The CPS: A Criminal Waste of Money

July 2008

The CPS is also under pressure to do as much work as possible in-house. Prosecutors are being asked to take on higher court advocacy and to run complicated crown court trials before they are sufficiently experienced. They are also under pressure to do as many of the pre-trial hearings as possible. While defence barristers are under an obligation to see the case through to trial in the interest of continuity, CPS lawyers will often appear at these hearings and then farm the case out to counsel later. This preserves CPS control, but may undermine the chances of victory in court.

Even a quick glance at the CPS website reveals the huge influence of branch managers and consultants. It is filled with empty nonsense about the CPS Vision , such as “Driving change and delivery in the Criminal Justice System”. Meanwhile, the CPS continues to be obsessed with statistics, even recording the “ethnic group” of a defendant on its computer system before a case can be registered, and constantly tells its employees that they must “think corporately”. Alas, “thinking corporately” may not serve the public good.

Tags:

Political Correctness

Social Affairs

UK Politics

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Anonymous

January 23rd, 2011
1:01 PM

As a former national spokesman for the CPS (I left back in the early 90s) Your experience almost 20 years ago makes you qualified to comment about the CPS today? The article is almost totally false. As someone who works in the CPS I know for a fact that self employed barristers do not hold a brief from start to trial - more often than not they farm it out to their colleagues. "case workers have no such code or tradition and are more easily scared into line" Utter nonsense. Caseworkers have the same level of protection as lawyers, if they are asked to do something improper as Civil Servants they can make a complaint even up to the independent Civil Service Commission. "reading information sent by fax" Most information is sent by email and the prosecutors do speak to the officer albeit over the phone. "even recording the “ethnic group” of a defendant on its computer system" The CPS has to follow a number of equality requirements as per Macpherson. They have no choice. "The system was much quicker and more efficient, and involved much less paperwork." Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Bridgewater Three, Judith Ward, Stefan Kisko etc.

Peter C Glover

July 9th, 2008
6:07 PM

As a former national spokesman for the CPS (I left back in the early 90s) I can only agree with every word this article says. However, I have a real problem with publishing anything (Economist take note) that has the byline 'Anonymous'. I have long argued (as a journalist, writer and blogger) that anything written 'anonymously' is not worth the ink expended on it,as it is without any moral value. As far as the reader is concerned the writer may well have an axe to grind of which we would know nothing. Having said that, I welcome Standpoint - we in the UK are desperately in need of breaking the mould of the PC gatekeepers of the news in the liberal-dominated mainstream. It would be good therefore for you to think beyond articles by the 'usual suspects'. Note how the numerous new US sites like Real Clear Politics, The American Thinker and many others major on the strength of the argument, NOT just the same old contracted journos. That's why I, as a UK freelancer, am forced to write for US news mags and online sites, so tied up is the UK op-ed and feature market.

Post your comment

More Columns