The trial on which I was due to sit yesterday illustrated much of what is happening to our justice system as resources are slowly withdrawn from it. The case was set down for trial in January and so we assembled at ten o'clock sharp. There were three magistrates, a legal adviser, a Crown Prosecutor (in fact a barrister acting as an agent) a defence solicitor, the defendant and his mother, sitting anxiously at the back. Three of the five witnesses had arrived and were in the Witness Care suite upstairs.
When a case is set down for trial the parties complete a booklet that lists the expected witnesses as well as any that can be agreed without the need to appear.. Dates are set for the prosecution to be directed to serve the necessary disclosure (statements, interview records, CCTV and suchlike) on the defence. Both sides sign to acknowledge their responsibilities.
Yesterday we heard that the CPS had missed the deadline for service by a good six weeks, and that most of the disclosure had been handed over at court last Friday. Inevitably we were asked for an adjournment and equally inevitably we refused (the rules of that game have changed irrevocably since the case of PICTON).
Without going into too much detail, what happened was that we gave the parties ten minutes to sort themselves out. We filed back in to hear the Crown offer no evidence, whereupon we dismissed all four charges.
Any magistrate will recognise this situation, and it has almost certainly happened in a lot of courts today as it will tomorrow. There will be no sanction on the CPS for a gross failure of its duty to cope with a simple bit of paper handling that just required a low-ranking clerical officer to look at it.
It's expensive, it's unfair, and it just isn't right.
I wish that I could feel that someone in the MoJ cares, but sadly they seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
It feels like you should be able to just say "Well that serves the CPS right for being so useless", but the truth is they are a public body who are charged to get justice, and they have not done so in this case. I don't know if there was a direct victim in this case, but if there was then I am sure they feel very let down.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to know what the solution was, but given Picton you behaved correctly (or at least, how you are expected to act).
This happened to one of my cases only a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteThe CPS lawyer turned up in court without any prosecution paperwork or knowledge of the job. This is despite the fact they approved the charges and had possession the court file for the previous two months, both physically and an electronic copy.
The consequence of this is that a known repeat fraudster walked out of court as the magistrates dismissed the car, when he should have been convicted of two more frauds. (The case was very strong and I had expected him to plead guilty once it reached court). Instead he walked off Scott free.
It took me three weeks to find out why it had been dismissed. CPS didn’t even inform us or apologise, they simply sent me the file back. There is no come back for them and I have to tell my victims, who won’t be upset with CPS, they’ll be upset with the police since we’re the public face of the criminal justice system.
We PC's all have numerous stories of CPS incompetence.My bugbear is serving CCTV.I cannot remember the last time I went to court and the CPS (and defence sometimes) have watched the footage before the day of the the trial.How can either side make a decision without watching it first?
ReplyDeleteWe get CPS memos sent to us all the time and each one has a direct threat of discipline if we as police do not action it by a certain date. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to affect CPS performance and it's always left to me to explain to the victims when we lose a case or it gets dropped.
Jaded
I hope the barrister at least had the good grace to look thoroughly embarrassed...
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't his fault, he was just hired in for the day. He was let down by poor backup in the office.
DeleteI would still be pretty embarrassed if it were me.
DeleteI'm a barrister and prosecute as well as defend. I can say it is deeply embarrassing when such a situation arises but much more than that, it is frustrating that justice hasn't been done and sometimes can be upsetting, depending on the case. Resources are too low and morale is rock bottom. Government cuts have utterly derailed the system.
Delete(in fact a barrister acting as an agent) Please, what does this mean?
ReplyDeleteJohn Gibson
He is not a CPS employee, but rather an independent self-employed barrister briefed by the CPS for the day. Happens all the time.
DeleteThere's a saying in the army. 'There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers.' In any organisation changes have to come from the top, but so often those in charge know little of the workings and everyday issues that cause failure. What is actually causing the problems? Too much work for insufficient personnel? Duplicated paperwork? Weak organisation? Surely it's not hard to isolate the issues and make the CPS work.
ReplyDeleteThe answer may lay with an episode I had several months ago. I had to go to hospital for the carpal tunnel operation and had to put the same information on three separate forms. I queried why this was so. The nurse quietly said to me 'The departments won't share information. It's so petty.'
Does that mean that you would have conducted the trial even though the defence would have had the disadvantage of not having the proper materials properly served ?
ReplyDeleteAn acquaintance of mine, knowing that I was a (just) retired JP, sought my advice regarding a pretty high (97 mph) speeding offence. I told him to attend court, dress up, but not too well, plead guilty and take his cheque book. Fine, costs, points and V/S were exactly as predicted. He told me afterwards that the CPS had no papers, so he had lent him his own so that the case could proceed! I had not envisaged that happening - if so, my advice might have been somewhat different.
