§ Mr. Simon ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General what the average cost was for each CPS prosecution in(a) Wales and (b) England in each of the last five years. [148668]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe table shows the average cost in pounds of proceedings in respect of all defendants whose case was completed in Wales and England in each of the last five years. The costs are simple averages, and take no account of variations in the weight of cases handled. Separate costs are shown for cases completed in magistrates courts and in the Crown court.
£ Magistrates courts Crown court Wales 1996–97 132.84 1,014.09 1997–98 123.56 897.68 1998–99 118.46 889.11 1999–2000 119.84 910.48 2000–011 129.41 966.26 England 1996–97 115.16 1,093.43 1997–98 110.33 1,033.72 1998–99 108.45 993.97 1999–2000 112.63 1,030.08 2000–011 112.30 1,091.49 1To December 2000
§ Mr. Simon ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General what average period of time was taken between the decision to prosecute and the case coming to full court hearing for CPS cases in(a) Wales and (b) England in each of the last five years. [148669]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe Crown Prosecution Service does not collect information about the time taken from the decision to prosecute to trial, but relies on the Time Intervals Survey conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department. This includes details of the average time from charge or first laying of information to the first court listing of the case. The figures for indictable cases in magistrates courts, including cases prosecuted by agencies other than the Crown Prosecution Service, are as follows:
516W
Average number of days from charge or laying of information to first court listing Year England Wales England and Wales 1995 26 30 26 1996 27 33 28 1997 29 32 29 1998 26 31 26 1999 21 24 21 2000 9 12 9 These figures show a marked improvement in the time taken to list cases for the first time, largely associated with the Narey reforms which have accelerated the process for all cases. All agencies within the Criminal Justice System are working to secure further improvement, and additional funding has been provided this year to enable the CPS to appoint case progression officers, and cover additional magistrates court sittings to accelerate the process, particularly of youth cases.
§ Mr. KidneyTo ask the Solicitor-General what advice the police authorities sought from the Crown Prosecution Service; and what response the service gave regarding the bringing of criminal proceedings following the death of Colin Griffiths of Stafford on 26 December 1994. [148661]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIn November 2000, Staffordshire police submitted a file to the local Crown Prosecution Service, seeking advice as to whether a prosecution should be brought against any individual in respect of the death of Mr. Griffiths. CPS Staffordshire referred this matter to CPS National Headquarters, where the case is now being reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Advice will be given to the police once the case has been reviewed and a decision made. Preliminary advice regarding any further inquiries will be given to the police on 8 February 2001.
§ Mr. DismoreTo ask the Solicitor-General if he will list for each of the last three years how many cases brought by the CPS(a) before magistrates and (b) before Crown courts were dismissed on the grounds that the CPS had not prepared the necessary documents concerned; and if he will make a statement. [148651]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe Crown Prosecution Service holds central records showing the reasons for dismissal due to there being no case to answer in magistrates' courts and for non-jury acquittals in the Crown court. However, this information does not include a separate count of the number of these outcomes which resulted from failure to prepare the necessary documentation.
The tables show the reasons for which cases resulted in dismissal owing to no case to answer or non-jury acquittal, during the two years for which figures are held. Cases are divided into four broad categories; insufficient evidence (including cases in which an essential legal element was missing from the prosecution case), public interest, unable to proceed (for example, because a key witness failed to attend court), and a miscellaneous category. Within each of these headings more specific reasons are then given.
The main reason for dismissal due to no case to answer in magistrates courts was that a victim failed to come up to proof when giving evidence: this amounted to 18.9 per cent. of all such outcomes in 1999–2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000.
Cases resulted in a non-jury acquittal in the Crown court mainly because a victim failed to attend the trial (13.6 per cent. of all non-jury acquittals) or refused to give evidence (12.1 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000).
CPS records show that only a small number of adverse outcomes result from a failure on the part of the 517W prosecution. During 1999–2000, the CPS identified 149 dismissals due to no case to answer, and 891 non-jury acquittals, as being attributable to a failing on the part of the Service. The CPS and the police work together, using
Reasons for dismissals in case to answer in Magistrates courts 1999–2000 12000–01 Number Percentage Number Percentage Insufficient evidence 788 72.6 568 81.1 Inadmissible evidence—breach of PACE 25 2.3 14 2.0 Inadmissible evidence= other 13 1.2 11 1.6 Legal element missing 103 9.5 91 13.0 Other evidential element missing 141 13.0 85 12.1 Unreliable identification 86 7.9 59 8.4 Victim fails to come up to proof 205 18.9 161 23.0 Other civilian witness fails to come up to proof 148 13.6 106 15.1 Police witness fails to come up to proof 67 6.2 41 5.9 Public Interest 12 1.1 2 0.3 Defendant with serious medical problem 1 0.1 0 0 Effect on victims physical/mental health 1 0.1 1 0.1 Other indictment of sentence 9 0.8 1 0.1 Informer or other PII issue 1 0.1 0 0 Unable to proceed 91 8.4 39 5.6 Victim fails to attend 39 3.6 12 1.7 Other civilian witness fails to attend 33 3.0 15 2.1 Victim intimidation — — — — Other civilian witness intimidation 0 0 2 0.3 Victim refuses to give evidence 9 0.8 4 0.6 Other civilian witness refuses to give evidence 10 0.9 6 0.9 Other Reasons 195 18.0 91 13.0 Poor legal presentation 9 0.8 3 0.4 Poor police presentation 18 1.7 9 1.3 Other 168 15.5 79 11.3 Total 1,086 — 700 — 1To December 518W
Reasons for non jury acquittals and bind overs in the Crown court 1999–2000 12000–2001 Number Percentage Number Percentage Insufficient evidence 3,671 37.2 2,701 36.7 Inadmissible evidence-breach of PACE 166 1.7 108 1.5 Inadmissible evidence= other 254 2.6 223 3.0 Legal element missing 650 6.6 452 6.1 Other evidential element missing 865 8.8 653 8.9 Unreliable identification 706 7.2 532 7.2 Victim fails to come up to proof 665 6.7 483 6.6 Other civilian witness fails to come up to proof 321 3.3 216 2.9 Police witness fails to come up to proof 44 0.4 34 0.5 Public Interest 1,357 13.8 1,037 14.1 Defendant with serious medical problem 184 1.9 150 2.0 Effect on victims physical/mental health 128 1.3 88 1.2 Other indictment or sentence 894 9.1 697 9.5 Informer or other PII issue 151 1.5 102 1.4 Unable to proceed 3,245 32.9 2,569 34.9 Victim fails to attend 1,344 13.6 1,001 13.6 Other civilian witness fails to attend 508 5.1 400 5.4 Victim intimidation 18 0.2 4 0.1 Other civilian witness intimidation 27 0.3 21 0.3 Victim refuses to give evidence 1,191 12.1 990 13.5 Other civilian witness refuses to give evidence 157 1.6 53 2.1 Other Reasons 1,592 16.1 1.047 14.2 Poor legal presentation 5 0.1 5 0.1 Poor police presentation 30 0.3 15 0.2 Other 1,557 15.8 1,027 14.0 Total 9,865 7,354 1 To December joint performance management techniques to identify the reasons for a failed case and to devise local strategies, often involving guidance and training, to bring about improvement.
519W