Thursday, July 23, 2009

Timely rubbish

When I arrived at my desk this morning, and found it covered in a thick layer of files, I was, naturally, a little unimpressed. But my sour mood was suddenly displaced when I checked my inbox, and found an email from our dear leader, the DPP, launching "The Public Prosecution Service: Setting the Standard".

In short, I was wrong to be gloomy. The chaos and stress that then followed for the rest of the day was in fact "the strategic positioning of the prosecution service in the modern environment". Furthermore, I was wrong to be anything other than kind to the CPS, as we "have risen positively to the demands of change. But it is time to bank those changes and move on".

Does one "bank" changes? One certainly changes banks, usually when one's financial advisors suggest it to one over tea. Arguments about appropriate verbs aside, I can see what he means; "that last chap did a lot of work, and there's some credit in it for me". Actually, that's a bit unfair. We have a whole department devoted to churning out this rubbish, and the DPP probably had very little to do with drafting the document. We even paid an external design firm to produce the glossy leaflets.

In any event, Keir Starmer and Ken McDonald are both extremely well regarded individuals at the Bar, and for good reason. Keir Starmer did a lot of pro bono (sorry, that's latin-speak for volunteering) for these two. You can still see a video of a youthful DPP explaining his involvement on that website. His career has been stellar since. Ken McDonald has gone back to his old chambers, shared with Miss Booth QC, wife of former PM (and future overlord of Europe) Tony Blair. Ken seems to have some very sensible views on issues of recent concern.

I seem to be having trouble concentrating on what I'm saying. A marvellous quality in a lawyer. So anyway, from one premier league defence-human-rights-type-chap to another, and the organisation rumbles on.

Out-of-court "disposals" are on the march, onwards and upwards. The DPP acknowledges in the PPS press release that the challenge is clear for the need for "out-of-court disposals to be properly regulated, consistently applied, and publicly transparent" in order to maintain public confidence.

Here's a thought Director, if parliament wanted this sort of oversight, why did they not not make some sort of rules governing maximum penalties, issue some sort of guidelines for the most common situations and circumstances, and then get some respected members of the community to give up some of their time to decide what to do? Why didn't parliament want people watching the whole thing if they so choose? Hey, if parliament wanted public confidence, parliament may even have wanted to add a bit of solemnity to the proceedings, parliament could even have required that we stage the whole shebang in a formal setting, or even make people dress up in suits and other formal attire. People would know what was going on, and everything. So the way forward is clear -- don't tell a soul, and let's crack on with dishing out the cautions.

And just as my blood pressure dips into the safety zone, so, in the middle of all that press-release nonsense that plopped into my inbox today, my eye alights on the bit which seems to have been crafted to irritate me personally: "Today, public prosecutors prosecute their own cases".

Right, that's it. I can't take any more. Full review of the "OBM" to follow...

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

By way of introduction...

For the benefit of those amongst us who have the good fortune never to have had dealings with the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service is the body responsible for criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. It came into being in '86, employs a very large number of people, and consumes a very large amount of taxpayers' money. The head of the CPS is the DPP, or Director of Public Prosecutions. Areas around the country mirror police constabularies, and are headed by Chief Crown Prosecutors. The people you see in your local magistrates' court are several rungs down the ladder from these lofty individuals.

Broadly speaking, the process of a crime through the criminal justice system should be as follows:

  1. Crime reported to police

  2. Police arrest suspect

  3. Police gather evidence

  4. The CPS are passed the file of evidence

  5. A lawyer considers the evidence, and the public interest in a prosecution, before deciding what charges are appropriate, if any.

  6. Suspect charged and appears before the courts

  7. Plea entered

  8. Trial or sentence, as appropriate

I am professionally involved in rendering stages 4 and beyond as Kafka-esque as possible.


In short, the CPS is universally disliked by the other parts of the criminal justice system. The police hate it when they arrest a well-known villain, who is pointed out on a street corner by the victim of a mugging, and we don't prosecute. The mugging victim probably isn't too impressed either, but at least he gets a polite letter not really explaining anything -- more of this anon. The courts hate it when we mess them about. The judges and magistrates hate it when we fail to comply with orders. The defence hate it when we don't comply with our disclosure obligations, change our minds at the last minute, and generally give them the run-around. Defendants hate it when they are in prison for 2 months before someone with a grain of sense drops the shoddy case that had previously been cobbled together.


Before I am instantly pigeon-holed as disaffected amd cynical (perish the thought), I should point out that I consider prosecuting criminals to be an essential part of a functioning society, and is something that must be done well if justice is to exist. It is also extremely satisfying to have someone thanking you through tears of relief after a long trial, following which their violent and abusive partner has been convicted and carted off to the cells.


I now fear that technical language will occasionally be unavoidable, but I shall do my best to keep it comprehensible for the lay reader. I shall also strive to avoid latin phrases, which are a pretentious lawyerly affectation, and should be kept de minimis.

And so to business. I will touch on the following topics in the posts to come: prohibition / legalisation, prison, rehabilitation, civil liberties, police action, the essential role of coffee, CPS policies, communication with victims, community engagement, proposed legal aid reforms, Labour's criminal justice policies, the Tories' criminal justice policies, the Lib Dems' criminal justice policies, and just for a laugh, the BNP's criminal justice policies.

If readers wish to hear an extremely unofficial, and entirely honest CPS viewpoint on a particular matter, with the obvious exception of real cases, then do mention it.

Welcome

I am a lawyer employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. I shall not venture any information beyond the following; I spend a lot of my time in court, and the rest in a large inner-city police station.


I intend to use this blog to keep a record of day-to-day life within the CPS. This will be a warts-and-all account, untouched by the press department, and most certainly not "spun". I intend to include all of the frustrations, difficulties, and annoyances of a career spent in public service, and within the criminal justice system.


Whilst I will discuss actual cases, I will add bits, take bits out, make bits up, change names and places, and generally prevent people in real life from becoming identifiable. In adopting this model, I shamelessly poach the blogging style of Bystander and Inspector Gadget, neither of whom I know personally, but both of whom I hold in high regard, and commend to you.

I shall endeavour to inform, and perhaps, with a little luck, even amuse my reader. Your comments and suggestions are welcome, and I will also try to read all of my emails promptly. So that there is something of a level playing field, I propose to set the scene with a brief introduction to the CPS and the criminal justice system. And away we go...