Area Assurance Inspection of CPS East Midlands...4art C: High quality casework P ... C File sample...

Area Assurance Inspection of CPS East Midlands

November 2016

Area Assurance Inspection of CPS East Midlands

November 2016

If you ask us, we can provide this report in Braille, large print or in languages other than English.

For information or for more copies of this report, please contact our

publications team on 020 7210 1197, or go to our website:

www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmcpsiHMCPSI Publication No. CP001:1215

Area Assurance Inspection CPS East Midlands report November 2016

i

1 Headlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Issues to address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Part A: The success of CPS people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9A1: leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9A2: work with criminal justice partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A3: CPS values, equality and diversity policies and staff development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Part B: Continuously improving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17B1: performance data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17B2: resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19B3: joined-up working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 Part C: High quality casework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23C1: magistrates’ courts reviews and decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24C2: magistrates’ courts case preparation and progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28C3: Crown Court reviews and decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31C4: Crown Court case preparation and progression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Part D: Public confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39D1: communications with victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39D2: views and interests of victims, witnesses and the public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42D3: responsive to stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6 Part E: Efficiency and value for money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

B Area Assurance Programme inspection framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

C File sample composition and examination findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

D Area performance data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

1 Contents


ii


1

1 Headlines

1.1 We set our here our headline findings in respect of our inspection of CPS East Midlands. The Area’s performance as assessed against the inspection framework was as follows:

Criteria Score

Part A: The success of CPS people

Senior management demonstrates effective leadership and engages with staff to identify and utilise opportunities to deliver a quality of service

Good

Senior managers work effectively and are influential with criminal justice partners Good

The Area is committed to CPS values, equality and diversity policies and staff development to deliver improvement in staff engagement, effectiveness, well-being and morale

Good

Overall score for the success of CPS people GOOD

Part B: Continuously improving

The Area’s key performance data is analysed effectively and used to inform resource allocation, to robustly identify the Area’s strengths and weaknesses and to drive improvement

Fair

Resources are systematically managed and deployed effectively Fair

Joined-up working is effective and delivers improvements in outcomes for users Fair

Overall score for continuously improving FAIR

Part C: High quality casework

Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (magistrates’ courts)

Fair

Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (magistrates’ courts) Fair

Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (Crown Court)

Good

Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (Crown Court) Good

Overall score for high quality casework FAIR


2

Criteria Score

Part D: Public confidence

Communications with victims under all applicable initiatives, the Victims’ Code or policies (including consulting victims on discontinuance or pleas, letters under the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme, communications with bereaved families, and the Victims’ Right to Review) occur where required, and are timely and of a high standard

Poor

The views and interests of the victim, witnesses and public are reflected and protected by the appropriate use of remand or bail conditions, Victim Personal Statements and ancillary orders at sentencing

Fair

The Area is responsive to community groups, victims and witnesses, complainants, other stakeholders and the public and uses their feedback robustly to identify strengths and weaknesses and to improve service delivery

Good

Overall score for public confidence FAIR

1.2 The fieldwork took place in September 2016 and, where available, the most recent performance data used is for the 12 months to the end of June 2016.

1.3 There is strong leadership by senior managers who actively promote CPS values in the workplace, which is clearly evidenced by the very high level of staff engagement in the East Midlands. The Area has a comprehensive system of internal communications in place in order to transmit essential information. However, it does not have a mechanism in place to measure key aspects of its internal communications strategy and this is something which ought to be addressed.

1.4 The Area has built up strong relationships with its stakeholders and at the strategic level is represented at a large number of external meetings to enhance working practices and performance. However, the Area is yet to realise the benefits of such engagement within its key performance indicators.

1.5 Performance is the focus of discussion and responsibility for performance is clear with Area managers at the strategic level. Some strengths and weaknesses are identified; East Midlands is willing to adapt methods of working to increase efficiency and has conducted benchmarking in other CPS Areas with this in mind. However the impact of this work and the improvements made have not yet resulted in improved performance outcomes.


3

1.6 Additionally, further work is required to present performance information in a format which is meaningful at the operational level and to ensure that regular discussion takes place on individual performance, so that operational staff understand how their actions influence and impact upon outcomes.

1.7 The Area needs to improve the delivery of value for money for its service users in many aspects. Some of the key outcomes are below the national CPS level, for example the rate of guilty pleas at first hearing in the magistrates’ courts is below the national average.

1.8 We found that case preparation and progression in the magistrates’ courts is presenting a challenge for the Area with limited evidence of effective control and ‘grip’. The Transforming Summary Justice initiative has not fully embedded in East Midlands and has not led to improvement in performance as anticipated. The Area has conducted an examination of performance in the magistrates’ courts, in conjunction with other agencies, in order to identify the obstacles to success.

1.9 Legal decisions taken in the Crown Court are of good quality and the level of successful outcomes in the Crown Court is above the national average. However, the potential for improvement in performance is reduced by the failure to conduct a proportionate and timely initial review.

1.10 Inspectors found some evidence of compliance with the Victims’ Code and policies on communications with victims. However, the quality and timeliness of correspondence with victims needs significant improvement. We found a number of cases where a victim liaison communication was required but had not been completed and those which had been completed were not always of good quality. However, where letters had been sent they were timely.

1.11 The Area is not delivering consistent levels of performance on protecting the interests of victims, witnesses and the public. Bail was opposed where necessary and conditions on bail were appropriate; however, victim and witness issues are not always addressed fully in reviews. The Area has conducted training on issues around victims and witnesses for both in-house staff and agents and the Witness Service held positive views of CPS personnel.

1.12 The Area is able to demonstrate strong links with a large number of community groups where it has gained their confidence and provided them with an additional forum to engage with the criminal justice system. Engagement with victim and witness support groups has increased and there is continuous feedback to staff. However, the Area lacks a focussed approach to its community engagement and how it links to improved outcomes.


4

1.13 The Area is conscious of working efficiently and providing value for money but more work is required to improve a number of its key performance results. There are regular discussions around finance and resources but East Midlands does not have its budget fully under control and is currently running at a slight overspend. That being said there is evidence of efficient working, for example the cost per completed case compares very favourably with national figures. There is accurate financial forecasting of overall running costs.

Strengths1.14 We identified the following strengths:

1 The Area has invested a lot of effort into staff engagement and as a result has scored consistently high figures in the Civil Service staff survey for the past two years.

2 There is a comprehensive internal communications strategy and all staff have the opportunity to contribute in appropriate forums.

3 The Area has developed strong working relationships with partner agencies and ensures effective representation at strategic meetings.

4 The Area has implemented a People Survey Staff Action Plan following the Civil Service staff survey 2015 results, broken down by team, with owners for specific actions to drive progress.

5 The Area has taken a leading role in cross-agency initiatives aimed at improving performance outcomes.

6 East Midlands demonstrates good levels of leadership by senior managers and there is evidence that CPS values are modelled in the Area.

7 There is evidence that performance is the focus of discussion and the Area actively seeks to improve its level of performance.

8 Cases are generally well prepared in the Crown Court and successful results are above the national average.


5

Issues to address1.15 The following issues need to be addressed by the Area:

1 The Area should evaluate the effectiveness of, and the benefits gained from, its internal staff communication and engagement processes (paragraph 2.12).

2 The importance of constructive defence engagement should be emphasised, with clear instruction given that reviews must include engagement with the defence where these details are known (paragraph 4.14).

3 Training should be delivered to ensure that all prosecutors are properly equipped to deal with disclosure (paragraph 4.19).

4 A review should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements for the provision of non-electronic material for review before court and at court for the use of all parties (paragraph 4.24).

5 The Area should review the process for bundling cases in the magistrates’ courts and, in particular, the stage at which the work is done to ensure that the documents bundled reflect the work of the reviewing lawyer (paragraph 4.26).

6 Area legal managers need to ensure that all in cases charged under the threshold test there is a full Code for Crown Prosecutors test review recorded on the file (paragraph 4.38).

7 Managers must ensure that hearing record sheets are entered promptly and accurately onto the case management system to enable hearing outcomes to be updated on time (paragraph 4.67).

8 Training is required on the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme process for all relevant staff (paragraph 5.8).

9 An effective mechanism should be put in place to ensure that Victim Communication and Liaison scheme communications are timely, of a high standard and sent in all appropriate cases (paragraph 5.8).


6

10 The community engagement strategy should include details of how the benefits of the community engagement can be measured with respect to casework quality (paragraph 5.21).

Context1.16 CPS East Midlands has offices at Nottingham and Leicester, and is aligned with Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, and Nottinghamshire police forces. It covers ten magistrates’ courts and five Crown Court centres. In the 12 months to June 2016 it had the full-time equivalent of 277.6 staff and its budget for 2016-17 was £22,420,444.

1.17 In the 12 months to June 2016 the Area finalised 42,850 magistrates’ court cases and 6,876 Crown Court cases. The Area’s overall magistrates’ court caseload has reduced and is also reducing in the Crown Court.

1.18 During the same period it secured convictions (either after trial or by a guilty plea) against 83.2% of defendants in magistrates’ courts cases and 81.7% of defendants in the Crown Court. Magistrates’ court performance was worse than national performance at 84%, and Crown Court performance was better than national performance at 79%.

1.19 There was a successful outcome in 65.7% of cases involving an allegation of rape, which is significantly better than the national average (57.2%) and exceeds the CPS level of ambition (60.0% or above). At the time of our inspection East Midlands was the best performing in the country in this respect, but as with overall successful outcomes, performance has declined since 2013-14 when the conviction rate was 69.0%.

1.20 Further information on the Area’s performance data is at annex D.

Methodology1.21 Inspectors examined 120 magistrates’ courts and Crown Court files finalised between April and June 2016. We refer at the relevant parts of the report to the key findings from this examination. The full findings, together with a detailed breakdown of the file sample, can be found at annex C.

1.22 Our fieldwork took place in September 2016. We spoke with members of the judiciary, representatives of partner agencies and CPS staff, both formally and informally. Court observations were undertaken to assess the effectiveness of case progression.


7

1.23 We set out at annex D key Area data, compared against CPS national average performance. Where available, the most recent data is for the 12 months to June 2016.

1.24 The report sets out our findings in respect of each section of the inspection framework. The framework, including the more detailed sub-criteria, is set out at annex B.

Scoring1.25 Inspectors assessed how well the Area met the expectations in each section of the framework as assessed against the criterion and the sub-criteria. Performance against each of the criteria was assessed as excellent, good, fair or poor.

1.26 A glossary of the terms used is at annex A.


8


9

2 Part A: The success of CPS people

Performance expectation The Area is led and managed effectively to ensure it has the right people equipped with the appropriate tools and skills for the job to deliver a high quality service. This is achieved by ensuring all staff have the right technology, systems and skills, to enable decisions to be made fairly, at the right time and at an appropriate level.

Criteria Score


Senior management demonstrates effective leadership and engages with staff to identify and utilise opportunities to deliver a quality of service

Good

Senior managers work effectively and are influential with criminal justice partners Good

The Area is committed to CPS values, equality and diversity policies and staff development to deliver improvement in staff engagement, effectiveness, well-being and morale

Good

OVERALL SCORE FOR THE SUCCESS OF CPS PEOPLE GOOD

Performance against the Part A modules2.1 In this section we set out our evaluation of the Area’s performance against the Part A modules.

Criteria Score

A1 Senior management demonstrates effective leadership and engages with staff to identify and utilise opportunities to deliver a quality of service

Good

Summary: The Area demonstrates good levels of leadership by senior managers and there are forums and mechanisms in place which allow staff to engage with senior managers and become involved in Area decisions. However, the effectiveness of the internal communications strategy should be reviewed in order to maximise the opportunity for all its staff to become meaningfully involved.


10

2.2 The 2015 Civil Service staff survey records CPS East Midlands with a staff engagement score of 65%. This is significantly higher than the national figure of 54% and places the East Midlands as the second highest ranked CPS Area. Fifty eight percent of staff who responded to the survey agreed that their managers actively role model the behaviours set out in the Civil Service Leadership Statement and 79% of staff indicated that their direct managers demonstrated the CPS values through their actions. Our HMCPSI survey indicated that 73% of respondents agreed with these statements.

2.3 The Area has developed a comprehensive internal communications strategy document. This highlights the methods of communications to be utilised whilst recognising the significant changes that the Area has undergone. The Area facilitates internal communication with front line staff via a number of forums including face to face focus groups, regular team meetings, and teleconferences, as well as digital and online communication. This is a strength.

2.4 Internal communication channels are generally effective in transmitting important information. This is illustrated by the fact that when we asked staff whether they were clear on the CPS vision, values and priorities and objectives as outlined in the CPS 2020 and 2016-2017 plan, at both a local and national level, 76.6% of respondents said that they were either very clear or clear on most aspects.

2.5 However, some staff felt that on occasion the wrong communication methods are used to convey certain messages, for example resourcing information. Some concerns were also raised that the use of increased digital and online communications led to a reduction in direct conversations. Despite this the majority of staff we interviewed were aware of the focus groups and teleconferences run by the Senior Management Team (SMT).

2.6 The focus groups and telephone conferences are generally viewed in a positive light, with a perception that SMT telephone conference calls allowed greater opportunity for people to have their say. However, this view is not universally shared and some staff commented that the telephone conferences felt more like a “tannoy” and that not many people would speak during the calls. Concerns were raised that people who were at court most of the time were disadvantaged and not able to participate in conference calls, although this was mitigated by notes of the calls being made available to staff.

2.7 The Area accepts that there is no effective method of measuring the numbers of staff dialling in, or indeed the level of engagement of those who actively participate in the conferences. By failing to have such a mechanism in place, the Area is unable to thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of what appears to be a fairly wide ranging internal communications strategy.


