§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General which inspectorates have been involved in the thematic inspections undertaken by the HMCPSI; and what the title was of each thematic inspection. [60208]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralHM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has participated in six joint inspectorate thematic inspections since April 1999. The names of the other inspectorates and titles of each inspection are as follows
How Long Youth Cases Take. A joint inspection by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (published May 1999).Casework Information Needs within the Criminal Justice System. A joint review by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation and the Social Services Inspectorate (published April 2000).The Implementation of section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998. A joint inspection by HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (published November 2000).Report on the Joint Inspection of the Progress made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published February 2001).Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases Involving Allegations of Rape. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published April 2002).Report on the Joint follow-up Inspection of the Progress made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System. A joint inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, HM Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (published May 2002).A joint inspection of Discharged Committals in the West Midlands Area has just been completed by a team of inspectors drawn from HMCPSI, HMIC and HMMCSI. This is the first joint inspection of any part of the work of the same CPS, Police and Magistrates' Court Service area. The report is expected to be published in July 2002.
In addition, work is continuing on two other thematic reviews. One is a review into Listing Procedures in the magistrates and Crown courts in conjunction with HMIC and HMMCSI and the other is a review, entitled "Joint Inter-Agency inspection of Safeguards for Children", examining the protection afforded to children by the relevant agencies. This latter is being undertaken by HMCPSI and seven other inspectorates:
895W
- (i) Social Services Inspectorate
- (ii) HM Inspectorate of Education and Schools (Ofsted)
- (iii) Commission for Health Improvement (CHI)
- (iv) HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)
- (v) HM Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales
- (vi) HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons)
- (vii) Her Majesty's Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate (HMMCSI).
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General what criteria the HMCPSI uses to determine the quality of CPS casework. [60209]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralHM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate assesses the quality of CPS casework by a careful evaluation of how the CPS performs its four key functions: the provision of pre-charge advice to the police: reviewing cases following the commencement of proceedings; preparing cases for court; and presenting cases in court.
Inspectors focus on a number of main themes under each of these functions. Under pre-charge advice and case review, inspectors assess whether the law, the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and charging standards agreed between the CPS and police nationally are all being correctly interpreted and applied; and whether all actions and decisions regarding cases are being taken at the right time. Inspectors pay particular attention to special categories of cases, including those involving racist incidents, child abuse and domestic violence cases.
The evaluation of case preparation is more process based. Inspectors consider how the CPS discharges its duties of disclosure, the timeliness of its source of material upon the defence and the court, how the CPS prepares cases for trial, file management and endorsements, and the effectiveness of specific processes such as the monitoring of custody time limits.
In relation to case presentation, inspectors assess whether prosecuting advocates have the appropriate skills to present cases fairly, thoroughly and firmly and to test defence cases rigorously, and whether they exercise these skills to enable courts to reach just decisions.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General what action has been taken by the HMCPSI to ensure that scrutiny is consistent across the areas to provide objective assessment and comparisons between areas. [60210]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralHM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate ensures that scrutiny is consistent across all areas by applying the same methodology in all its area inspections, but with a balanced approach that takes into account different practices and characteristics between the areas. Therefore, inspectors always examine key aspects of an area's performance, such as the application of the tests contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and the area's compliance with the duties of disclosure of unused material and the standard of advocacy. These findings are always published in a table of performance measures in the report, and compared with performance data of other CPS areas inspected to date. Key issues peculiar to the area are highlighted and discussed elsewhere in the report.
Assessing the quality of legal decision-making is difficult as decisions frequently turn on legal or evidential issues that are essentially matters of professional judgment. Inspectors therefore assess whether a decision or an action by a prosecutor was one which was properly open to a reasonable prosecutor having regard to the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and other relevant guidance. The application of this objective test means that inspectors do not "disagree" with a 896W decision unless it is wrong in principle, and not merely because an individual inspector may have come to a different conclusion.
