It's becoming a running joke; We all know the CPS are useless, incompetent and frequently negligent. But what would it take to fix? Is this just an issue of funding, or is it more complex than that?
Posted Jan 6, 2022, 10:27 AM UTC
More funding. More lawyers and pay them more.
Then we would be in a position to hold lawyers to account for their mistakes. Right now, they are so swamped it's hard to discern whether it's laziness, apathy or just being absolutely snowed under.
Agreed, more funding, more lawyers and more pay. I'd argue the same for our Police officers as well.
In my experience most CPS lawyers have so many cases that they don't have enough time to read into them until the morning of the hearing. Obviously they spend time working on bigger jobs like murder etc, but when it's PWITS or Racial S5 I can see why they don't pick them up until right before the hearing. It's hard to blame the CPS lawyers when 90% of the time they don't have time to learn the case before arguing it in court.
Another element to this particular point, is that frequently they’ve only picked it up that morning/ afternoon, because that’s when they were allocated it/ told they were doing it/ agreed to help out. This is more for Pros Counsel, partic in Crown Cts, but I guess it would apply to the CPS lawyer at Court as well. Not that they ever liked picking up anything lat minute… lazy bastards 😂 (Ex-Criminal Barristers clerk here)
Yep, it's genuinely hilarious how badly they are paid especially given the stress and hours concerned. This is probably true for the police as well. There's a huge private legal industry that lawyers can go into instead and earn far more for far less stress. It hardly encourages the best and brightest.
Same with the police. But we stay because we love the job and/or we're broken.
Yeah, I know exactly how you feel. I spent ten years in the civil service before I was basically forced to leave in order to get paid enough to support my family on. I loved the job, and everyone there was genuinely great at their job too, but the only reason to stay was passion for the work and commitment to the public service involved. I just couldn't afford to stay. Sad really.
That's the reason I'm still in Prison Service. Too broken for any civvy job.
Working as a solicitor in the private field can also be quite poorly paid. I was a trainee on 18k PA, and newly qualified (after 2 years) was 22k. Plenty of high street solicitors make a lot less than you think. In fact, many solicitors practicing criminal defence have gone over to the CPS for the pay/pension.
Too many things now require cps to authorise a charge now when in reality I could be done by police.
And it used to be. There was usually a Duty Inspector at Mags to mind it all through, together with some smart lay Magistrates, it worked.
The new DG6 series as well is a joke. Unnecessary information and writing which is resulting in case files being submitted slower and having a slower turn around flying close to STL.
It changed primarily because the CPS needed to increase their percentage of successful prosecutions.
When you only get to bet on the horse that you know it's going to win, it's easy.
They probably actually reduced the overall number of prosecutions, because a vast amount of minor stuff that the police would put forward may have been guilty pleas.
[removed]
That's grand until you consider that we now have sergeants with 5 minutes (10 if you're lucky) in posts such as "evidence review officers" these sergeants have not gained the experience required to bin jobs with insufficient evidence. Hence why we ended up sending so much to CPS, because too many "its easier to send it than put my name to it" existed.
More money, more time. I've lost cases in court because the CPS lawyer was clueless about what the case actually entailed and the evidence available. I had one that should've been an incredibly easy win but because the lawyer didn't go through the evidence properly, the most important officer giving evidence wasn't warned and without her evidence it all fell apart. I told him beforehand he'd want evidence from her and he brushed me off. If they had more time to actually learn about and understand the case then we'd have a much higher success rate.
Maybe this is just the ones where I work locally but they need a culture change too. They make requests and speak to officers like we are lackeys, it's always a very derisive attitude. I've gone to a different court and they've been better, so maybe it's just my locals.
I recently had one NFA a charge when the offence was clearly captured on BWV in its entirety. It was clear as day, practically undisputable. The solicitor's justification for NFA-ing it was total bollocks, referring to points of law that relate to different (but similar) offences. I challenged the decision quite politely and pointed out that all elements of the offence are quite clearly made out in the footage, and that it's in the public interest to proceed. In return I got one of the shittiest emails of my career insulting me personally as an officer basically saying "we're the CPS, you're a police officer, you listen to us, we recommend you be retrained on that", with line managers CC'd up to chief inspector.
Fortunately my good reputation meant that no attention was paid to it by senior ranks. But the attitude was absolutely vile, and the justification for NFA'ing was total horse shit. The victim was a police officer who said he couldn't be bothered with the hassle of it. I wanted to challenge it further but was essentially told by my supervisor that it's not worth dying on this hill and to let it be. I'm still fucked off about it. An offender acted in a completely disgusting way victimising a police officer and CPS laziness and/or incompetence meant that he suffered no consequence.
Had the CPS said "resources are stretched, you know that as well as us, we can't justify the resources to pursue this" then I still would've been pissed off but at least I would appreciate the honesty.
There's no clear, structured way to challenge or correct that behaviour or seek further clarification, and there seems to be no accountability whatsoever.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Extend the IOPC and PCCs to the CPS - there needs to be accountability.