11

2.8 East Midlands CPS has moved from five main offices to two which are located in Nottingham and Leicester, with the majority of the SMT being based in Nottingham. Efforts are made by all managers to address the perceived divide between the Nottingham and the Leicester office. Senior managers make efforts to increase their visibility in the Leicester office by working there during some part of the week. Some staff commented that although senior managers are regularly present in Leicester, they do not always actively engage with staff and they felt that more could be done in respect to ‘floor walking’ when at the site.

2.9 Internal strategic meetings take the form of an Area Strategy Board (ASB) and an Area Management Team (AMT) meeting. The ASB is chaired by the Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP) and includes the senior management grades. The AMT includes lawyer managers and administrative manager grades. The AMT feeds into ASB with complex and sensitive issues that cannot be dealt with at AMT. The lawyer managers are invited to the AMT as there was concern that they were not included in strategic decisions. Some administrative managers inspectors spoke to said that SMT would specifically ask for their own contributions in the meeting.

2.10 There was little evidence that any formal performance procedures were instigated. Comments were made by staff that those that worked hard would carry the brunt of the workload and complete extra work whilst poor performance was not dealt with robustly enough by managers. The AMT generally accepted that in the past they had been slow to address some concerns, but we were informed that efforts are being made to address any performance issues in a speedy manner and intensive supervision led to matters being captured early on.

2.11 The Area has a number of senior managers who are currently in temporary posts; a decision is awaited from CPS national Headquarters as to the future shape of the management structure. Despite this uncertainty the largely positive results of both the Civil Service survey and our staff survey illustrate that the SMT have made great efforts to establish themselves as role models and leaders. Whilst this is commendable, in order to further enhance the motivation of its people the Area ought to properly evaluate the effectiveness of its engagement with staff at all levels.

Issue to address

The Area should evaluate the effectiveness of, and the benefits gained from, its internal staff communication and engagement processes.


12

Criteria Score

A2 Senior managers work effectively and are influential with criminal justice partners

Good

Summary: The Area has built up strong relationships with its stakeholders and is represented at a large number of external meetings to enhance working practices and performance. However, the Area has yet to realise the benefits of such engagement within its key performance indicators.

2.12 All stakeholders we consulted within the criminal justice system were positive about their relationship with the Area’s SMT. At the highest level links have been established between the Area and the five Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in the East Midlands. At the strategic level the Area has engaged with the police and has been willing to offer assistance when required. The SMT has worked to ensure that senior officials in other criminal justice agencies have direct access to them in order to resolve difficult matters. Inspectors found that this was much appreciated by stakeholders and it positively re-enforced relationships with the CPS. In addition, the senior judiciary in the Area felt they were able to contact the CPS at the highest level and were confident that urgent matters would be appropriately addressed.

2.13 Police criminal justice leads generally felt that there was a good working relationship with the CPS and that mutual engagement led to identifying key areas of concern and good performance. Regular Prosecution Team Performance Management (PTPM) meetings are held and attended by CPS personnel at the appropriate level, which we regard as a strength. However the police were reliant on the CPS for providing data for the meeting and this had become more of a challenge during a period of absence of key CPS personnel.

2.14 Managers from the courts do not attend the PTPM meetings, however Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) manages do attend meetings into which the PTPM feeds issues. At the time of the inspection the Area was in the process of evaluating the effectiveness of the regional PTPMs, where four of the five police forces are in attendance, as Derbyshire have their own PTPM arrangements.

2.15 There are two Criminal Justice Boards that Area staff attend. There is a Regional Criminal Justice Board (RCJB) which includes the police forces of Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. Derbyshire police have not formally signed up to the RCJB but are represented and have their own Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB). The Area deploys CPS representatives to both Boards. There are further meetings where the


13

Area deploys resources which feed into the Criminal Justice Boards. These include an Efficiency and Effectiveness meeting, which now incorporates the Transforming Summary Justice initiative, and the Core Performance Board. These meetings are used to drill down into performance and processes in order to deliver improvements.

2.16 Area managers examine data and casework to assist in the identification of issues to be addressed and a jointly agreed improvement plan is currently being implemented. We were also told of the recent file quality monitoring work that has taken place collaboratively with the police.

2.17 There were positive comments from external stakeholders about joint meetings, which were useful in highlighing shortfalls with matters such as police file quality and the provision of Victim Personal Statements (VPSs). We consider VPSs further in chapter 5. However, further work remains to be done, as police file quality has not improved as anticipated. Indeed the file sample that we examined indicated that in only 48.0% of cases was police file quality fully satisfactory.

2.18 In the HMCPSI survey, East Midlands staff were asked to comment on their working relationships with the police and HMCTS. The results were positive for both. The belief in strong working relationships was clearly illustrated when staff were asked whether partnership working was delivering positive results; 80.2% agreed that it was. A common theme, however, is that other agencies are not perceived to have the same commitment to partnership working as the CPS.

Criteria Score

A3 The Area is committed to CPS values, equality and diversity policies and staff development to deliver improvement in staff engagement, effectiveness, well-being and morale

Good

Summary: The Area’s managers actively promote and model CPS values in the workplace and are prepared to challenge inappropriate behaviour.

2.19 In HMCPSI’s staff survey 64.3% agreed that their line manager proactively encouraged their staff to adhere to CPS values and equality and diversity policies all of the time. However, the survey also revealed that only 44.5% of respondents agreed that managers challenge inappropriate behaviour all or some of the time.


14

2.20 In the Civil Service staff survey 2015 the Inclusion and Fair Treatment score for the Area was 75%, which is significantly higher than the average of 67% across the CPS. The proportion of staff indicating that they had experienced bullying or harassment at work was amongst the lowest in the CPS at 7%, compared to 12% nationally.

2.21 There is an inconsistent approach to training and staff development in the Area. Every member of CPS staff has an Individual Learning Account (ILA) to cover the cost of training and personal development. East Midlands was allocated £56,525 for ILAs for the financial year 2015-16 but only spent £19,290 (34%), the rest was returned to CPS Headquarters unspent.

2.22 In the Civil Service staff survey Learning and Development scored 49%, which represents a drop of five percentage points from the previous year. Staff often experienced difficulty in using their ILAs, although some did not have an opportunity to utilise ILAs but there were good reasons for being unable to do so.

2.23 Others expressed frustration to inspectors about having requests for training refused. Common reasons cited for failure to utilise ILAs included pressure of work leaving staff with no time to arrange the training, a lack of relevant courses available and the prohibitive expense of those training courses that are both appropriate and available. In contrast, there were staff who have used their ILAs for training and development opportunities that they have found to be of benefit in their workplace roles.

2.24 The Area provided a training plan detailing which staff had completed mandatory training but a broader training plan for the whole Area was not identified and the plan makes no reference to social mobility or equality of access.

2.25 The HMCPSI staff survey revealed that 47% of staff felt they had the adequate tools, training and technology to deliver a quality service. There are issues with IT in the Area, in particular system failure on a regular basis due to problems with the East Midlands server.

2.26 The Area has an Equality Diversity and Community Engagement Manager (EDCEM) who is proactive in identifying developmental opportunities for staff and organising various ‘lunch and learn’ sessions for staff. The EDCEM is adept at nurturing and utilising contacts to obtain free or reduced cost training for staff. This is to be commended both for efficiency and the resulting breadth of training provided. We discuss the work of the EDCEM in chapter 5.


15

2.27 As mentioned at paragraph 2.2, in the 2015 Civil Service survey the Area was the second highest scoring for staff engagement across the CPS and has maintained its position from 2014. The Area is not complacent about this achievement and has implemented a People Survey Staff Action Plan following the 2015 results, broken down by team, with owners for specific actions to drive progress. This is a strength.

2.28 Inspectors found a supportive culture with staff working to help each other. Generally staff have a positive view of their line managers, 80.3% of those who responded to the HMCPSI survey felt adequately supported by their managers all or most of the time when they raise issues, concerns or queries. There is an ethos of professionalism and team working, with staff commonly citing dedicated and supportive colleagues as the most positive aspect of working in the Area.

2.29 The Area has successfully reduced average working days lost due to sickness from 9.5 days in 2013-14 to 6.3, which is below the CPS level of ambition of 7.3 days. Long term sickness absences are reported to the ASB to ensure they are managed correctly.

2.30 Attendance is being managed; in the 12 months to June 2016 six Attendance Improvement Notices were issued, along with two notices of expectation and there were two dismissals due to attendance issues. The Area has provided training on managing disability related absence and participants felt this was very beneficial. As of August 2016 there are 41 Workplace Adjustment Passports in place across East Midlands.

2.31 The Area does not perform well with regard to stress-related absence, which stands at 39.2% of all absences for the 12 months to June 2016. Although this is a decrease from 44.6% in 2015-16, it is still significantly higher than the national average figure of 30% and needs to be addressed.

2.32 There is concern amongst staff about the lack of resources, high workload and significant stress levels. Some people consistently work in excess of their regular hours of employment, which is not sustainable in the long term as there is the risk of an increase in stress levels, which are already too high.

2.33 Good performance is recognised. The Area utilises the CPS Simply Thanks scheme to acknowledge the good work by staff with a third of staff recognised in this way. The Area also uses the infonet to publicise good work and good performance is celebrated in team meetings. All Performance Development Reviews were completed on time for 2015-16.


16

2.34 In the 12 months to June 2016 no Performance Improvement Notices (PINS) were issued. Senior managers felt that PINS were not necessary to manage poor performance as informal procedures have resolved issues, but there was some acknowledgement that the Area is not effective in implementing the formal performance measures. This creates a risk that staff could perceive that performance management is not transparent and foster a belief that there is a culture of favouritism. The Area is supportive of its staff but this needs to be balanced with robust management of poor performance.


17

3 Part B: Continuously improving

Performance expectation The Area continuously improves how it works, deploying resources to work effectively and using efficient processes.

Criteria Score


The Area’s key performance data is analysed effectively and used to inform resource allocation, to robustly identify the Area’s strengths and weaknesses and to drive improvement

Fair

Resources are systematically managed and deployed effectively Fair

Joined-up working is effective and delivers improvements in outcomes for users Fair

OVERALL SCORE FOR CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING FAIR

Performance against the Part B modules

Criteria Score

B1 The Area’s key performance data is analysed effectively and used to inform resource allocation, to robustly identify the Area’s strengths and weaknesses and to drive improvement

Fair

Summary: Performance is the focus of discussions where both strengths and weaknesses are identified. However the impact of benchmarking and process improvements made have not yet resulted in improved performance outcomes. Additionally, further work is required to present performance information in a format which is meaningful at the operational level and to ensure that regular discussion takes place on individual performance, so that operational staff understand how their contributions can influence performance outcomes.

3.1 Generally, responsibility for performance is clear amongst managers at the strategic level. Performance information is provided and considered at the ASB and some discussion takes place around improving performance based on the CPS national databank quarterly results. The main discussion on performance at the strategic level occurs at the ASB prior to the Quarterly Performance Review meeting with CPS Headquarters, where each District Crown Prosecutor (DCP) has to provide an update on their unit’s performance to senior managers in the Area.


18

3.2 At the operational level unit managers are responsible for identifying the root causes of performance issues raised and are expected to drive improvement. Performance information is shared at team meetings, but this was not always consistent and sometimes performance information is only highlighted when an issue has been identified. Some managers had attempted to break down the information into an accessible format to assist staff in understanding how it directly relates to their work, but this was not consistent across all units. Despite East Midlands improving their ranking amongst all the Areas and being above national performance on the majority of outcomes, performance is showing a declining trend in some aspects and some of the key outcomes are worse than nationally (see annex D).

3.3 East Midlands is keen to learn from others and has conducted a number of benchmarking exercises of performance with other CPS Areas. Senior managers have visited other Areas to review how they progress cases and deploy their staff. One of these benchmarking exercises has resulted in a revised structure for the magistrates’ courts team. Despite this work inspectors were unable to identify instances where benchmarking had led to any improvement in performance.

3.4 There are a number of quality assurance mechanisms in place to assess performance of individuals and teams, although fewer than half of staff felt that there were mechanisms in place to learn from mistakes, identifying of good practice or undertaking of regular quality performance checks. The Area has also undertaken a number of reviews:• a Better Case Management Action Plan which included a list of activities such as

training, target dates and updates on action taken to improve performance• rape and serious sexual offences (RASSO) casework checks, with evidence of feedback • a victim and witness focus review identifying areas for improvement• an audit of the Resource Efficiency Model (REM) which identified low levels of

compliance amongst both the lawyer and admin cadre• involvement in a programme of multi-agency court observations to identify obstacles to

fully implementing Transforming Summary Justice.

This is a strength.

3.5 However, it is not clear how some of the reviews will be followed up and no performance notices or improvement plans have been formally issued, despite some repeated instances of non-compliance.

3.6 The majority of staff (77.6%) felt that they and their team were set performance objectives or targets to achieve on a quarterly, monthly or weekly basis and Individual Quality Assessments (IQAs) are positive and robust. In contrast, a third of staff indicated that they had no monthly or quarterly meetings to discuss their individual performance, which is of concern.


19

Criteria Score

B2 Resources are systematically managed and deployed effectively Fair

Summary: The Area needs to improve the delivery of value for money for its service users in some aspects. Despite having a lower cost per case than the national average, some key outcomes are below the national CPS average and deployment issues need urgent attention. The financial forecasting for overall running costs is good.

3.7 The Area’s Finance Manager attends ASB to disseminate finance information to other managers and contribute to strategic decisions. Resourcing is discussed at the ASB and AMT meetings, with discussions about staffing across the teams. There are regular monthly meetings between the Area Business Manager (ABM) and Finance Manager to undertake some financial planning and discuss areas of concern and there is good awareness at the strategic level of many of the issues. However, despite raising the issues with operational managers and attending team meetings to remind staff about spending controls, there is still a lack of grip on the Area’s budget and the effectiveness of resource deployment.

