*/
Criminal
An internal CPS investigation has confirmed that the so-called ‘tick and star’ allocation guidance was issued to just one part of CPS London – the five Crown Courts of London North – and does not represent CPS policy.
The relevant email, dated 19 January 2013, was leaked on 19 February to the Chair of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association, who published it in redacted form on 25 February, having first informed the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. It urged CPS colleagues to adapt a system devised earlier at Isleworth whereby Crown advocates would put a tick on the right hand corner of their brief backsheet after completion of the PCMH to indicate that they did not want to do the case, for example, because it was “messy, troublesome cases with lots of implications” or a “low earner”. They should, however, put a star if they wanted to keep the case in-house, if it were a “higher earner” or one anticipated to “end up cracking”. The email encouraged “everyone to be proactive in seeking out trials that they want to do in order to develop themselves”.
A Bar Council statement on 25 February stated that this was “incontrovertible evidence that the CPS is deliberately acting against the public interest and the best people are not being used to prosecute serious crimes”. Without this email “we would never have known for certain that this practice was going on”.
In a letter to Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, dated 24 April, Keir Starmer QC confirmed that this was the action of a local manager without approval of the senior management team in CPS London or CPS Headquarters. He pointed out that currently 80% of Crown Court work in value terms in London is done by the self-employed Bar, a greater proportion than in 2011/12.As a result “any targeting of work by value appears to have had no material impact,” he said. In fact, London was the area with the highest proportion of work undertaken by the self-employed Bar.
He was not attracted to the proposal, put forward recently by the Policy Exchange think tank, to bring all prosecution advocacy in-house. “I place a high value on the contribution that the self-employed criminal Bar makes to a successful prosecution service and the flexibility that a mixed economy in advocacy brings,” Starmer clarified.
The allocation of instructions to advocates would not be driven by centrally dictated targets, he said: “They can hinder quality improvement if applied too rigidly.” However, he added that local managers “will of course need to consider how to achieve best value alongside other factors when making local decisions within the wider national framework”.
The Policy Exchange paper, In the Public Interest: Reforming the CPS, reported in December last year that the one-in-10 criminal cases charged, but later dropped, by the CPS in 2011/12 cost the taxpayer over £25m. It identified “strong strategic advantage for the CPS ending its ‘dependence’ on the independent Bar”. A shift to 100% in-house advocacy, it said, would help to attract a higher calibre of recruit, but should not “happen overnight”.
The relevant email, dated 19 January 2013, was leaked on 19 February to the Chair of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association, who published it in redacted form on 25 February, having first informed the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. It urged CPS colleagues to adapt a system devised earlier at Isleworth whereby Crown advocates would put a tick on the right hand corner of their brief backsheet after completion of the PCMH to indicate that they did not want to do the case, for example, because it was “messy, troublesome cases with lots of implications” or a “low earner”. They should, however, put a star if they wanted to keep the case in-house, if it were a “higher earner” or one anticipated to “end up cracking”. The email encouraged “everyone to be proactive in seeking out trials that they want to do in order to develop themselves”.
A Bar Council statement on 25 February stated that this was “incontrovertible evidence that the CPS is deliberately acting against the public interest and the best people are not being used to prosecute serious crimes”. Without this email “we would never have known for certain that this practice was going on”.
In a letter to Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, dated 24 April, Keir Starmer QC confirmed that this was the action of a local manager without approval of the senior management team in CPS London or CPS Headquarters. He pointed out that currently 80% of Crown Court work in value terms in London is done by the self-employed Bar, a greater proportion than in 2011/12.As a result “any targeting of work by value appears to have had no material impact,” he said. In fact, London was the area with the highest proportion of work undertaken by the self-employed Bar.
He was not attracted to the proposal, put forward recently by the Policy Exchange think tank, to bring all prosecution advocacy in-house. “I place a high value on the contribution that the self-employed criminal Bar makes to a successful prosecution service and the flexibility that a mixed economy in advocacy brings,” Starmer clarified.
The allocation of instructions to advocates would not be driven by centrally dictated targets, he said: “They can hinder quality improvement if applied too rigidly.” However, he added that local managers “will of course need to consider how to achieve best value alongside other factors when making local decisions within the wider national framework”.
The Policy Exchange paper, In the Public Interest: Reforming the CPS, reported in December last year that the one-in-10 criminal cases charged, but later dropped, by the CPS in 2011/12 cost the taxpayer over £25m. It identified “strong strategic advantage for the CPS ending its ‘dependence’ on the independent Bar”. A shift to 100% in-house advocacy, it said, would help to attract a higher calibre of recruit, but should not “happen overnight”.
Criminal
An internal CPS investigation has confirmed that the so-called ‘tick and star’ allocation guidance was issued to just one part of CPS London – the five Crown Courts of London North – and does not represent CPS policy.
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