The Inspectorate is not a large organisation, and guidance has been formulated, and training opportunities used, to help develop a uniformity of approach. Each inspection team consists of several inspectors. They will have worked on different areas and with different colleagues. This allows the exchange of ideas and opinions before conclusions are drawn, and so the risk of different standards being applied are minimised. Finally, the scrutiny given to the draft report by the relevant Group Director and the Chief Inspector, together with discussions about the emerging findings and the draft report with senior area managers, help to ensure a consistent approach and the fair and objective assessment of the performance of each area.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the reports which have been produced by HMCPSI since the inception of the service for the DPP and the Law Officers. [60212]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralHM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has carried out a total of 86 CPS branch and area inspections since 1997. A list appears at the conclusion of this answer.
47 branch reports and one report on a complete area (London) were published between 1997 and 1999 when the Crown Prosecution Service comprised 13 large areas with over 90 branches.
In April 1999 the CPS was reorganised into 42 areas and restructured in accordance with the recommendations of the Review of the CPS (the Glidewell report). Since that time, 37 area inspection reports have been published. The inspections of the remaining five areas are currently at different stages of completion and all reports should he published by September 2002.
HMCPS Inspectorate has also published nine thematic reports and has participated in six joint inspections.
The Chief Inspector for the time being of HMCPSI has, in addition, published four annual reports. Three were on a non-statutory basis. The inspectorate, which had previously been part of the CPS itself, was placed on an independent statutory basis on 11 October 2000 when the Crown Prosecution Service Act 2000 came into effect. The first statutory annual report was laid before Parliament on 2 May 2002.
897W
Branch reports (August-July 1999) Branch office Date Number Dorset August 1997 1/97 Exeter August 1997 2/97 Leeds, North September 1997 3/97 West Kent September 1997 4/97 Liverpool, South October 1997 5/97 Derbyshire October 1998 6/97 Cambridgeshire November 1997 7/97 Gloucestershire November 1997 8/97 Teeside November 1997 9/97 London (area report) December 1997 Norfolk January 1998 1/98 Humberside January 1998 2/98 Leicestershire January 1998 3/98 Warwickshire February 1998 4/98 Wiltshire February 1998 5/98 Hertfordshire March 1998 6/98 Surrey March 1998 7/98
Branch reports (August-July 1999) Branch office Date Number Lincolnshire March 1998 8/98 Bedfordshire April 1998 9/98 North Yorkshire April 1998 10/98 Gwent May 1998 11/98 Northants May 1998 12/98 West Mercia June1998 13/98 Durham June 1998 14/98 Suffolk June 1998 15/98 Cumbria July 1998 16/98 Chester July 1998 17/98 Brent, Harrow and Uxbridge August 1998 18/98 Bolton and Wigan August 1998 19/98 North Staffordshire September 1998 20/98 Highbury September 1998 21/98 North-Wales October 1998 22/98 Portsmouth October 1998 23/98 Camberwell November 1998 24/98 Stockport/Sale November 1998 25/98 Wearside November 1998 26/98 Marylebone/West London December 1998 27/98 Coventry January 1999 01/99 Humberside January 1999 02/99 Enfield/Waltham Forest January 1999 03/99 Fylde February 1999 04/99 South Glamorgan February 1999 05/99 London Youth Branch March 1999 06/99 Bristol March 1999 07/99 Barking April 1999 08/99 Manchester, South May 1999 09/99 Birmingham 1 May 1999 10/99 Central Casework July 1999 11/99 Area reports Area office Dorset May 2000 01/00 Merseyside May 2000 02/00 Gloucestershire July 2000 03/00 West Mercia July 2000 04/00 Northumbria September 2000 05/00 Derbyshire September 2000 06/00 Essex September 2000 07/00 Nottinghamshire September 2000 08/00
Joint Inspections Subject Date How Long Youth Cases take (with HMIC and HMMCSI) May 1999 Casework Information Needs within the CJS (with HMIC, HMMCSI, HMI Prisons, HMI Probation, SSI) April 2000 Implementation of Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998 (this was an HMMCSI report assisted by HMCPSI and HMIC) November 2000 Progress Made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System (with HMIC and HMMCSI) February 2001 Cases Involving an Allegation of Rape (with HMIC) April 2002 Joint Follow-up Inspection of the Progress Made in Reducing Delay in the Youth Justice System (with HMIC and HMMCSI) May 2002 HMCPSI annual reports