3.8 Financial forecasting for overall running costs is accurate and as a consequence East Midlands is currently running at a only slight overspend overall. However some of its other budget categories are significantly overspent, for example witness expenses by 118.5% for the 12 months to June 2016. Lawyer salaries are slightly overspent despite being under-resourced, although some of the overspend is due to a significant compensation payment made early in the financial year. There is some reliance on additional funding from CPS Headquarters. The Very High Cost Cases budget is currently overspent, but the Area has been able to negotiate reimbursement of this cost with Headquarters and also an adjustment of the funds that fall under the Graduated Fee Scheme. Headquarters has also asked for reassurance about the Area’s ability to identify and progress cases involving Proceeds of Crime; the Area is not actively managing this, which is of concern.

3.9 The Area has undertaken remedial work to identify where it is outstanding on payments, for example it was aware that the payment of counsel fees had been in a significant backlog and in June 2016 £168,000 was owed to local chambers. The Area has worked with them to resolve this through meetings with the relevant staff, which has reduced the backlog.


20

3.10 East Midlands relies on REM data and performance figures to assess its resource requirements. This is questionable considering the poor recording of the REM data and the unreliability of its accuracy. The Area states that it is under-resourced in respect of its prosecutor cadre, 46.2% of total staff, but this is only slightly below the national figure of 46.8%. East Midlands lost a number of prosecutors to CPS London.1 A business case has been agreed with CPS Headquarters to replace these posts. The proportion of the administrative staff cadre, at 53.1%, is higher than the national figure of 52.3%. It is unusual that the budget code for administrative staff is currently running at a significant underspend. Crown Advocates are a significantly lower proportion of staff than nationally, at 5.6% compared with 7.3%. There are a number of temporary managers in the Area. It has been unable to resolve this pending the result of a current national review, but this has allowed for some development opportunities.

3.11 Staffing numbers have reduced over the last two years but the number of contested cases, which require a greater resource input, has increased. The number of prosecutors has reduced by 8.0% compared with 6.2% nationally. In contrast, contested cases in the magistrates’ court have increased by 18.9% compared with 9.5% nationally and the level of contested cases in the Crown Court has increased by 7.0% compared with 3.8%. As a consequence of these movements the contested case per prosecutor in East Midlands in the magistrates’ court is 32.7 compared with 28.2 nationally, although in the Crown Court it remains lower at 5.7 compared with 8.3.

3.12 The overall spend per full-time employee equivalent is slightly higher than the national figure but the Area spent considerably less, £475, than the national CPS average spend per case of £607 in the 12 months to June 2016 and has decreased its cost per case in the last four years, whereas nationally the cost has increased. East Midlands, however, remains below the national average in key performance outcomes and performance until recently has been declining; there are some slight improvements in the quarter April to June 2016.

3.13 A number of deployment matters remain unresolved and some key posts lack contingency arrangements. The absence of the Performance Manager has exposed a lack of resilience and the Area has had to use its Crown Advocates to cover shortages in the RASSO unit, Crown Court teams and to deal with older cases in the system following the implementation of the Better Case Management initiative in the Crown Court. This has resulted in a reduced utilisation of Crown Advocates on case presentation, which was 34.0% in the 12 months to June 2016 compared with 50% nationally. Crown Advocate savings are running at a notional loss of £709,000 over this period, although they have been utilised on other essential review work.

1 The CPS London staff work remotely and are based in the Leicester office.


21

3.14 The average number of magistrates’ courts sessions covered by in-house advocates has reduced slightly in the 12 months to June 2016 and remains lower than the national average. The average number of weekly sessions per associate prosecutor (AP) has increased in the same period. APs covered 24.1% of available court sessions in the magistrates’ court in the 12 months to June 2016, compared with 26.9% in 2013-14. Performance is worse than the national average of 6.58 sessions per week per AP, covering 24.9% of those available in the magistrates’ court.

3.15 The Area had a budget forecast meeting in January 2016 to discuss its staffing levels so there is some level of awareness; however this needs to be followed up. The current strategy of paying counsel to undertake Plea and Trial Management Hearings and provide charging advice in RASSO cases, using Crown Advocates to cover staff shortages, and the unavailability of less costly agents, is incurring additional costs and causing inefficiencies.

Criteria Score

B3 Joined-up working is effective and delivers improvements in outcomes for users

Fair

Summary: For the most part the Area has a good working relationship with its criminal justice partners and has implemented some improvements in assurance and changes in processes. Further work is required to implement and imbed changes consistently across all regions and the Area has yet to see an improvement in key outcomes.

3.16 The Area is represented by senior managers at LCJB meetings and other delivery boards. Overall, stakeholders were generally of the view that there was a constructive relationship with the CPS. However, effectiveness is sometimes impacted by the lack of operational input and having two separate LCJBs has caused some issues, for example agreements on processes made in the joint board have not been shared with Derbyshire and vice versa.

3.17 There is a regional PTPM meeting in the Derbyshire region and a separate joint regional PTPM meeting across the other four police forces for Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. The Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor attends the Efficiency and Effectiveness multi-agency sub group and below that there is an operational group which the Senior District Crown Prosecutors attend.


22

3.18 East Midlands uses the CPS national performance information template for its PTPM meetings and they have identified cross-force issues using the data, for example in the quality of ‘identification’ evidence. We were informed that the joint regional PTPM does, however, cause some additional burden on CPS managers as they need to arrange meetings outside this structure to discuss local force-based issues. The CPS has representation at all of these meetings and feedback received from stakeholders indicates there is a constructive and effective working relationship with the local CPS. There have been some useful outcomes from the meetings, for example at the Efficiency and Effectiveness meetings there have been discussions about the national file quality audit to improve performance. Despite this, evidence of the joint meetings acting on strategic priorities to improve operational performance was limited and some court outcomes remain some way below the CPS level of ambition.

3.19 The Area participates in trial readiness conference calls with HMCTS and defence representatives. General feedback has been encouraging, with a feeling that the calls were productive and better than a formal court hearing. There is also participation in cracked and ineffective trials meetings where, on a monthly basis, the CPS and Witness Care Units discuss case progression issues.

3.20 There is some evidence of joint working to deliver improvements; the Area has delivered training on disclosure and third party unused material to Nottinghamshire police and has previously delivered training on decision-making. Training has also been provided to Women’s Aid on domestic abuse and the criminal justice system, and for agents on speaking to witnesses at court. There has been some limited training between HMCTS and the CPS when there are changes to processes, which is an area for improvement. The Area has undertaken a programme of training with Derbyshire police to improve file quality which is working well and, following this, the Area is rolling out this initiative to the other police forces.


23

4 Part C: High quality casework

Performance expectation The Area delivers justice through excellent, timely legal decisions, casework preparation and presentation, leading to improved outcomes.

Criteria Score


Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (magistrates’ courts)

Fair

Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (magistrates’ courts) Fair

Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (Crown Court)

Good

Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (Crown Court) Good

OVERALL SCORE FOR HIGH QUALITY CASEWORK FAIR

Performance against the Part C modules4.1 In accordance with the Director’s Guidance 5th Edition2 some cases may be charged by the police without reference to the CPS, or as directed by CPS Direct or Area-based lawyers. In assessing Area performance in this aspect, including compliance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors,3 (the Code) we only consider those cases where the charge is directed by an Area lawyer. However, in order to give a full picture we comment on the quality of all charged cases, regardless of how initiated.

4.2 In our file sample the Code was applied correctly at the charging stage in 111 out of 120 cases (92.5%).

2 Director’s Guidance on Charging (5th edition); CPS; May 2013. www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/index.html

3 Code for Crown Prosecutors; CPS; January 2013. www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/


24

4.3 The Code was applied correctly by Area lawyers at the charging stage in all the relevant cases. Inspectors assessed 66.7% of Area charging decisions as good, 11.1% fair and 22.2% poor, none were excellent.

4.4 Post-charge the Code was applied correctly in 110 out of 116 relevant cases (94.8%).

Criteria Score

C1 Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (magistrates’ courts)

Fair

Summary: The Area needs to ensure that all cases are subject to a robust and timely initial review and weak cases are weeded out at an early stage.

4.5 We found in our file examination that fewer than half of all prosecution files complied fully with the National File Standard4 at the time of their submission to the CPS by the police. There was a wide variation in performance across the five police forces which serve the East Midlands Area. This ranged from the files submitted by Derbyshire police assessed as 65.4% fully compliant to those submitted by Nottinghamshire police which were only 28.6%. Reasons for the lack of compliance included file ‘overbuild’ by the police, which impacts adversely on both police and CPS resources. The failure to provide a Victim Personal Statement continues to be a significant problem; this is considered further in the section concerning the views and interests of victims and witnesses. Submission of the police file was timely in 85.7% of cases overall. Again there were variations in performance across the five forces with Derbyshire police scoring highest, 92.3% of their cases being submitted within the agreed timeframes.

4.6 There were 37 police charged cases in our file examination, which was comprised of 33 magistrates’ courts and four Crown Court cases. Seven of these cases were charged by the police in breach of the Director’s Guidance and should have been referred to the CPS for a charging decision. The police decision to charge complied with the Code in 33 of the 37 cases (89.2%). The CPS discontinued one of the cases promptly. The other three were

4 National File Standard; CPS; May 2015. www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5_annex_c.pdf


25

allowed to proceed; a guilty plea to driving without due care was accepted in one case when there was clear evidence of dangerous driving, another case resulted in a not guilty finding in the magistrates’ court and the third case was eventually dropped by the CPS, but not until it had been sent to the Crown Court and counsel had advised that there was insufficient evidence for the case to be proved.

4.7 We found some evidence from our file examination that the Area is referring issues back to the police; any type of compliance failure was raised with the police in 43.8% of relevant magistrates’ court cases. As seen from the previous section the Area is working collaboratively with the police on file quality.

4.8 The decision to charge was made by the CPS in 83 cases in our file sample and was correct in 85.2% of magistrates’ courts cases. All the charging decisions in the magistrates’ courts cases were made by CPS Direct (CPSD); five of the 83 decisions made by CPSD did not comply with the Code. Upon review the Area rectified three of these cases by discontinuing them at an early stage but two were allowed to proceed to trial, where the defendants were acquitted.

4.9 We were informed that there was no longer any direct feedback given to CPSD and that all issues were raised via the KIM site, which is in accordance with national practice. At the time of this inspection the return to the Area of some charging work from CPSD was imminent and this should provide the Area with the opportunity to improve the quality of charging decisions.

4.10 We found issues with the quality of CPS MG3s (the record of charging decision), which included: a lack of proper case analysis and strategy, failure to reference relevant applications, poor quality action plans, and cases incorrectly identified as guilty anticipated pleas (GAP) rather than not guilty anticipated pleas (NGAP), which impacts on the effectiveness of the first hearing at the magistrates’ court.

4.11 The Code was applied correctly post-charge in 53 out of 57 relevant magistrates’ courts cases (93.0%). One of the four cases which failed to meet the appropriate standard was particularly badly handled and witnesses were warned to attend court for a trial on three separate occasions before the defendants were acquitted after trial.


26

Case study A good example of a timely initial review involved a case alleging a public order offence where there was insufficient evidence and, given the minor nature of the incident, had there been sufficient evidence it was not in the public interest to proceed.

The reviewing lawyer sent a notice of proposed discontinuance to police clearly outlining the weaknesses with the case. The officer in the case agreed with the CPS and the case was discontinued before the first hearing in the magistrates’ court.

4.12 A timely proportionate initial review is critical to enable a case to proceed effectively at the first hearing in the magistrates’ courts in accordance with the principles of Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ). We found in our file examination that there was a proper and proportionate initial review in 39 out of 60 cases (65.0%). However no reviews had been done before the first hearing in ten magistrates’ court cases and 11 were assessed as inadequate. Findings were better in our magistrates’ courts observations where all the cases seen had been reviewed beforehand by the court prosecutor.

4.13 In an effort to address performance and make best use of resources we were informed that East Midlands, following visits to the Cymru-Wales and West Midlands CPS Areas, had adopted a model of working in the magistrates’ courts team which required an allocated lawyer to undertake the initial review and thereafter prosecute the case in court. However, despite early allocation, and at variance with some of the comments received from CPS staff, we found very little evidence of engagement with the defence before the first hearing, even when the defence details had been included in the police summary. Defence engagement must be addressed if the Area is to maximise the potential of TSJ.

4.14 We noted that there is a good NGAP review template and checklist on the East Midlands intranet. Subject to the instruction around defence engagement being bolstered in that document, it appears to be a useful and practical tool for improving the quality of review.

Issue to address

The importance of constructive defence engagement should be emphasised, with clear instruction given that reviews must include engagement with the defence where these details are known.

4.15 We found some evidence that reviews and decisions were quality assured in the magistrates’ courts team. Managers informed us that the IQA process was ongoing, but it was accepted that records were not as good as they should be. We refer later in this section


27

to the case progression meetings which take place at most magistrates’ courts centres. These meetings provide good opportunities for managers to review the quality of decision-making and give constructive feedback to their prosecutors. In responses to our staff survey 19 Area lawyer respondents (33.9%) stated that they met with their manager at least once a month to discuss performance and another 17 (30.4%) met at least each quarter.

4.16 The findings on the overall quality of the handling of unused material in our magistrates’ courts file examination are set out below:

Venue Excellent Good Fair Poor

Magistrates’ courts 0% 53.7% 24.4% 22%

4.17 We assessed that Area prosecutors fully complied with initial disclosure in 63.4% of cases and that this was done in a timely manner in 73.7%. Disclosure record sheets were properly completed in 70.7% of these cases, which was much better than our assessment of Crown Court files where this important document had been adequately completed in just over half of the cases examined.

