UK We use some essential cookies to make this website work. Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies. Hide this message. Home Organisations. Crown Prosecution Service. Crown Prosecution Service has a separate website.
CPS is a non-ministerial department. I shall try to deal with the right hon. He started by mentioning what he described as a hatchet job in The Sunday Times. I, too, deplore that unnecessary personal attack on the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would not be responsible for allowing any spin doctor to do that. Indeed, the reverse would be true. The right hon.
Joint units are complicated and need to be carefully worked out, but they will require considerable discussion involving me, my right hon. I believe that they are the right way to prevent one side blaming the other—a practice which used to prevail much more than it does now, but which I have experienced dozens of times in court. I want to bring that to an end. I want high-calibre chief Crown prosecutors in each of the 42 areas.
We will do away with the 13 areas set up in , which were approved by the right hon. Although some advantages have obtained from that reorganisation, including the welding of a better national system, Sir lain Glidewell and his team have found, perhaps with hindsight, that it was a mistake. Whatever the intention, the system resulted in each area headquarters becoming an extension of the principal headquarters. Real devolution has not taken place, which is the defect of the previous reorganisation.
If the CPS takes more responsibility for managing cases after charge, including warning witnesses, comforting victims and matters of that kind, I believe cardinally—I have believed it all the years I have been a Minister—that no decision should be taken on the transfer of departmental responsibility without a decision at the same time about resources. It is no good complaining years later about lack of resources; the decision should be taken at the same time, as we have all learnt from experience.
I am determined that that will happen. The object of the new arrangements is to streamline cases to avoid overlap and duplication and to shorten lines of communication between the investigator and the prosecutor. There are detailed proposals on information technology. The Government are considering better means of ensuring a closer interface between various IT systems. When I was a young Minister in , there were 12 gas boards and 12 electricity boards, and I took no comfort from the fact that each ordered its own computers.
The situation has not changed a great deal, but we hope to do something about that, if very late in the day. On the right hon. Today is 1 June, so we are only a month after that date. I had hoped that it would be done earlier, and have from time to time indicated that it would be done earlier, but I do not believe that the right hon. Despite our hopes that it would be done more quickly, it was necessary that Sir lain and his team should carry out full consultation, and they have done so.
He knows that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard his words. I endorse my right hon. Whatever has gone wrong in the Crown Prosecution Service, it would be quite wrong to blame her. Has obstruction by the police played any part in CPS difficulties?
My right hon. Would the CPS's problems be alleviated if its lawyers had rights of audience in the higher courts? Does my right hon. Lawyers discover, often at the last moment, that something more interesting or immediate has turned up, which leads to severe difficulties.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks because, as Chairman of the Home 48 Affairs Committee, he keeps a close watch on developments. When the CPS was set up there were difficulties between the police and the new organisation, but the whole idea of the new organisation was to separate investigation from prosecution.
The independent reviewing of cases was the main reason for creation of the CPS. There were bound to be difficulties, but, in my experience the situation has improved enormously over the years. We want to build on that, and closer liaison and better machinery—the right hon. Lyell attaches importance to it—will help us get over any remaining difficulty. There is a real need to speed up prosecutions as effectively and efficiently as possible.
I hope that the Government can find the machinery to do so in these recommendations. Sir Iain Glidewell and his team have commended what has already been done on limited rights of audience for the CPS. Further rights are a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is concerned about that point. The CPS will have to consider that issue carefully and, although I do not detract from Sir lain's comments, there is a need for great improvement.
We welcome the Glidewell report and congratulate Sir lain and his team. We hope that we will soon have an opportunity to debate this important matter in the House, but welcome the establishment of 42 areas that will have significant autonomy. The Attorney-General will agree that justice must be seen to be done, and be open and accountable. When the CPS decides not to prosecute, will he ensure that it gives its reasons? We understand that the CPS has to work closely with the police, but it is vital that it should be independent of the police.
That is a difficult balance. What safeguards does he propose in sensitive areas, such as prosecutions of police officers? How much work is being done by unqualified staff at the CPS? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient experienced, legally qualified staff not only to cope with the burden of cases but to do so efficiently and expeditiously?
More than anything else, that would restore the morale of the CPS and the public's faith in it. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the areas, which we regard as important. That is why we decided on the matter within weeks of taking office. Friend the Home Secretary and I attach considerable importance to having chief constables responsible for areas that are coterminous with those of the chief Crown prosecutors.
I believe that that is an important step. Sir lain and his team considered decisions not to prosecute, or to downgrade an offence, closely. Such decisions are of public concern, and many hon. Members—I for one—receive letters from constituents on them. Unfortunately, the statistics and the evidence are not clear. The team said that there are suspicions that downgrading happens.
It varies in respect of particular offences and of different areas. These are matters of 49 concern, and further work needs to be done. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is vital that justice is seen to be done.
Where someone has committed, or is alleged to have committed, an offence, he should be charged with an appropriate offence. There is considerable emphasis in the report on unqualified staff, and qualified staff who hope to exercise their rights of audience in the Crown court, having adequate and proper training. I believe that they have an important role to play if they have such training. The service had become constipated, incompetent and sadly lacking in leadership. The sooner action is taken, the better.
Can he assure us that the reorganisation back to local units that are truly responsive to local needs will be undertaken as soon as possible? Will there be an audit of the quality of casework undertaken by those units? Above all, can he assure us that the public will no longer be subjected to cases being allowed to drag on for five years before they are finally lost?
I know of my hon. Friend's concern with a particular case. I have written to her substantially about her very real concern. She knows my interest in the matter. The intention is to implement the report as rapidly as possible. That is what we did by setting up the 42 areas and what I do today by announcing the chief executive.
I did not deal with this in my reply to the right hon. Lyell —I should have told him that, in the summer months, the new Director of Public Prosecutions will be appointed by open competition, following advertisement.
We hope that he or she will be in place by the autumn. I assure my hon. Friend that all the other facets of reorganisation will be done as soon as possible. The Act itself followed a series of reports in the late s and early s recommending that the functions of investigating crime and prosecuting crime be kept separate. A revised Code for Crown prosecutors was published in to satisfy the requirements of the Human Rights Act Following the recommendations of the Glidewell Report in , the CPS was re-organised from 13 to 42 areas, to mirror the structure of the police service.
This position was reversed again in light of the Spending Review. The wider Crime Survey also found recent steep increases in robbery and theft. It is time now to build on that secure platform and to embed the public prosecution service at the heart of delivering criminal justice in the 21st century. Swipe to read more. Author: Politics.
What is the Crown Prosecution Service?
0コメント