- 1997–98
- 1998–99
- 1999–2000
- 2000–01.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the use of lay inspectors within HMCPSI inspections; and if she will list the nominating bodies. [60218]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralHM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has used one or more lay inspectors in each area inspection undertaken (save for one in which the lay inspector was unable to attend through illness). Lay inspectors observe and assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service through a process of observation, inspection and evaluation,
898W
Branch reports (August-July 1999) Branch office Date Number Cambridgeshire November 2000 09/00 Durham November 2000 10/00 Lancashire November 2000 11/00 South Wales January 2001 01/01 Suffolk January 2001 02/01 South Yorkshire February 2001 03/01 Cheshire February 2001 04/01 Kent February 2001 05/01 West Midlands March 2001 06/01 Hampshire IoW March 2001 07/01 Northamptonshire March 2001 08/01 Cleveland April 2001 09/01 Norfolk April 2001 10/01 Gwent May 2001 11/01 Lincolnshire June 2001 12/01 Gloucestershire (re-insp) June 2001 13/01 West Yorkshire July 2001 14/01 Humberside September 2001 15/01 Staffordshire September 2001 16/01 Warwickshire November 2001 17/01 North Yorkshire November 2001 18/01 London December 2001 19/01 Bedfordshire January 2002 01/02 Thames Valley January 2002 02/02 Dyfed Powys March 2002 03/02 North Wales March 2002 04/02 Greater Manchester March 2002 05/02 Leicestershire April 2002 06/02 Cumbria April 2002 07/02 Hertfordshire May 2002 08/02 Thematic reports Cases involving Child Witnesses January 1998 01/98 Cases involving Domestic Violence May 1998 02/98 Advice Cases September 1998 03/98 Adverse Cases June 1999 01/99 Evaluation of Lay Review and Lay Presentation August 1999 02/99 Advocacy and Case Presentation February 2000 01/00 Disclosure of Unused Material March 2000 02/00 Performance Indicator Compliance and Case Outcomes July 2000 03/00 Casework with a Minority Ethnic Dimension May 2002 01/02 primarily in relation to the service's dealings with the public and its ability to assess and interpret the public interest in its decision-making under the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Lay inspectors help to:
- assess the extent to which the CPS undertakes the care and treatment of victims and witnesses;
- assess the extent to which prosecutors comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically in relation to the application of the public interest test;
- assess the effectiveness of the relationship between the CPS and the local community; and
- assess the effectiveness of the CPS in dealing with complaints.
Lay inspectors bring the broad perspective of an informed member of the public to the CPS inspection process. They contribute to the inspection of CPS areas and assist in formulating recommendations to improve 899W performance where necessary. While lay inspectors are governed by strict rules of confidentiality in relation to individual cases, they play an important part in helping to promote people's awareness of the work undertaken by both the CPS itself and the Inspectorate.
Most lay inspectors have been nominated by:
- the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders;
- the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and Victim Support.
Some have been nominated by diverse local groups, such as:
- local Racial Equality Councils;
- the Terence Higgins Trust; or
- established local community groups.
In practice, lay inspectors will observe trials in both the magistrates courts and the Crown court and speak to prosecution witnesses when they have finished giving evidence; consider a number of complaints made to the CPS area; consider some files which have been the subject of contentious or borderline decisions, either to proceed or to discontinue the case, under the public interest test in Code for Crown Prosecutors; and, if possible, to join in some interviews both with CPS staff and local representatives of other organisations. Wherever possible, lay inspectors join in the evaluation of the performance of the area, contribute a short report on their observations and findings, and comment upon the draft report.