4.18 The Area accepted that there was work to be done both with the police and internally in relation to disclosure. One District Judge told inspectors of a recent serious case in the youth court where late disclosure only completed on the day of trial had led to wasted court time and added to the cross-examination to which the vulnerable complainant was subjected. In another case we observed a failure to disclose relevant witnesses’ previous convictions and a lack of knowledge of the national CPS policy requiring referral of any decision to withhold such material to a legal manager.

4.19 The Area actively participates in police disclosure training which contributes to improved knowledge and also helps to foster strong working relationships. However, it was clear from interviews with CPS staff that there is a lack of a consistent approach to internal training, with prosecutors in the same roles describing differing levels of experience in relation to training. A cogent disclosure training plan, tailored for specific grades and teams, would provide greater consistency in decision-making and lead to increased expertise.

Issue to address

Training should be delivered to ensure that all prosecutors are properly equipped to deal with disclosure.


28

Criteria Score

C2 Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (magistrates’ courts)

Fair

Summary: Case preparation and progression in the magistrates’ courts is presenting a challenge for the Area with limited evidence of the application of effective control.

4.21 Inspectors found that case preparation in the magistrates’ courts was patchy with prosecutors assessed as fully exercising grip in just 21 out of 60 magistrates’ court files (35.0%) and not doing so at all in over a quarter of the cases in our file examination.

4.22 Whilst the ‘Prosecutor App’ was widely used by Area prosecutors inspectors were told that the use of agents impacts on efficiency when recording hearing outcomes. Magistrates’ courts hearing record sheets (HRSs) were completed accurately and uploaded onto the case management system (CMS) in a timely manner in 71.1% of cases.

4.23 An important aim of TSJ is the progression of cases at the first hearing and our case examination revealed that 37 out of 60 cases (61.7%) were effective at this stage, with all outstanding issues resolved. We found that other agencies were responsible for 85% of the issues impacting upon the effectiveness of the first hearing at the magistrates’ court.

4.24 A common theme encountered in our observations and interviews which the CPS could directly influence is the apparent inability of the prosecution to deal with non-electronic material appropriately. It is clear that there are issues in ensuring that this material is available for prosecutors to access when they need it to undertake the initial review and also in getting the material to court to facilitate progress. Inspectors were informed that there are logistical challenges in this regard due to the geography of the Area and the inability to transfer the material digitally. However, during a court observation at Nottingham we saw that CCTV which was of evidential value had not been provided to the prosecutor.

Issue to address

A review should be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of current arrangements for the provision of non-electronic material for review before court and at court for the use of all parties.


29

4.25 We found problems with the effective completion of the PET (Preparation for Effective Trial) form which is used at the first hearing to record case management decisions and assist with case progression. Inspectors observed a number of cases where this form had been completed by the charging lawyer and/or the initial reviewing lawyer and yet it was not available at the first hearing, resulting in it having to be completed again manually by the court prosecutor.

4.26 There was evidence of the failure by the prosecution to provide appropriate bundles for use in court with documents such as the streamlined disclosure certificate missing. We were informed that this happened despite the reviewing lawyer having ‘bundled’ the right documents at the review stage, indicating what was needed for the defence and the court. In one case we observed a prosecutor photocopy and email documents which not only distracted the prosecutor from progressing cases but also wasted court time.

Issue to address

The Area should review the process for bundling cases in the magistrates’ courts and, in particular, the stage at which the work is done to ensure that the documents bundled reflect the work of the reviewing lawyer.

4.27 The prosecutors that we observed in the NGAP courts (including a specialist domestic abuse court) were well prepared and able to progress cases. In interviews, stakeholders generally spoke highly of CPS prosecutors and their ability and willingness to progress cases. In one particular court several defence solicitors appeared to be reliant on the prosecutor to inform them about their client’s case.

4.28 Some interviewees raised concerns about the extensive use of agents and, in particular, the waste of court time occasioned by the requirement that agents take instructions from the CPS around pleas and the practical difficulties in doing so. As reported in the previous section we found limited evidence of defence engagement prior to the first hearing in our court observations, with engagement being the exception rather than the norm.

4.29 We were informed that the legal managers in the magistrates’ courts team were undertaking weekly checks to seek to establish why cases were not progressing at first hearing. However, we were not provided with any evidence to show that this information had brought about improvement at the time of the inspection.


30

4.30 Upon examination the data reveals disappointing levels of performance in the magistrates’ courts including the following:

• whilst the guilty plea rate at first hearing has marginally improved, at 67.3%, the Area currently remains below the national rate (70.7%) and 5% below the CPS level of ambition

• the number of hearings per guilty plea has also improved across East Midlands, but national measures have improved by more (to 1.77); the Area figure of 1.88 is significantly worse than the CPS level of ambition of 1.75

• there has been an overall fall in the Area’s magistrates’ courts caseload of 4.2% since 2013-14 but the number of contested hearings has increased by 10.3% over the same period

• successful outcomes in the magistrates’ courts have declined from 85.9% to 83.2% in the 12 months to June 2016

• whilst the numbers of hearings per contested case has improved significantly from 3.49 hearings in 2013-14 to 3.05 in the 12 months to June 2016 this is worse than the national average, which stands at 2.95, and below the CPS level of ambition of 3.00 or lower

• the number of trials which are cracked and ineffective due to prosecution reasons has deteriorated from 20.6% in 2013-14 to 21.1%. Although better than the national average, which stands at 22%, it is worse that the CPS level of ambition of 18%.

4.31 A multi-agency review was undertaken in February this year on behalf of the Regional Criminal Justice Board to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of TSJ and identify the reasons for current levels of performance. This involved assessment of files and court observations conducted by the CPS, police and the defence. As a consequence an action plan was drawn up which also makes reference to a comprehensive Statement of Expectations issued by the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Judicial Business Group. Together these documents set out what needs to be done across the agencies to improve performance in the magistrates’ courts. Our court observations confirmed our view that there is a great deal of work to be done across the agencies and that TSJ cannot yet be regarded as ‘business as usual’. Inspectors were informed that a national detailed scrutiny visit was planned in the near future to drive improvement.

4.32 Case progression meetings now take place in most court centres across the Area where contested cases can be listed, at the request of either party or by the court at its own volition, to resolve outstanding matters arising between the first hearing and the trial date. During our observations such issues included: consideration of a complicated defence statement requiring further police work, interview notes yet to be transcribed and agreed, details of defence witnesses outstanding, and attempts to agree expert witnesses. Legal managers told us that they often, but not always, conducted these meetings and found that in addition to the prime function of resolving outstanding issues the meetings were also a useful means of assessing the quality of their prosecutors’ work. One manager


31

expressed a view that they were also a good way to get to know and engage with the defence community. The meetings are not recorded as a hearing and should improve the numbers of effective trials; however, future resourcing will have to be kept under review in light of the expectations of TSJ that contested cases be dealt with in two hearings and the absence of provision for such meetings in the CPS Casework Standard Operating Practice.

4.33 There have not been any reported custody time limit (CTL) failures in the 12 months to June 2016 for the magistrates’ courts team. Our file examination revealed that CTL calculator sheets were completed and present on relevant files. The inspection team carried out on-site CTL checks in a small sample of magistrates’ courts cases. Of the four cases examined, one had the wrong start date on the CTL calculator sheet and another included an HRS which lacked detail in the CTL section. The remaining two cases were properly dealt with in all respects and all four cases were properly recorded on CMS and in the CTL diary.

4.34 Prosecutors expressed concerns to inspectors about their abilities to manage and prioritise tasks, particularly since file allocation had been introduced. We were told about the significant challenge that prosecutors faced daily when trying to manage their review and advocacy roles. We carried out a spot check on the number of magistrates’ court tasks on the system and the proportion which were showing as significantly overdue. Despite a recent exercise to reduce tasks, following intervention by CPS Headquarters, backlogs were noted in checking new police information and the Area needs to keep a focus on task management to assist effective case progression.

Criteria Score

C3 Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction (Crown Court)

Good

Summary: Legal decisions taken in the Crown Court are of good quality but performance is hampered by the failure to conduct a proportionate and timely initial review.

4.35 The file sample contained nine cases in which the charging advice had been given by an Area lawyer. We found that in each case the Code had been applied correctly at this stage. Although only a small sample, the quality of the MG3 was much higher than that found overall in respect of CPSD charged cases. Inspectors assessed 66.7% of Area charging decisions as good, 11.1% fair and 22.2% poor.


32

4.36 Overall, regardless of who directed the charge, we only assessed 48.2% as good. Area performance was better in all considered aspects of the charging decision except for the quality of the action plan, which sets out what further work the police need to do.

4.37 The volume of cases received for charging advice by the RASSO unit exceeds the capacity of the Area to deal with them in the 28 day time target. Once the weekly capacity for allocating advices is met, any further cases received are sent to counsel for advice. This has cost implications for the Area and, in the current financial year to the end of June 2016, £29,318 was paid to counsel for RASSO advices. We were told that this advice would then be copied onto the MG3 and sent to the police. Whilst we understand the Area’s resourcing difficulties, only a Crown Prosecutor can direct a charge, or that no further action is taken. Merely reading the advice and assessing its quality on that basis alone is not sufficient. We were not assured that prosecutors were considering the evidence before determining the correctness of the advice. This approach also goes against the RASSO case handling principle of individual case ownership from start to finish.

4.38 Post-charge the Code was applied correctly in 57 out of 59 relevant cases (96.6%). However, when evaluating this aspect of performance we include those cases where there has been no review, but nevertheless it was correct that the case proceeded. In this context we noted several cases in our file sample where the defendant had been charged under the threshold test provisions by CPS Direct but were not then subject to a full Code test review by an Area lawyer. This is a requirement of the Director’s Guidance.

Issue to address

Area legal managers need to ensure that all in cases charged under the threshold test there is a full Code for Crown Prosecutors test review recorded on the file.

4.40 The good quality of legal decision-making, as illustrated by our findings in respect of Code compliance, is reinforced by the very low proportion of cases stopped by the judge at the end of the prosecution case. In the 12 months to June 2016 only 0.2% of cases were stopped in this manner compared with 0.7% nationally. By some margin East Midlands is the best performing in the CPS in this respect.

4.41 The Area has a process where non-compliance with the National File Standard in the context of the Better Case Management (BCM) initiative is raised on a case by case basis with the police, in addition to the more strategic assessments as part of the PTPM structure we discussed earlier concerning continuously improving. We discuss the effectiveness of the case by case approach in the next section. There were three cases in our Crown Court file sample where the police charged the defendant when the decision should have been taken by the CPS. This was raised appropriately with the police in only one of the cases.


33

4.42 There was a proper and proportionate initial review in 26 of the 41 relevant cases (63.4%), but in 10 of the 41 (24.4%) no review was carried out. Some of these cases pre-dated BCM but our on-site process checks of live cases also found that in two of the six where there should have been an initial review none was apparent.

4.43 Under BCM and CPS Standard Operating Practices there should be a review within three working days of a case being sent from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. We looked at eight cases while on-site which were listed for a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) the following day. Each had been subject to a fully adequate review before that hearing but none had taken place within the required timescale. We also examined 12 live files from CPS East Midlands as part of our national thematic review of BCM.5 Again each had been reviewed, but only four met the 72 hour time limit.6

4.44 Area managers agreed that performance needed to be improved and that this was partly down to how lawyers managed their tasks. However they considered that the primary issue was with the time it took for the case to be cleared from the magistrates’ court section on CMS. Only when that happened would the required task be activated on the Crown Court part of the system. We discuss how this impacts on case progression in the next section.

4.45 There are a number of Area mechanisms for assessing the quality of legal decision-making. In addition to the IQAs carried out as part of lawyer manager duties, Crown Court managers also see lawyer review decisions on BCM cases before the PTPH and there are robust assessments of cases which result in an unsuccessful outcome. Many of the aspects that managers considered should be improved were similar to those we identified and there was evidence of feedback either to individuals or, if a more general point, at team meetings.

4.46 The proportion of Crown Court cases dropped is higher than the national average and performance is declining. In the 12 months to June 2016 East Midlands dropped 13.0% of its Crown Court caseload compared with 12.1% nationally. Only one CPS Area had a poorer performance. This contrasts with 2013-14 when only 10.8% were dropped compared with 11.5% nationally. Managers were unable to give any definitive reason for this, but it suggests that there needs to be a more robust review of cases before they get to the Crown Court. Additionally a higher proportion of trials cracked due to prosecution reasons, which will contribute to the overall number of prosecutions dropped. We discuss other issues around trial effectiveness in the next section.

5 Better Case Management: A Snapshot; HMCPSI; November 2016. www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmcpsi/inspections/better-case-management/

6 Since the fieldwork the timescale for the post-sending review has been extended to five days.


34

4.47 In our file sample we assessed the handling of the disclosure of unused material as good or better in 25 of the 41 relevant cases (61.0%). However there are some aspects of performance where improvement is needed.

4.48 Initial disclosure was dealt with fully adequately in 34 of the 41 relevant cases (82.9%). Continuing disclosure was dealt with similarly in 24 of the 32 relevant cases (75.0%). We did note some cases where the defence statement had been sent promptly to the police to consider and assess whether any material, or further unused material, should be disclosed to the defence, but no reply was received. There did not appear to be adequate arrangements to alert prosecutors to this or escalate these cases. It was noted that one of the adverse case reports also identified this as an issue. We were also made aware of a case where there had been insufficient scrutiny of the unused material which had delayed the trial proceedings.