ReplyDeleteI've read about Picton, and don't understand why the adjournment's refusal was such an easy conclusion. Assuming the defendant was asking, Picton seems to suggest he has a right to a fair trial, and that likely outweighs the interests of justice generally. Can you indulge a student and explain a little more?
ReplyDeletePicton is a balance act but there is an emphasis on the issue of 'whose fault is it? Where cps has clearly failed to provide disclosure for no good reason, that is both their fault and prevents the defendant from effectively mounting his defence.
DeleteThere is understandable blame directed at the CPS and MoJ. The concomitant of blame, however, is a powerlessness to do anything about the problem for which the blame directed. I understand your hands are tied somewhat, Bystander, and I sympathise with your position and empathise with your intent, but doesn't the administration of justice lie at your door? If that is not being done, isn't it up to you to take a stand and get radical, even if that contradicts guidance or policy emanating from the MoJ? I don't know what getting radical would entail exactly, but if members of the bench are not throwing their hands up, so to speak, and not taking responsibility for the failure in the administration of justice, who else is going to do it? You're independent from government by fundamental principle: isn't it about time the judiciary started to assert itself against an executive weakening the administration of justice?
ReplyDeleteSome JP's and DJ(MC) have indeed ordered costs against the CPS when these sort of administrative failures have occurred in the hope that the message will get back to the powers that be at the top that something needs to be done. Of course, its all a bit of a toothless exercise and the accountants merely adjust a column on a spreadsheet somewhere.
DeleteIn fairness, the CPS and indeed the whole CJS is now being so starved of funding that nothing bar a massive injection of money and appropriate resources seems capable of preventing these mess ups happening. Some local initiatives result in improvements for a time as things get shifted on the deck but then things slip back to the bad old ways
Some years ago, when we were first struggling to apply the provisions of the 2005 legislation (Criminal Procedure Rules), I had occasion to tackle Lord Justice Leveson, who was then the Senior Presider, about the lack of any sanction if directions under the rules were not acted upon. He first mentioned wasted costs - but, as he said it, he realised this was useless in the hurly-burly of a magistrates court. Instead I suggested the following: each direction made to further case management/trial preparation, should have a named person responsible to the court for ensuring the direction is carried out and on time. If the direction is not carried out as agreed, then the named person becomes liable for a fixed penalty of £50. It would not need many such penalties for the word to get around. However, Leveson backed away: too difficult, too difficult etc etc. So we continue to have vast waste of time and money.
DeleteAnd the problem is that so often the delays are left at our door. In all the talk about 'new stuff' to change the way we work there is little about the other parts of the system.
ReplyDeleteOver the last 2 months or so I have probably had about 12 trials listed for hearing in my court. Of these maybe 4 were ready to go ahead. Of these 3 pleaded guilty at the door and 1 (Monday just gone) went to a full trial. Of the other 8 I think 6 or so failed because of CPS incompetence - office failing to disclose on time. All comments on here so far are spot on. It is so frustrating and justice is not being done. However we should remember the Crim. Proc. Rules which say that all parties have a duty to progress matters. That means that the defence should raise late disclosure with the court as soon as possible and not wait until the trial date.
ReplyDeleteSo, leveson didn't/doesn't care, neither does may/camoron and co. Well politicians have a reputation for being scum, but what about the High Court judges??? They can't claim ignorance, for in law that is no excuse, right? They can't claim it's not their responsibility; as judges, they are MORALLY responsible (if not legally) and culpable...after the fact at least. They live in ivory towers, or is it up each others backsides (yes, 'justice' really DOES stink in Britain!)? And finally, a poster suggests a measly/derisory £50 fine for the cps...you ARE talking the P, aren't you!??? Especially when people on benefits can be sanctioned for THREE months' worth of benefits for being say late for an interview, which could be £THREE THOUSAND (includes HB/rent) with VERY limited appeal - if any, NO chance of taking it to court (not to mention legal aid), so is that all right with you??? This country is going downhill in more ways than one, and the judges deserve the MOST opprobrium.
ReplyDeleteIt is all very well moaning on about how bad the CPS is, but it generally is not the fault of those who turn up at court. The service is starved of resouce and the law just gets more complicated; direction after direction. The poor sod who fronts the case probably hasn't seen it before and is busking to keep up.
ReplyDeleteThe electronic era may be ok for straightforward cases where there is a G plea, but for anything complicated its a nightmare.
Justice is on the road to ruin.
Only real answer I can see is to get rid of the cps again as the failed experiment it really is. Give prosecuting responsibility back to the police. A disciplined service. You can be sure that failings will be addressed and it will cut out much of beurocracy that exists in the current system whilst making everything transparent to the victims.
ReplyDelete