The Law Officers who held office at the time the first cycle of area inspections was commenced and encouraged the use of lay inspectors and I support the continuation and development of their role.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General which HMCPSI inspections have reviewed discontinuance rates in magistrates' courts since 1999. [60204]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralEvery HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Report contains the comments of inspectors on the discontinuance rate in the area inspected. The discontinuance rate is a comparative calculation of case outcomes in the magistrates courts collected by each CPS area.
The Inspectorate publishes in its area reports its assessment of whether decisions to discontinue cases examined during the inspection comply with the Code and compares this with the assessments made in all the areas inspected in the current cycle to date. Inspectors examine the timeliness of the decisions to discontinue, and analyse the reasons for discontinuance of cases and assess the quality of decision-making in a sample of cases, that is whether these decisions are taken in accordance with the law, the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and other relevant guidance.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on(a) the number of women and numbers of minority-ethnic groups working at SCS level within the HMCPSI and (b) the number of men working in an administrative or secretarial capacity with HMCPSI. [60217]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralOn 24 June 2002 there were no women or members of a minority ethnic group at SCS level within HMCPSI.
900WHMCPSI employs one male at administrative assistant grade and four males at administrative officer grade. There are four secretaries (including one agency staff), all of whom are female.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General what changes in inspection methodology have been undertaken by HMCPSI following publication of the report entitled Review on Evaluation of HMCPSI Programme and Methodology 2001. [60222]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralChanges in inspection methodology following publication of the Report, Review and Evaluation of HMCPSI programme and methodology (2001) include
a small reduction in the numbers of files requested from CPS areas for examination;streamlining of file examination to focus on key aspects of decision-making and case management;adjustment of the inspection timetable to allow extra time for evaluation and report writing;a more consultative approach with areas, in particular over the draft report;an increased use of questionnaires for external consultees;the development of a report template to help consistency, concision, and presentation of information.In the medium-longer term, the Inspectorate currently has working groups examining its methodology in relation to both casework and management and operational issues with a view to developing more focused and flexible arrangements for the next inspection cycle. These will have greater emphasis on the business excellence model principles, greater use of risk management, and the encouragement of self-review and performance measurement within the CPS itself.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasTo ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on, and explain the variation in, the annual budget allocated to staff training in each CPS area, with specific reference to(a) Warwickshire and (b) Northamptonshire, in 2001–02. [59349]
§ The Solicitor-GeneralCPS areas allocate elements of their administration budgets to fund training courses on the basis of locally determined factors and priorities. The sums allocated, which were set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 6 March 2002, exclude the opportunity cost of backfilling front-line staff when attending courses, and also associated travel and subsistence costs. They also exclude the costs of national training initiatives funded centrally from within the CPS HQ allocation or from the allocations to the service's 10 service centres.
CPS Warwickshire, being the smallest area in the country, is proportionately resourced and elected to set its training budget to reflect only the costs of external courses and fees for admission to conferences. Other expenditure on training was subsumed within its allocation of administration costs. Apparent variations can be misleading and it is significant that in a recent inspection, HM Chief Inspector commended the area on its approach and delivery of training.
CPS Northampton has focused resources on leadership training building on its recent Investors in People accreditation and as part of its application to the Business Excellence Model, particularly to assist in its establishment of a co-located Criminal Justice Unit with the Northamptonshire police. The area's budget is also distorted by an additional 901W allocation that the area bid for separately to undertake a specific project designed to improve advocacy skills. In the event, the project was deferred because the coincidence of its timing with other national training initiatives would have adversely affected operations. The area subsequently reduced its allocation to training accordingly.
Significant funding was set aside centrally for the delivery of a number of national training initiatives over the period which included legislative and procedural training on the implementation of the Human Rights Act; diversity and equality issues; advocacy training for higher court advocates and designated caseworkers; and, more recently, computer literacy training to complement the rollout of the CPS connect 42 infrastructure. Both Warwickshire and Northamptonshire benefited from this training. This funding, amounting to £1.34 million in 1999–2000; £1.53 million in 2000–01; and £3.70 million in 2001–02, cannot be directly associated with each of the 42 CPS area budgets.