4.49 Sensitive material was dealt with fully adequately in 10 of the 14 relevant cases (71.4%). Performance would improve if prosecutors ensured that material which was wrongly listed on the sensitive material schedule was moved onto the non-sensitive material schedule.

4.50 Disclosure record sheets (DRSs) were only fully completed in 22 of the 41 relevant cases (53.7%) in our file sample. This was primarily in relation to recording continuing disclosure decisions. DRSs provide an audit trail of all disclosure decisions made by the prosecution and the Area’s performance requires improvement.

4.51 Legal managers told us that there were training needs for some lawyers who had recently joined Crown Court units in respect of how to handle the more complex disclosure issues. We have identified this as an issue to address in the preceding section on magistrates’ court casework.

Criteria Score

C4 Case preparation and progression is effective and timely (Crown Court) Good

Summary: The Area performs well in respect of the proportion of its cases which result in a successful outcome, particularly in those which involve an allegation of rape. However, more needs to be done to address victim and witness issues which are impacting on some key aspects of performance. The Area’s contribution to the success of BCM could also be improved further.


35

4.52 In the 12 months to June 2016 the Area achieved a successful outcome in 81.7% of its Crown Court cases, which is better than the national average (79.0%) but below the CPS level of ambition (82.5% or above). Although performance in this respect is good, it has been declining since 2013-14 when performance stood at 84.6%. There was a successful outcome in 65.7% of cases involving an allegation of rape, which is significantly better than the national average (57.2%) and exceeds the CPS level of ambition (60.0% or above). At the time of our inspection East Midlands was the best performing in the country in this respect, but as with overall successful outcomes performance has declined since 2013-14 when the conviction rate was 69.0%.

4.53 There were 12 discontinued cases in our file sample and the decision to drop the case was timely in nine (75.0%). We also noted a case in our sample of live cases where proceedings were discontinued promptly at the PTPH. The Code was applied correctly in 11 of the 12 cases (91.7%). In the one case where it was not, the decision to drop the charge the defendant faced appeared to be due to expediency as the charging decision was a proper one.

4.54 We have commented in the previous section on the timeliness of case reviews before the PTPH. This can have an impact on the effectiveness of the PTPH if necessary material has not been requested from the police on time. To address this the police are continuing to build the file in those cases which must be dealt with at the Crown Court, before being told what is required. We also noted some cases where the request was merely for an ‘upgrade’ file without specifying exactly what that entailed. With the advent of BCM the prosecutor should be applying their mind to what material is required to prove the case and request this in a bespoke file.

4.55 The Area has agreed a process with the police whereby seven days before the PTPH a legal manager will speak with the file preparation unit to chase missing material. However this can only be fully effective if the police are notified well in advance of this date as to what is needed. Where reviews only take place seven days before the PTPH there is very little time for the police to comply. Some CPS managers said the use of this process had dropped off and that the escalation process was not always effective.

4.56 We see the merits of this procedure, as additionally it provides legal managers another opportunity to assure the work of their teams. However, it is only fully worthwhile if file reviews are timely and there is compliance with review timescales.


36

4.57 The indictment was lodged on time with court, on the digital case system, in six of the seven relevant live cases in our sample. We were told that this was not always timely and we noted that some prosecutors had been waiting for material from the police before sending the indictment to prevent any need for it to be later amended. In the course of observing these cases in court we noted that none of the indictments required amendment.

4.58 We were told that the Area had identified the quality of indictments as an issue and that there had been training on this aspect by an experienced Crown Advocate, following which performance improved. The PTPH form, which is used by all parties as part of case management, was submitted within the seven day timescale in each case and we also noted that there had been some engagement with the defence before the hearing in each instance where it was required.

Case study In a case involving burglary and assaults the reviewing lawyer rang the defence representatives on three occasions until he spoke to the appropriate lawyer. The defence representative accepted the strength of the evidence against the defendant. At the PTPH the defendant pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced at the same hearing.

4.59 Overall the majority of CPS staff who responded to our survey saw the benefits of BCM and the related partnership working, but contextualised this with serious concerns over the adequacy of IT, the erroneous perception by others that the CPS was responsible for issues with the operation of the Crown Court digital case system, and increasing workloads which made it difficult to manage BCM tasks.

4.60 In our file sample compliance with judges’ orders made at case management hearings (either PTPH or under the old system) was fully timely in 28 of the 39 relevant cases (71.8%). The Area recorded a compliance rate of 92.5% in the 12 months to June 2016 compared with 80.7% nationally, which was the best performance in the CPS. Stakeholders agreed that performance in this respect was good, but commented that sometimes advocates agreed to unrealistic timescales which then required an application for an extension of time.7

4.61 The average number of hearings in contested cases was 5.20 for the 12 months to June 2016 compared with 5.60 nationally. In guilty plea cases it was 3.50 compared with 3.91 nationally.

7 Compliance with timescales is measured against any agreed extension period, so long as the application to extend is made within the original timescale.


37

4.62 In contrast, the length of time it can take for a trial to be listed in some parts of the Area if the defendant is on bail, together with other aspects of case scheduling, is having an adverse impact on some aspects of performance. Senior managers recognise this as an issue and having been working with their counterparts in the police and HMCTS to try and improve victim and witness attendance.

4.63 In 2015-16, 14.5% of cracked and ineffective trials were attributable to prosecution reasons, compared with 13.1% nationally. More recent data has yet to be published by HMCTS but we understand performance is improving, although still below the national rate. The overall effective trial rate was 43.7% in 2015-16, although again we understand it has now improved slightly. However, performance still remains below the national average.

4.64 The proportion of unsuccessful outcomes which are attributable to victim and witness issues has increased from 22.0% in 2013-14 to 23.7% for the 12 months to June 2016. This compares with 22.7% nationally for the 12 months to June 2016.

4.65 The Area had one case in 2015-16 where the court refused to extend a CTL because the prosecution had not acted with due diligence. We carried out on-site CTL process checks in a small sample of Crown Court cases. Of the four cases examined, one had an initial error (which was picked up) caused by an inaccurate HRS and also had a missing HRS for a later date. Missing or late HRSs are an issue generally in the Crown Court and increase the risk in custody cases of subsequent inaccurate calculations. Other aspects such as the manual CTL diaries were well maintained.

4.66 HRSs were completed accurately and uploaded promptly in only 36 of the 60 cases (60.0%) in the Crown Court sample. This impacts on the managements of tasks generally and the ability of the Area to update hearing outcomes quickly. Managers said that there was a wide range of performance when it came to using the digital task allocation process on CMS. In our sample of finalised files we also noted a number of cases where there were multiple entries of the same document.

4.67 Prior to going on-site we carried out a spot check on the number of Crown Court tasks on the system and the proportion which were showing as significantly overdue. This had been raised as an aspect of concern by CPS Headquarters earlier in the year. Whilst there were some backlogs in checking new police information, as indicated above, the majority were in respect of recording hearing outcomes, including cases which were subject to CTLs. We are aware that the Area has taken steps to address this but current performance needs to improve.


38

Issue to address

Managers must ensure that hearing record sheets are entered promptly and accurately onto the case management system to enable hearing outcomes to be updated on time.

4.68 We also noted cases in our file sample where the case outcome had been recorded incorrectly, for example:• a case finalised as an acquittal after trial when it was a conviction• a conviction after trial recorded when it was a guilty plea; and• conversely,acaserecordedasaguiltypleawhenitwasaconvictionaftertrial.

This reinforces the need for accurate hearing record sheets.


39

5 Part D: Public confidence

Performance expectation The service to victims and witnesses is central to the work of the Area. It ensures that decisions are appropriately explained and its interaction with victims and witnesses takes account of their needs, is open and direct, and shows empathy. The Area works with and learns from local communities to build confidence in the criminal justice system.

Criteria Score


Communications with victims under all applicable initiatives, the Victims’ Code or policies (including consulting victims on discontinuance or pleas, letters under the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme, communications with bereaved families, and the Victims’ Right to Review) occur where required, and are timely and of a high standard

Poor

The views and interests of the victim, witnesses and public are reflected and protected by the appropriate use of remand or bail conditions, Victim Personal Statements and ancillary orders at sentencing

Fair

The Area is responsive to community groups, victims and witnesses, complainants, other stakeholders and the public and uses their feedback robustly to identify strengths and weaknesses and to improve service delivery

Good

OVERALL SCORE FOR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE FAIR

Performance against the Part D modules

Criteria Score

D1 Communications with victims under all applicable initiatives, the Victims’ Code or policies (including consulting victims on discontinuance or pleas, letters under the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme, communications with bereaved families, and the Victims’ Right to Review) occur where required, and are timely and of a high standard

Poor

Summary: Inspectors found some evidence of compliance with the Victims’ Code and policies on communications with victims. However, performance is weak in relation to the quality and timeliness of correspondence with victims.


40

5.1 We examined 62 cases where victim and witness issues were a relevant consideration, we found that the needs of victims and witnesses were fully taken into account in only 34 (54.8%) and not considered at all in seven (11.3%).

5.2 The Area is ensuring that victims are consulted when cases are discontinued or charges are subject to substantive alteration. However, the quality of the consultation is sometimes poor and lacks empathy towards the victim.

Case study There was poor consultation with the victim of a racially aggravated intentional harassment, which was incorrectly discontinued. The reviewing lawyer formed the view that it was a relatively minor incident with no prospect of a custodial sentence and persuaded the victim to accept a very brief and not convincing letter of apology from the defendant.

An extremely brief letter discontinuing the case on public interest grounds was written by the reviewing lawyer. The case management system records the reason for discontinuance as conflict of prosecution evidence. Both of these reasons were incorrect.

5.3 The Victim Communication and Liaison scheme (VCL) provides a mechanism for the CPS to communicate and liaise directly with identified victims to ensure they receive accurate and timely information in certain instances, for example where the CPS makes a decision to discontinue proceedings or substantially alter charges.

5.4 There were 23 cases in our file sample where the CPS was required to send a VCL communication. In ten of those a letter to the victim was sent in good time and one was late. Only three of the letters were considered to be of a high standard. There were 12 cases where there should have been a VCL communication and it was not completed. Victims of crime have a right to be kept informed of the progress of criminal proceedings and they are entitled to receive an explanation if a charge is to be stopped or substantially altered. In 52.2% of relevant cases the Area failed to meet this obligation.

5.5 A common reason cited for failing to comply with the requirement to send a VCL communication is because agents and prosecutors often fail to send an HRS identifying the need for a VCL communication to the Victim Liaison Unit (VLU). In such circumstances the VLU staff would not always know that a VCL communication was required and there is no effective system in place to enable the VLU to identify cases requiring a VCL


41

communication. The VLU staff try to bridge this gap by checking adverse outcomes at court. However, this is clearly not satisfactory as it is both time consuming and such a search will not reveal cases where a VCL communication is needed due to a substantial alteration of a charge.

5.6 The Area delivered speaking to witnesses at court training to all staff between April and June 2016. Training sessions were held for the Bar and prosecuting agents, but these were not well attended. The Area monitors compliance with the guidance provided and believes that the main issue is one of failing to record the communication with witnesses, rather than compliance failures.

5.7 The CCP has written to all members of the Bar and individuals who were highlighted by the compliance monitoring informing that the Area will stop instructing counsel and agents who repeatedly fail to comply with the guidance. The Area had stopped instructing some external prosecuting agents for a period of time, but they were then instructed again on fairly simple cases. Some external agents could not adapt to digital working and the Area ceased instructing them.

5.8 Where it was CPS staff who were repeatedly failing to comply with guidance around witnesses and VCL communications it is treated as a performance issue; however, we saw no evidence of this.

Issue to address

Training is required on the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme process for all relevant staff.

Issue to address

An effective mechanism should be put in place to ensure that Victim Communication and Liaison scheme communications are timely, of a high standard and sent in all appropriate cases.


42

Criteria Score

D2 The views and interests of the victim, witnesses and public are reflected and protected by the appropriate use of remand or bail conditions, Victim Personal Statements and ancillary orders at sentencing

Fair

Summary: The Area is not delivering consistent levels of performance in protecting the interests of victims, witnesses and the public, and victim and witness issues are not always addressed fully. The Witness Service often views CPS personnel in a positive light.

5.9 There were 83 cases in the file sample that had received advice from the CPS, either the Area or CPSD, prior to charge. Inspectors found that there was consideration of relevant applications and ancillary matters in 66 of these (79.5%).

5.10 The MG3 should cover victim and witness issues in all appropriate cases. Relevant applications and ancillary matters were partly or fully considered in 66.6% of Area cases. This was significantly lower than CPSD performance where they were partly or fully considered in 87.7% of cases. The Area charged cases are likely to be of a serious and or sensitive nature as opposed to the ‘volume’ work dealt with by CPSD, which is a matter of concern.

5.11 There is a problem with the police provision of Victim Personal Statements (VPSs) and this was a primary reason why police files provided to the Area did not comply with the National File Standard. The Area escalates missing VPSs but this is not always done, which was borne out by the comments of external stakeholders. Views from HMCTS staff were mixed, some felt that they did not often get VPSs whilst others felt that the CPS were good at ensuring there was a VPS before the court.

5.12 Witness attendance at trial has declined in the East Midlands from 89.3% in 2013-14 to 87.8% in the 12 months to the end of June 2016. Encouragingly the file sample showed that the Area is proactive in ensuring the attendance of victims, with prosecutors taking steps to secure victim engagement in the court process in 57 out of 61 appropriate cases (93.4%). However, the proportion of unsuccessful outcomes due to victim reasons stands at 27.5%. Although this is an improvement over the last two years’ performance, clearly there is still a lot of work to be done in order to reduce this figure.

