*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
