cannot simply be seen as the next logical step in how the CPS should develop” and “the consequences of CPS advocacy on the future provision and quality of legal services as a whole require attention”.
Peter Lodder QC, Chairman of the CBA, said: “We welcome this report and its recommendation to the CPS to reflect upon the future provision of advocacy services. The self-employed Bar must continue to play a significant role in the prosecution of cases at all levels.” (See also Bar News p i.)
A Bar Council-commissioned report, Crown Prosecution Service: the choice between in-house and self-employed advocates – a critique of the CPS’s analysis, by independent consultants, Europe Economics, published in July, found the CPS’s calculations that it saved £17.1m in 2007-08 by using in-house advocates to be flawed and claimed the CPS figures for in-house advocates under-estimated their overheads.
“The CPS ... compares the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong, both economically and as a basis for policy-making.”
The Bar Chairman Desmond Browne QC said: “To claim that taking advocacy in-house will save money without taking account of the full cost smacks of Alice in Wonderland accounting.”
However, Keir Starmer DPP, said: “Our method was verified by the independent prosecution inspectorate. In the last four years, the CPS spent over £500m on counsel fees and less than £40m prosecuting cases in-house. It is evident where we should be looking to secure better value for money.” He said accommodation and other costs would not increase as a consequence of employing more CPS advocates.
In August, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee published a report, The Crown Prosecution Service: Gatekeeper of the Criminal Justice System, which stressed that the implications for the criminal justice system as a whole of the increased use of in-house advocacy must be taken into account, not just the organisational interests of the CPS.
According to the Committee, “the development of CPS advocacy cannot simply be seen as the next logical step in how the CPS should develop” and “the consequences of CPS advocacy on the future provision and quality of legal services as a whole require attention”.
Peter Lodder QC, Chairman of the CBA, said: “We welcome this report and its recommendation to the CPS to reflect upon the future provision of advocacy services. The self-employed Bar must continue to play a significant role in the prosecution of cases at all levels.” (See also Bar News p i.)
The Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) has defended the CPS policy of bringing advocacy in-house, following Bar Council allegations of “Alice in Wonderland” figures.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