5.13 We found that, where applicable, prosecutors took account of the rights, interests and needs of victims and witnesses in 88.7% of cases in the file sample. Bail was opposed and conditions were applied for appropriately.


43

5.14 As discussed at paragraph 5.6 the Area delivered speaking to witnesses at court training to staff. The Area requested feedback from stakeholders in the criminal justice system across the East Midlands regarding the standard of its victim and witness care. The feedback highlighted some problems, in particular the lengthy waiting times that victims and witnesses attending court experience. However, there were also many positive comments about the service provided by CPS staff, who are often viewed as helpful and supportive.

Criteria Score

D3 The Area is responsive to community groups, victims and witnesses, complainants, other stakeholders and the public and uses their feedback robustly to identify strengths and weaknesses and to improve service delivery

Good

Summary: The Area demonstrates strong links with a large number of community groups where it has gained their confidence and provided them with an additional forum to engage with the criminal justice system. Engagement with victim and witness support groups has increased and there is continuous feedback to staff. However, the Area lacks a focussed approach to its community engagement and how it links to improved outcomes.

5.15 The Area has benefited from consistency with their EDCEM post. The post holder has been in place for a number of years and this is reflected in the knowledge of the Area’s demographics and community forums. Community groups and external stakeholders have had consistency in their contact point and have built up a good rapport with the post holder.

5.16 The Area holds three regular Local Scrutiny Involvement Panels. The Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel and Community Involvement Panel are chaired by the CCP. East Midlands has a hate crime lead prosecutor who also attends the Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel. The Violence Against Women Scrutiny Panel is chaired by the head of the CPS rape team. Each panels meet twice a year. Initially the panel members picked cases for these meetings but this has now been handed to the CPS who can identify more problematic cases to increase scrutiny, as well as learning. Fifteen to twenty panel members attend each panel meeting and CPS staff are also encouraged to attend and contribute for development purposes.

5.17 The EDCEM role is seen as an interface between the CPS and the public. The role facilitates senior managers’ attendance at community forums and SMT diaries are being prioritised to enable availability. This assists raising the profile of senior managers with partners but there is a limit on what can be done due to other commitments; partner agencies appreciate the work that is being done and understand that resources are limited. The EDCEM provides a bulletin of any recent work and facilitates lunch and learn sessions. In addition to this the EDCEM is aware of team meeting dates and will attend when necessary to disseminate learning.


44

5.18 The EDCEM identifies topics to focus upon by using national statistics and reports into the AMT and attends the ASB if a paper is required. Although there was no lack of proactivity on behalf of the EDCEM, there was limited evidence of the involvement of senior managers with respect to directing the work of the EDCEM. The Area also struggled to evidence the business benefits of their community engagement activity and how it has improved casework quality. The Area has produced a CPS East Midlands Community Engagement Delivery Plan 2016-2017 which states that the key objective of the plan is to ensure the Area maximises all the benefits and learning from the investments it has made in community engagement activities. The plan lacks details of how this will be measured.

5.19 Feedback from Witness Care Unit (WCU) managers highlighted some areas of concern with respect to victim and witness care. A common theme across the different police forces was the accuracy of witness requirements by the CPS. In addition, the accuracy of trial venue, date and time has also been raised. WCU managers speak of remedial work having to be carried out due to the number of errors. Previous feedback of issues surrounding the quality of witness warnings has not seen improvements; however, in July 2016 a new process of collating errors and submitting them twice monthly to CPS managers was introduced. The new process will be trialled for six months to ascertain its effectiveness at resolving the issue.

5.20 Feedback suggested that the defence did not always indicate witness requirements at the first case management hearing in the Crown Court. As a consequence the CPS warns all witnesses initially then subsequently de-warns those that are not required. The Area has not yet been successful in resolving the matter with its partner agencies despite the adverse impact on victims and witnesses.

5.21 In our survey 47% of staff agreed that some work is leading to a better service but there is still room for improvement, although only 28.8% of staff felt that the Area is good at working with others and this has actually improved the service for victims and witnesses. There are now more regular meetings with WCUs by CPS managers and there is now a prioritised focus on addressing witness queries from the WCUs. This was evident in the low number of outstanding witness queries remaining open on CMS. The Area has also completed some analysis of their service to victims and witnesses through their Victim and Witness Focus Programme. This involved CPS personnel visiting court sites, recording good practice and identifying areas that need improving. The Area also contacted the Witness Service and requested feedback on the standard of service being provided to victims and witnesses.

Issue to address

The community engagement strategy should include details of how the benefits of the community engagement can be measured with respect to casework quality.


45

6 Part E: Efficiency and value for money

Performance expectation The Area ensures it delivers the maximum benefit for users and stakeholders with the resources available. It has the right people doing the right things at the right time for the right cost, and delivering the right outcome. It is focussed on ensuring that successful outcomes and quality service delivery are achieved through proper governance, casework quality, the effective use of resources, and efficient and effective processes that avoid unnecessary, duplicated or additional work.

This aspect was not scored.

Summary: The Area is conscious of working efficiently and providing value for money but more work is required to improve a number of its key performance results.

6.1 Managers attempt to relate the day to day tasks that staff complete to cost and reinforce concepts around value for money, which can be as simple as reminding people not to order items that are not necessary. However in other respects we found inefficiency in the Area. The use of counsel for RASSO advices, while the reasons for this are understood, is both costly and inefficient. Only a Crown Prosecutor can make charging decisions in these cases and this naturally leads to a duplication of work as an Area lawyer has to look at the case as a whole and not simply check counsel’s advice. Currently Crown Advocates are not deployed to achieving savings and are running at a notional loss, although they are deployed to review work, which adds value to this work.

6.2 The Area actively considers finance and resources and there are regular discussions between the ABM and Finance Manager around these issues. Although there is accurate financial forecasting in relation to overall running costs, there is still a lack of budgetary control in some aspects. East Midlands is currently running at a slight overspend, but some of the budget categories are significantly overspent.

6.3 The Area deals with its workload in a proportionate manner. The cost per completed case is much lower than the national average (£475 compared to £607); East Midlands’s casework is one of the most cost effective in the country. Since 2013-14 the cost per case figure for the Area has decreased by 1% whereas nationally during the same period costs per case have increased by 13.3%.

6.4 The Area is open and receptive to ideas for improving performance and has conducted benchmarking exercises in other CPS Areas with this aim in mind. There are strong working relationships with partner agencies in order to take a leading role in cross-agency initiatives to ascertain the reasons why performance is not where it should be.


46

6.5 The Area has invested significant resource into developing and delivering training for partners, for example, around police file quality and the handling of unused material. There are also a number of quality assurance mechanisms in place to assess the level of both individual and team performance.

6.6 Notwithstanding this East Midlands does not appear to have a coherent plan as to how the abundance of data it has gathered should be best used to drive up performance. As already outlined, some of the key outcomes are below the national average across the CPS. In contrast the rate of rape convictions is the best in the country and the Crown Court conviction rate is above the national average. Performance has been in decline, but ensuring that all cases are subject to a robust and timely initial review should assist in reversing this.


47

A Glossary

Annexes

Adverse caseAn adverse result is a case which is either discontinued by the prosecution or stopped by the court because of a lack of evidence.

AgentAgents are lawyers who are not employed by the CPS but who are booked, usually on a daily basis, to prosecute cases in court on its behalf. They are not empowered to take decisions under the Code for Crown Prosecutors and have to take instructions from CPS lawyers in this regard.

Area Business Manager (ABM)The most senior non-legal manager at CPS Area level.

Associate prosecutor (AP)A CPS employee who is trained to present cases in the magistrates’ court on pleas of guilty, to prove them where the defendant does not attend, or to conduct trials of non-imprisonable offences.

Attendance Improvement Notice (AIN)Issued by managers to staff to address unsatisfactory attendance due to non-disability related sickness absence.

Better Case Management (BCM) The single national process for case management of Crown Court matters. It is led by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and involves the CPS and police. The aim is to deal with cases more efficiently.

Case management system (CMS)IT system for case management used by the CPS. Through links with the police systems CMS receives electronic case material.

Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP)The most senior legal manager at CPS Area level and the person who is held to account for its assurance controls and performance.

Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code)The public document that sets out the framework for prosecution decision-making. Crown prosecutors have the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) power to determine cases delegated, but must exercise them in accordance with the Code and its two stage test – the evidential and public interest stages. Cases should only proceed if, firstly, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, if the prosecution is required in the public interest. See also threshold test.


48

Court orders/directionsAn order or direction made by the court at a case progression hearing requiring the prosecution to comply with a timetable of preparatory work for a trial. These orders are often made under the Criminal Procedure Rules.

CPS Direct (CPSD)The CPS Area which takes the majority of CPS decisions as to charge under the charging scheme. Lawyers are available on a single national telephone number so that advice can be obtained at any time.

Cracked trialA case listed for a contested trial which does not proceed, either because the defendant changes his plea to guilty, or pleads to an alternative charge, or because the prosecution offer no evidence.

Crown Advocate (CA)A lawyer employed by the CPS who has a right of audience in the Crown Court.

Custody time limit (CTL)The statutory time limit for keeping a defendant in custody awaiting trial. May be extended by the court in certain circumstances.

Graduated Fee Scheme (GFS)Used by the CPS to pay counsel fees for Crown Court cases where the trial estimate recorded by the court is 40 days or under. It is also used in committals for sentence and in appeals against conviction or sentence.

Guilty Anticipated Plea (GAP)A Guilty Anticipated Plea involves a case whereby the defendant is expected to admit the offence at court following an assessment of the available evidence.

Hearing record sheet (HRS)A CPS electronic record of events at court. If completed correctly it acts as a continual log of court proceedings and court orders.

Individual Learning Account (ILA)The ILA gives every member of CPS staff access to £350 a year for professional development to ensure all staff have the tools and skills to do their job.


49

Individual Quality Assessment (IQA)The CPS scheme to assess the performance of individuals and compliance with the CPS’s Casework Quality Standards.

Ineffective trialThe trial does not go ahead on the trial date due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, defence or the court and a further listing for trial is required.

Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB)There are a number of Local Criminal Justice Boards (or partnerships) in England and Wales, which bring together the chief officers of all the criminal justice agencies and partnerships in order to co-ordinate delivery of the criminal justice system.

Local Scrutiny and Involvement Panel (LSIP)The mechanism through which the public can hold the CPS to account over the way that it delivers its services to the local community.

National File Standard (NFS) This document details what must be included in the police file for particular types of cases.

Not Guilty Anticipated Plea (NGAP)A Not Guilty Anticipated Plea involves a case whereby the defendant is expected to deny the offence at court following an assessment of the available evidence.

Paralegal officer/assistant A member of CPS staff who deals with, or manages, day-to-day conduct of a prosecution case under the supervision of a Crown Prosecutor and, in the Crown Court, attends court to assist the advocate.

Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH)This is a first hearing before the Crown Court at which cases should be effectively managed and listed for trial. There is a specific PTPH form which should be completed as far as possible prior to the hearing and completed at that hearing. This is part of the BCM initiative.

Prosecution Team Performance Management (PTPM)Joint analysis of performance by the CPS and police locally. It is used to consider the outcomes of charging and other joint processes.


50

Prosecutor’s duty of disclosureThe prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defence material gathered during the investigation of a criminal offence, which is not intended to be used as evidence against the defendant, but which may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case. Initial (formerly known as “primary”) disclosure is supplied routinely in all contested cases. Continuing (formerly “secondary”) disclosure is supplied after service of a defence statement. Timeliness of the provision of disclosure is covered in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO)Includes rape, sexual assault, sexual activity offences, abuse of children through prostitution or pornography, and trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Resource Efficiency Model (REM)Used to measure how long tasks take and how many are being processed to create a standardised way of measuring the resources needed to carry out work across the organisation.

Standard Operating Practices (SOPs)National CPS processes that apply consistency to business practices. They provide a set procedure for all Areas to adhere to. Examples of SOPs are those for Transforming Summary Justice, Better Case Management, and custody time limits.

Threshold testThe Code for Crown Prosecutors provides that where it is not appropriate to release a defendant on bail after charge, but the evidence to apply the full Code test is not yet available, the threshold test should be applied.

Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ)A cross-criminal justice agency initiative which aims to reform the way in which criminal casework is undertaken in the magistrates’ courts and to create a swifter criminal justice system, with reduced delay and fewer hearings. The initiative is based on ten characteristics to be implemented by all the agencies to achieve its aims.

Very High Cost Case (VHCC)A scheme used by the CPS to ensure that work undertaken by counsel in the preparation and presentation of cases in the Crown Court, Higher Court and at the advice stage is actively managed by the reviewing lawyer and expenditure in the most complex, serious and expensive cases is subject to proper audit.


51

Victim Communication and Liaison scheme (VCL)A CPS scheme under which victims are informed of decisions to discontinue or alter substantially any charges. The CPS must notify the victim within one working day if they are vulnerable or intimidated and within five working days for all other victims. In some case categories a meeting will be offered to the victim or their family to explain these decisions.

Victim Liaison Unit (VLU)A dedicated team of CPS staff in every Area responsible for all direct communication with victims, administering the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, complaints, and for overseeing the service to bereaved families.

Victim Personal Statement (VPS)This gives victims a voice in the criminal justice process by helping others to understand how a crime has affected them. If a defendant is found guilty, the court will take the VPS into account, along with all the other evidence, when deciding upon an appropriate sentence.

Victims’ Right to Review scheme (VRR)Under the scheme a review of the following CPS decisions can be sought: not to charge; to discontinue (or withdraw in the magistrates’ courts) all charges thereby ending all proceedings; to offer no evidence in all proceedings; and to leave all charges in the proceedings to “lie on file” (this is the term used in circumstances where the CPS makes a decision not to proceed and requests that the charges be allowed “to lie on the file” marked ‘not to be proceeded with without the leave of this Court or the Court of Appeal’).