Make them ring victims to say they aren't charging and why when they don't charge, rather than getting the OIC to explain the CPS decision.
Make the CPS do all disclosure work - they will get to know the case and what evidence they have as well as avoid some disclosure mess ups.
In the same vein, Assign a prosecutor to at least all PIP2 cases, rather than them just seeing the case file at court on the first day.
Change the Prosecutors code away from "where there is a realistic prospect of conviction" to "where there is a realistic case to answer" or something along those lines.
Also, give them some more money and a payrise. It's pretty well known in legal circles that anyone decent works for a defence firm because the money at the CPS is awful for what they asked to do.
Couldn't agree more.
I'd also add, "if the CPS want to know whether the DV victim wants a restraining order, they should perhaps re-read the statement or contact the victim themselves."
Change the Prosecutors code away from "where there is a realistic prospect of conviction" to "where there is a realistic case to answer" or something along those lines.
I suggested something along these lines under a deleted alt some time ago. My feeling is that too many cases that should see a court never do, and the end result is that the case is basically tried before it ever reaches court. You wouldn't believe the hate I got for it.
Crim work is actually, for the most part, very poorly paid. I know plenty of solicitors who have moved over to the CPS for the better pay/ pension package that they offer. In fact, police officers are typically paid more than your average duty dog.
I second this I’ve had defence solicitors say their mates have jumped ship for CPS because the pay is way better.
Oh this is a good one for me, I don’t go a day in the office without moaning about the CPS. I tend to bring it up on Reddit a lot as well…
For me, and it’s been said a few times, it is a simple one.
ACCOUNTABILITY.
If I escalate something due to shit decision making from them, it goes to the reviewing lawyers boss to just agree with them and make me feel like a bellend. It’s wrong, it’s biased and it’s frankly a bit shady.
The argument about staffing and money is universal and of course applies, but we’re in the same boat and still have to answer to the IOPC and every single person on social media when we get challenged.
Start turning up the pressure and holding them to account and very quickly watch their charging decisions change.
[deleted]
I don’t see why they can’t bring in a category where inspectors or chief inspectors make the charging decision rather than a sergeant. For example charging things like S47s could be done by an inspector.
[deleted]
More courts, more solicitors, no target based measurements on them, police able to authorise for any offence unlikely to go to Crown Court.
I would suggest reading The Secret Barrister. He really digs into what's happening at CPS and how it got that way, and what can be done about it.
[deleted]
I agree 100%, I was going to comment on a CPS lawyer at the nick, we used to have one years ago and you could pop in with a job and see where it was going, there’s little point relying on ERO’s or Skippers as they’re fucked. Often officers are doing unnecessary work and files just to send it their way and be biffed back for whatever reason.
Also, I think Police need to take a little more responsibility: The amount of times Skippers are too scared to NFA a job and use CPS as a tool to make a NFA decision on their behalf; if the job isn’t going anywhere file it! In custody I’d file jobs, including DV and carry the risk myself, my colleagues weren’t always happy to do this.
DV, I agree again, we should be making positive charging decisions subject to certain requirements, such as low risk, summary only none complex jobs. I also can’t understand why we have to send racially agg jobs to CPS; if the evidence is there charge it!
Lack of staff, pure and simple in my opinion.
If the suspect pleads guilty in interview or there is police evidence and there's evidence the offence has occurred that should negate the need to seek charging advice from CPS.
Obviously the most serious offences (Murder, manslaughter etc) should still require CPS input.
This should ease their workload and allow them to do a better job in general.
CPS shouldn't need to be asked permission to charge John Smith for assaulting his wife and wait months for an answer when she has provided a statement to the fact, has visible injuries and he has admitted it in interview to doing exactly what he was accused of.
For me, the biggest change would be metrics - We are operating in a justice system that is built on achieving metrics for political ends (value for money, conviction rates, "dope on the table" etc), and not for achieving justice - policies built around optics and soundbites and not quality of justice are anathema to a well functioning society.
The fact that rape prosecutions needing to clear 60% conviction rates (leading to a decline in the number of rape cases brought) is emblematic of this target driven approach which in turn is leading to a decline in the provision of justice: We need a justice system who's primary functioning is to ensure the quality of justice, it's impartial application and the faith of the public in it, and not built on achieving X target for Y value spent for Z political reason (see rape conviction rates, Stop rates for us, numbers of probationers managed by for-profit probation services etc)
Agree with everyone else on staffing and money.
Likewise when I have been able to get someone to court I have always been impressed by the barrister's, who despite having about 5mins to prepare are always keen to go for it, and I've seen a few times really arguing officers cases for higher penalties for assaults' on emergency workers. YMMV and I have heard horror stories of some barristers from fellow officers.