Witness Care Unit (WCU)Unit responsible for managing the care of victims and prosecution witnesses from the point of charge to the conclusion of a case. Staffed by witness care officers and other support workers whose role it is to keep witnesses informed of progress during the course of their case. Units may have a combination of police and CPS staff (joint units).

Workplace Adjustment PassportA way of recording the reasonable adjustments needed in the work place, so that disabled staff are supported in their role.


52


53

B Area Assurance Programme inspection framework

IntroductionThe framework is split into five sections: The success of CPS people; Continuous improvement; Delivering high quality casework; Ensuring public confidence; and Efficiency and value for money. Each section has a performance expectation and a number of criteria against which evidence will be gathered. Sub criteria have been identified for each section which can be used as a guide to help assess performance.

The framework aligns significantly with the current CPS priorities and takes account and considers other key initiatives such as Standard Operating Practices (SOPs), Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) and Better Case Management (BCM).

Overall, inspectors are looking to see that the CPS delivers the maximum benefit for users and stakeholders with the resources available. This means the right people doing the right things at the right time for the right cost, and delivering the right outcome. The focus will be on ensuring that successful outcomes and quality service delivery are achieved through proper governance, casework quality, the effective use of resources, and efficient and effective processes that avoid unnecessary, duplicated or additional work.


Performance expectation The Area is led and managed effectively to ensure it has the right people equipped with the appropriate tools and skills for the job to deliver a high quality service. This is achieved by ensuring all staff have the right technology, systems and skills, to enable decisions to be made fairly, at the right time and at an appropriate level.

Criteria1 Senior management demonstrates effective leadership and engages with staff to

identify and utilise opportunities to deliver a quality of service.

1.1 Senior managers act as role models demonstrating commitment to CPS values and equality and diversity policies.

1.2 Senior managers have effective engagement with staff on strategic and operational matters.

1.3 Senior managers effectively communicate the vision, values and direction of the CPS.

1.4 All managers motivate staff, build effective teams, and challenge inappropriate behaviour.


54

1.5 All managers understand and take responsibility for implementing senior management decisions.

1.6 Regular and open dialogue occurs through team meetings, with feedback to senior managers of relevant information.

1.7 Senior managers take time to make themselves available to staff at key points in the business calendar or during change processes.

2 Senior managers work effectively and are influential with criminal justice partners.

2.1 Senior managers promote an open and constructive approach with criminal justice colleagues.

2.2 The Area works effectively with Local Criminal Justice Boards (or similar where applicable).

3 The Area is committed to CPS values, equality and diversity policies and staff development to deliver improvement in staff engagement, effectiveness, well-being and morale.

3.1 The Area has integrated equality into all relevant strategies and plans, including the Area training plan, and there is equality of access to training.

3.2 The Area is implementing a plan to improve staff engagement levels which is delivering results.

3.3 Sick absence reduction targets have been set and actions taken to meet them.

3.4 Good performance is identified and rewarded, and poor performance tackled appropriately.


Performance expectation The Area continuously improves how it works, deploying resources to work effectively and using efficient processes.

Criteria1 The Area’s key performance data is analysed effectively and used to inform

resource allocation, to robustly identify the Area’s strengths and weaknesses and to drive improvement.


55

1.1 There is regular and robust analysis of performance by the Area Management Team, which is based on reliable and timely performance data and other relevant information.

1.2 Analysis of performance informs decision-making and resource allocation, leads to remedial action being taken where appropriate, and contributes to improving performance.

1.3 There is effective benchmarking of performance across the Area, with other Areas, national performance and CPS levels of ambition, which informs decision-making and resource allocation.

1.4 Performance information is disseminated in a readily understood format to staff.

1.5 Area quality assurance and performance monitoring measures identify aspects for improvement and good practice, which are shared with staff and which drive improvements in service delivery.

1.6 Teams are held to account for their performance.

1.7 Senior managers assess performance robustly, using regular reality checks (such as dip samples, reviews of failed cases and court observations) to inform their understanding of front-end delivery levels.

1.8 The QPR process is applied robustly and openly and used to improve performance.

2 Resources are systematically managed and deployed effectively.

2.1 The Area’s budget is systematically controlled through appropriate delegation, proper monitoring, and accurate knowledge of committed expenditure.

2.2 The Area’s budgetary allocation and planning support strategic and operational delivery.

2.3 The Area has an effective and transparent system of allocating funds to budget holders. There are clear financial delegation limits, which are understood by staff.

2.4 Area managers are effective in negotiating financial matters with Headquarters and partners.

2.5 The Area has effective systems for assessing the most appropriate staffing structure and staffing levels across the Area, which are used to ensure that work is conducted by staff at the right level.

2.6 The balance between in-house prosecutors and agents’ usage represents a good use of resources.


56

3 Joined-up working is effective and delivers improvements in outcomes for users.

3.1 There are effective arrangements for joint performance management with criminal justice partners, which include robust quality assurance processes.

3.2 Relevant performance information, areas for improvement and good practice are shared between criminal justice partners and used to identify strengths and weaknesses.

3.3 Joint improvement strategies are implemented, actions are followed up and improvement results.


Performance expectation The Area delivers justice through excellent, timely legal decisions, casework preparation and presentation, leading to improved outcomes.

CriteriaMagistrates’ courts casework

1 Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction.

1.1 The Area checks that all files received from the police comply with National File Standard and the principles of Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ).Unresolved issues are escalated when appropriate.

1.2 The Area feeds back effectively to the police where they do not comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors or the Director’s Guidance on Charging (5th edition).

1.3 The Area ensures that there is a timely and proportionate review in all cases requiring one, which is appropriately recorded.

1.4 Reviews and decisions comply with the Code and any relevant policy or guidance; include a prosecution case theory or trial strategy to maximise the prospects of a successful outcome; and identify when ancillary orders or additional information may be requested at sentencing.


57

1.5 Reviews and decisions are robustly quality assured.

1.6 The Area complies with its duties of disclosure in relation to unused material.

1.7 Disclosure is robustly quality assured, aspects for improvement are identified, and performance improves as a result.

2 Case preparation and progression is effective and timely.

2.1 Area systems support the effective progression of cases, including compliance with the Criminal Procedure Rules and SOPs.

2.2 The Area ensures that cases progress at the first magistrates’ court hearing in accordance with TSJ principles.

2.3 The Area ensures that the number of effective trials and successful outcomes are increasing through effective case preparation and progression.

2.4 The Area has an effective system for the management and monitoring of custody time limits.

2.5 CMS task lists and reports are used robustly to manage, monitor and improve case progression.

Crown Court casework

3 Reviews and decisions (including charging decisions, the use of applications, and acceptance of plea) are proportionate; properly recorded; comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and any relevant policy and guidance; include consultation with the police; and contribute to successful outcomes and victim and witness satisfaction.

3.1 The Area checks that all files received from the police comply with National File Standards and the principles of BCM. Unresolved issues are escalated when appropriate.

3.2 The Area feeds back effectively to the police where they do not comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors or the Director’s Guidance on Charging.

3.3 The Area ensures that there is a timely and proportionate review in all cases requiring one, which is appropriately recorded.

3.4 Reviews and decisions comply with the Code and any relevant policy or guidance; include a prosecution case theory or trial strategy to maximise the prospects of a successful outcome; and identify when ancillary orders or additional information may be requested at sentencing.

3.5 Reviews and decisions are robustly quality assured.


58

3.6 The Area complies with its duties of disclosure in relation to unused material.

3.7 Disclosure is robustly quality assured, aspects for improvement are identified, and performance improves as a result.

4 Case preparation and progression is effective and timely.

4.1 Area systems support the effective progression of cases, including compliance with the Criminal Procedure Rules and SOPs.

4.2 The Area ensures that cases progress in the Crown Court in accordance with BCM principles.

4.3 The Area ensures that the number of effective trials and successful outcomes are increasing through effective case preparation and progression.

4.4 The Area has an effective system for the management and monitoring of custody time limits.

4.5 CMS task lists and reports are used robustly to manage, monitor and improve case progression.


Performance expectation The service to victims and witnesses is central to the work of the Area. It ensures that decisions are appropriately explained and its interaction with victims and witnesses takes account of their needs, is open and direct, and shows empathy. The Area works with, and learns from, local communities to build confidence in the criminal justice system.

1 Communications with victims under all applicable initiatives, the Victims’ Code or policies (including consulting victims on discontinuance or pleas, letters under the Victim Communication and Liaison scheme, communications with bereaved families, and the Victims’ Right to Review) occur where required, and are timely and of a high standard.

1.1 The needs of victims and witnesses are fully considered and there is timely and appropriate liaison and support throughout the prosecution process.

1.2 The Area ensures compliance with the requirement to consult victims in appropriate cases, including discontinuance and acceptance of pleas.


59

1.3 The Area ensures that communications with victims and bereaved families are sent where required and are of a high standard, with reference to sources of support or additional rights (including the Victims’ Right to Review) where appropriate.

1.4 Area training plans give appropriate priority to training on victim and witness issues and relevant policies and guidance.

2 The views and interests of the victim, witnesses and public are reflected and protected by the appropriate use of remand or bail conditions, Victim Personal Statements and ancillary orders at sentencing.

2.1 The Area ensures that victim and witness issues are considered at the pre-charge stage and clear instructions are provided to advocates for all hearings.

2.2 The Area ensures that applications to refuse bail, seek bail conditions or appeal the grant of bail are appropriate and proportionate and are effective in protecting the victim and the public.

2.3 The Area ensures that the opportunity to make a Victim Personal Statement has been provided in applicable cases and that prosecutors take the necessary steps to present it to the court in the way that the victim chooses, as far as possible.

2.4 Area processes ensure that the right ancillary orders are sought at sentencing or other disposal to protect the victim, witnesses or public.

3 The Area is responsive to community groups, victims and witnesses, complainants, other stakeholders and the public and uses their feedback robustly to identify strengths and weaknesses and to improve service delivery.

3.1 Senior managers are committed to engaging with, and securing the confidence of, victims and witnesses, other stakeholders and the public.

3.2 The needs of victims and witnesses are identified, addressed and incorporated into the core business of the Area.

3.3 The Area prioritises engagement with stakeholders or community groups at the greatest risk of exclusion and discrimination.

3.4 Complaints, Victims’ Right to Review communications, and other feedback from stakeholders, community groups and the public are used to identify aspects for improvement.

3.5 Actions identified from feedback are implemented effectively and followed up robustly.


60

3.6 The Area can demonstrate improvement in service delivery, engagement or community confidence as a result of actions taken on feedback received.

3.7 The Area engages effectively with Witness Care Units, victim and witness support agencies, and other criminal justice partners to deliver improvements in victim and witness care at court.

Part E: Efficiency and value for money

Performance expectation The Area ensures it delivers the maximum benefit for users and stakeholders with the resources available. It has the right people doing the right things at the right time for the right cost, and delivering the right outcome. It is focussed on ensuring that successful outcomes and quality service delivery are achieved through proper governance, casework quality, the effective use of resources, and efficient and effective processes that avoid unnecessary, duplicated or additional work.

1.1 Area managers actively promote the concept of value for money throughout the Area.

1.2 Effective and efficient case progression is avoiding duplication and minimising waste by ensuring that only appropriate cases are brought to court in an expedient manner.

1.3 High quality casework is maximising the likelihood of a successful result.

1.4 Partnership working is delivering positive results in outcomes for users.

1.5 The Area, through effective management, makes best uses of its resources to optimise their effectiveness and delivers successful outcomes.


61

C File sample composition and examination findings

Question Answer

Pre-charge decision by police

The police decision to charge was compliant with the Code for Crown Prosecutors

Yes 89.2%

No 10.8%

The police decision to charge was compliant with the Director’s Guidance

Yes 81.1%

No 18.9%

The police MG3 correctly identified whether a guilty or not guilty plea was anticipated

Yes 83.3%

No 16.7%

Pre-charge decision by the CPS

The CPS decision to charge was compliant with the Code for Crown Prosecutors

Yes 94.0%

No 6.0%

The MG3 included proper case analysis and case strategy Fully met 44.6%

Partially met 34.9%

Not met 20.5%

The MG3 made reference to all relevant applications and ancillary matters

Fully met 54.9%

Partially met 30.5%

Not met 14.6%

There were appropriate instructions and guidance to the court prosecutor contained in either the MG3 or the PET or PTPH created with the MG3

Fully met 49.4%

Partially met 39.8%

Not met 10.8%

The CPS MG3 correctly identified whether a guilty or not guilty plea was anticipated

Yes 89.0%

No 11.0%

The action plan met a satisfactory standard Fully met 52.6%

Partially met 34.6%

Not met 12.8%


62

Question Answer

Rate the overall quality of the MG3 Excellent 1.2%

Good 47.0%

Fair 31.3%

Poor 20.5%

Code compliance after charge

The police file submission complied with the National File Standard for the type of case

Fully met 48.0%

Partially met 36.0%

Not met 16.0%

The main failing in the police file was in relation to VPS 42.3%

MG11 11.5%

Overbuild 13.5%

Other 32.7%

Police file submission was timely Yes 85.7%

No 14.3%

All Code decisions after charge complied with the Code for Crown Prosecutors

Yes 94.8%

No 5.2%

Initial case review and preparation for the first hearing

The case received a proper and proportionate initial case review where appropriate

Yes 64.4%

No 15.8%

Not done 19.8%

The initial case review was carried out in a timely manner Yes 75.3%

No 24.7%

The prosecutor prepared the case effectively in accordance with TSJ/BCM to ensure progress in court at the initial hearing(s)