In my experience from the other side of the fence, many officers simply do not engage with us. We try incredibly hard to lead them to exactly what information would enable us to charge, but then hear nothing more. I can't say whether this is due to police being swamped, or if once someone is temporarily off the street the officers view their role as done? But I would say there are issues on both sides. There are definitely lawyers in the service that shouldn't still be around, but cooperation is what's really needed to improve this, instead of permanently squaring off with one another
Yes, this. One could also argue "how do we make the Police less useless, incompetent and frequently negligent?" - it's a trope that for lots of minor stuff you'll struggle to get a response. Someone burgles your electronics? You get a crime number for insurance - unless it's part of a pattern that piques interest, there's practically no chance of getting any sort of follow up.
But that isn't because individual officers are lazy/idle/incompetent. It's because there aren't enough of you and you're spread too thinly.
The answer is time and money. Just as the detective in the Liam Allen case was presumably useless/incompetent/negligent/over-stretched when they failed to show the CPS vital evidence (which collapsed the case once the defence demanded it and indicated that the poor lad should never have been charged, much less spent 12months on bail awaiting trial for a rape that didn't happen). The collapse of two more rape trials in the following fortnight did not reflect well on the Police forces involved (and triggered a national review of all rape cases).
Police, CPS, courts - all underfunded. This antagonistic view of "useless/incompetent" is entirely unhelpful. It's a judicial system. Everyone needs to play their role. Not everyone will do it well. You'll always find tossers on both sides of the fence. But tribalism and partisanship is only going to add sand to the gears of justice, not oil.
Money and resource - for the Police, the CPS but also the rest of the judiciary. It's no good "fixing" the CPS in isolation because after a decade of court closures and reduced sitting days they'll still have to selective about which cases they want to take to trial... it's a systems problem which needs an end-to-end "systems" approach. Police being overseen by the Home Office whilst the rest of the judiciary is under the Justice Secretary probably doesn't help.
Just as the detective in the Liam Allen case was presumably useless/incompetent/negligent/over-stretched
The Commissioner herself wouldn't have gone to war for a lazy DC.
Yes, there were disclosure failings, but to drop that on the lap of a single investigator is unfair.
Reversing the 40% budget cut enforced upon the CPS by the government.
Increasing the CPS budget from pre austerity levels.
Bring back CJUs.
Having CPS at police stations working hand in glove with officers and CJUs around the clock.
Make them take on the risk when people are released on bail. If they go through the courts from a red case or a green case is returned with an action plan THEY have to manage the risk because they have released the alleged offender.
Working in the Crown Courts I’ve noticed CPS are always working hard but not all. I think there is downfall in all areas of the legal system at the moment. Funding is a huge one as we ALL know. A good read into the matter as im sure a lot of you have read is The Secret Barrister Stories Of The Law and How It’s Broken
More money and duty prosecutors back in police stations I think we can all agree on.
What I would like to see more than anything is more proper two-way communication, and having duty prosecutors available is just the start of that. There should be proper working groups set up where prosecutors who don't mind the police can talk to cops who like a good case file, and hash out what the case file standards should be and why they need to be like that. When issues and lessons learned arise, they could be fed back in the first instance through the working group and ironed out. The group could produce proper support materials and example files, so cops don't have to do all their learning via "has anyone done an MG16 before?" and responding to shittograms.
I'd love a CPS lawyer to be on this sub. Genuinely curious as to their perspective.
There are a few. I'm surprised I've scrolled this far down and not seen them yet.
You won’t find them down here. They’ll read the first sentence or so then move on.
Ha! Nice
[removed]
I think it’s just about time and money. Whenever I talk to CPS, be it at court or for charging decisions they always seem personally keen to prosecute if they can but if they can’t see the prosecution having a decent chance of success then they can’t spend money or time on it. It’s like battlefield medicine, triage and move on.
If they have more staff, time and money then they might be prepared to run with some riskier jobs but with the current back log they can’t throw their limited resources after bad jobs.
You could lighten their work load by giving us charging powers for Assault EW & low level racially aggravated offences perhaps?
And affray!
Problem is, so many Police gatekeepers don’t understand Affray properly, they’d be discontinuing jobs all the time.
I get so frustrated listening to colleagues who just don’t understand the offence, or R v Sanchez.
Thank you, didn't know about r v Sanchez. So if I'm reading correctly, you can't have a hypothetical third person for affray?
[deleted]
[removed]
That would be good! I have never managed to get affray charged, always comes back as section 4
I’m sure there’s been many a nailed-on affray charged as a 4 or 4a to prevent it going through CMT/CPS
The best experience we had of the CPS was when we had a dedicated CPS lawyer in each custody suite (going back a few years now mind). Being able to sit face to face and discuss the case and review the evidence together was great - though it probably led to more people being charged as the lawyer was less likely to reject marginal cases if your powers of persuasion were good.
It also used to be that “realistic prospect” was anything better than a 50:50. Now it seems they will only run with 95% chance. Gone are the days of taking what we have to court on a 60:40 and letting the jury decide.
[removed]