Yes 73.2%

No 26.8%

The prosecutor identified and raised with the police any lack of compliance with TSJ/BCM

Yes 53.1%

No 46.9%

MG11 Statement made by a witness to be used as evidence


63

Question Answer

The first hearing was effective, complied with TSJ/BCM expectations (where appropriate) and resolved all outstanding issues

Yes 67.1%

No 32.9%

Any issues with the effectiveness of the TSJ/BCM hearing were primarily occasioned by whom

Police 28.6%

CPS 17.9%

Court 14.3%

Defence 39.3%

Case progression after the first hearing

The lawyer or team exercised sound judgement and grip on the case

Fully met 49.6%

Partially met 33.6%

Not met 16.8%

There was timely compliance with court directions or judges’ orders

Fully met 64.3%

Partially met 17.9%

Not met 17.9%

Any decision to discontinue was made and put into effect in a timely manner

Yes 82.6%

No 17.4%

The decision to accept pleas or a basis of plea was sound Yes 85.7%

No 14.3%

Any basis of plea was in writing and signed by the prosecution and defence

Yes 25.0%

No 50.0%

Not known 25.0%

Hearing record sheets were completed accurately, contained sufficient instructions to progress the case and were uploaded to CMS in a timely manner

Fully met 65.8%

Partially met 20.0%

Not met 14.2%


64

Question Answer

Disclosure

The police complied with their disclosure obligations Fully met 67.2%

Partially met 23.3%

Not met 9.5%

The main failing in the police disclosure was in relation to Listing items wrongly

15.8%

Poor description of items

15.8%

Lack of schedule

26.3%

Wrong schedules

10.5%

Other 31.6%

The prosecutor complied with the duty of initial disclosure, including the correct endorsement of the schedules (but not including timeliness of disclosure)

Fully met 73.2%

Partially met 14.6%

Not met 12.2%

The prosecutor complied with the duty of continuing disclosure (but not including timeliness of disclosure)

Fully met 71.4%

Partially met 17.1%

Not met 11.4%

The failure to comply with the duty of disclosure was a complete failure to disclose undermining or assisting material (late disclosure is not a complete failure)

Yes 5.0%

No 95.0%

The prosecution complied with its duty of disclosure in a timely manner

Yes 78.5%

No 21.5%

Sensitive unused material was dealt with appropriately Fully met 72.2%

Partially met 11.1%

Not met 16.7%


65

Question Answer

Third party material was dealt with appropriately Fully met 100%

Partially met 0%

Not met 0%

The DRS was properly completed with actions and decisions taken on disclosure

Fully met 62.2%

Partially met 19.5%

Not met 18.3%

Rate the overall quality of handling of unused material by the CPS

Excellent 2.4%

Good 54.9%

Fair 28.0%

Poor 14.6%

Victims and witnesses

Where appropriate the prosecutor took all necessary steps to secure victim engagement in the court process

Fully met 78.7%

Partially met 14.8%

Not met 6.6%

The prosecutor took account of the rights, interests and needs of victims and witnesses including consulting with them where appropriate

Fully met 54.8%

Partially met 33.9%

Not met 11.3%

There was a timely VCL when required Yes 43.5%

No 4.3%

Not done 52.2%

The VCL was of a high standard Fully met 27.3%

Partially met 54.5%

Not met 18.2%


66

Question Answer

Police service quality

Rate the overall quality of the service from the police Excellent 0%

Good 61.7%

Fair 29.2%

Poor 9.2%

CPS service quality

Rate the overall value added by the CPS Excellent 0%

Good 52.6%

Fair 35.3%

Poor 12.1%


67

D Area performance data

Out

com

es

Natio

nal

Eas

t M

idla

nds

20

13-1

420

14-1

520

15-1

612

m

onth

s to

Jun

16

Varian

ce

2013

-14

to

Jun

16

2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

12

mon

ths

to Jun

16

Varian

ce

2013

-14

to

Jun

16

Mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

Succ

essf

ul o

utco

mes

85.6

%84

.2%

83.8

%84

.0%

_85

.9%

84.4

%83

.1%

83.2

%_

Disc

ontin

uanc

e9.

8%10

.5%

10.3

%10

.2%

_10

.0%

11.3

%12

.0%

11.9

%_

Crow

n Co

urt

Succ

essf

ul o

utco

mes

81.0

%79

.4%

79.2

%79

.0%

_84

.6%

82.7

%81

.6%

81.7

%_

Judg

e or

dere

d ac

quitt

als

11.5

%12

.5%

12.2

%12

.1%

_10

.8%

12.5

%13

.2%

13.0

%_

Char

ging

vol

umes

No. of

pre

-cha

rge

deci

sion

s29

8,07

730

7,03

727

6,69

627

6,21

1-7

.3%

22,3

1221

,280

21,6

6921

,966

-1.6

%

Mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

Guilt

y pl

eas

71.8

%71

.2%

71.2

%71

.8%

_72

.0%

72.4

%72

.4%

73.0

%_

Attr

ition

21.6

%22

.4%

21.8

%21

.3%

_21

.5%

22.1

%22

.1%

21.3

%_

Crow

n Co

urt

Guilt

y pl

eas

72.8

%71

.9%

71.4

%71

.0%

_78

.9%

77.8

%76

.5%

76.6

%_

Attr

ition

18.8

%20

.5%

20.6

%20

.7%

_15

.3%

17.7

%18

.6%

18.2

%_


68

Staffing and caseload changes

2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

% c

hang

e 20

14-1

5 to

20

15-1

6

12 m

onth

sto

Jun

16

% c

hang

e 20

15-1

6 to

Ju

n 16

2 yr

ave

rage

%

cha

nge

2014

-15

to

Jun

16

Areas and CPS Direct plus Proceeds of Crime

Staff in post 5,285.1 4,983.7 4,585.1 -8.0 4,532.3 -1.2 -9.1

Prosecutors in post 2,375.1 2,240.3 2,110.7 -5.8 2,102.1 -0.4 -6.2

Administrators in post 2,909.9 2,743.4 2,474.5 -9.8 2,430.2 -1.8 -11.4

Magistrates’ court

Completed cases 633,306 557,887 534,121 -4.3 529,594 -0.8 -5.1

Contested cases* 53,770 54,167 59,964 10.7 59,299 -1.1 9.5

Contested cases proportion of completed cases

8.5 9.7 11.2 1.5 11.2 -0.03 1.5

Contested cases with conviction

33,805 33,075 37,513 13.4 37,335 -0.5 12.9

Proportion of contested cases resulting in conviction

62.9 61.1 62.6 1.5 63.0 0.4 1.9

Contested cases per prosecutor**

22.6 24.2 28.4 4.2 28.2 -0.2 4.0

Crown Court

Completed cases 93,446 98,505 96,338 -2.2 94,803 -1.6 -3.8

Contested cases* 16,102 16,847 17,351 3.0 17,488 0.8 3.8


17.2 17.1 18.0 0.9 18.4 0.4 1.3


9,627 9,568 9,862 3.1 9,858 -0.04 3.0


59.8 56.79 56.8 0.0 56.37 -0.47 -0.4


6.8 7.5 8.2 0.7 8.3 0.1 0.8

* Includes mixed pleas ** Excludes CCP and senior staff


69

Staffing and caseload changes

2013

-14

2014

-15

2015

-16

% c

hang

e 20

14-1

5 to

20

15-1

6

12 m

onth

sto

Jun

16

% c

hang

e 20

15-1

6 to

Ju

n 16

2 yr

ave

rage

%

cha

nge

2014

-15

to

Jun

16

East Midlands

Staff in post 345.5 301.7 280.7 -7.0 277.6 -1.1 -8.0

Prosecutors in post 147.3 135.9 132.7 -2.3 131.5 -0.9 -3.2

Administrators in post 198.2 165.8 148.0 -10.7 146.0 -1.3 -11.9

Magistrates’ court

Completed cases 44,711 42,075 42,636 1.3 42,850 0.5 1.8

Contested cases* 3,541 3,616 4,209 16.4 4,301 2.2 18.9


7.9 8.59 9.87 1.3 10.04 0.17 1.44


2,344 2,464 2,843 15.4 2,918 2.6 18.4


66.2 68.1 67.5 -0.6 67.8% 0.3 -0.3


24.0 26.6 31.7 5.1 32.7 1.0 6.1

Crown Court

Completed cases 6,314 6,938 7,024 1.2 6,876 -2.1 -0.9

Contested cases* 724 700 756 8.0 749 -0.9 7.0


11.5 10.1 10.8 0.7 10.9 0.1 0.8


465 401 449 12.0 456 1.56 13.7


64.2 57.3 59.4 2.1 60.9 1.5 3.6


4.9 5.2 5.70 0.5 5.69 -0.07 0.5

* Includes mixed pleas ** Excludes CCP and senior staff


70

Na

tiona

l

East

Mid

land

s

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

12 months to Jun 16

Improvement/deterioration 2015-16 to Jun 16

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

12 months to Jun 16


Comparison to nat. average 12 months to Jun 16

Effic

ienc

y

Com

plet

ed c

ases

per

ad

min

istr

ator

(FT

E)24

9.7

239.

325

4.8

256.

9Im

p25

7.4

295.

633

5.6

340.

5Im

pBe

tter

th

an

Com

plet

ed c

ases

per

pr

osec

utor

(FT

E)30

6.0

293.

029

8.7

297.

0De

t34

6.3

360.

637

4.1

378.

1Im

pBe

tter

th

an

In-h

ouse

mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

sess

ions

74.4

%72

.4%

70.5

%69

.5%

Det

60.4

%63

.5%

57.7

%59

.7%

Imp

Wor

se

than

Asso

ciat

e pr

osec

utor

m

agis

trat

es’ co

urt

sess

ions

28.8

%27

.0%

25.1

%24

.9%

Det

26.9

%24

.6%

23.4

%24

.1%

Imp

Wor

se

than

Case

s dr

oppe

d at

3rd

or

sub

sequ

ent

hear

ings

(m

agis

trat

es’ co

urt)

35.8

%34

.1%

30.5

%30

.0%

Imp

31.1

%31

.6%

30.4

%30

.5%

Det

Wor

se

than

Aver

age

sess

ions

per

as

soci

ate

pros

ecut

or p

er w

eek

5.25

5.59

6.50

6.58

Imp

4.49

4.71

4.77

5.06

Imp

Wor

se

than

Hear

ings

per

mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

case

(gu

ilty

plea

)1.

851.

871.

801.

77Im

p1.

931.

951.

901.

88Im

pW

orse

th

an

Hear

ings

per

Cro

wn

Cour

t ca

se (

guilt

y pl

ea)

3.58

3.84

3.97

3.91

Imp

3.18

3.38

3.66

3.64

Imp

Bett

er

than

Perc

enta

ge o

f m

agis

trat

es’ co

urt

guilt

y pl

eas

at f

irst

hea

ring

67.8

%70

.8%

70.7

%70

.7%

No

chan

ge67

.2%

69.2

%68

.4%

67.3

%De

tW

orse

th

an

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cr

own

Cour

t gu

ilty

plea

s at

first

hea

ring

35.8

%33

.1%

31.8

%33

.6%

Imp

41.1

%40

.0%

33.1

%34

.2%

Imp

Bett

er

than

CPS

savi

ngs

per

Cr

own

Advo

cate

£61,

936

£65,

389

£65,

550

£63,

304

Det

£61,

456

£66,

716

£41,

868

£38,

728

Det

Wor

se

than


71

Na

tiona

l

East

Mid

land

s

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

12 months to Jun 16


2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

12 months to Jun 16


Comparison to nat. average 12 months to Jun 16

Cost

Pros

ecut

ion

cost

per

de

fend

ant

(Cro

wn

Cour

t)£1

,044

£1

,080

£1

,124

£1,1

31De

t£9

75£9

34£9

78£1

,023

Det

Bett

er

than

Over

all sp

end

per

com

plet

ed c

ase

£536

£588

£602

£607

Det

£480

£464

£470

£475

Det

Bett

er

than

Over

all sp

end

per

tota

l st

aff

(FTE

)£7

3,68

3£7

7,40

4£8

2,76

7£8

3,67

5De

t£7

0,86

6£7

5,36

6£8

3,09

5£8

5,05

3De

tW

orse

th

an

Qual

ity

Mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

succ

essf

ul o

utco

mes

85.6

%84

.2%

83.8

%84

.0%

Imp

85.9

%84

.4%

83.1

%83

.2%

Imp

Wor

se

than

Crow

n Co

urt

succ

essf

ul o

utco

mes

81.0

%79

.4%

79.2

%79

.0%

Det

84.6

%82

.7%

81.6

%81

.7%

Imp

Bett

er

than

Mag

istr

ates

’ co

urt

disc

ontin

uanc

es9.

8%10

.5%

10.3

%10

.2%

Imp

10.0

%11

.3%

12.0

%11

.9%

Imp

Wor

se

than

Crow

n Co

urt

judg

e or

dere

d ac

quitt

als

11.5

%12

.5%

12.2

%12

.1%

Imp

10.8

%12

.5%

13.2

%13

.0%

Imp

Wor

se

than

FTE

Full-

time

equi

vale

nt


72

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

London Office:

One Kemble Street

London WC2B 4TS

Tel. 020 7210 1187

Fax. 020 7210 1186

York Office:

Foss House, Kings Pool

1-2 Peasholme Green

York, North Yorkshire, YO1 7PX

Tel. 01904 54 5490

Fax. 01904 54 5492

© Crown copyright 2016

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium,

under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU,

or e-mail:[email protected]

This document/publication is also available on our website at www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmcpsi

Date post:	22-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Area Assurance Inspection of CPS East Midlands...4art C: High quality casework P ... C File sample...

Documents