Integrated prosecution teams

Report: 07
Date: 18 September 2008
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

At the Co-ordination and Policing Committee on 7 February 2008, the MPA approved the implementation of Integrated Prosecution Teams (IPTs) throughout the MPS. The committee requested an update paper be submitted after 6 months outlining progress on implementation. This report has been submitted to meet this request and to provide an update on the current financial position.

A. Recommendations

That

1. the MPA note the progress being made in implementing Integrated Prosecution Teams; and

2. the MPA approve the updated cost and savings implications of fully implementing IPTs

B. Supporting information

Implementation of Integrated Prosecution Teams (IPTs) across the MPS

1. IPTs form part of the London Criminal Justice Board’s (LCJB) three-year (2008 – 2011) plan for delivering criminal justice reform in London. The IPT element of this programme involves the co-location of MPS and CPS staff in police stations in order to deliver a more effective service, efficiency savings, performance improvement and improved citizen focus. The principal methods of delivery will be the elimination of the substantial duplication that currently occurs between police and CPS and improvements in the initial case file build that dramatically reduces the need for post-charge remedial work. The introduction of IPTs together with other key criminal justice reform projects such as Director’s Guidance Streamlined Process (DGSP) and Simple Speedy Summary Justice (SSSJ) is intended to reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary paper work for police officers whilst ensuring quality of file build is maintained without detriment to outcomes at court.

2. On 7 February 2008 a report was submitted to the Co-ordination and Policing committee seeking MPA approval to fully roll out IPTs across the MPS. Approval was given at that meeting and a request made that an update report on progress be submitted after 6 months. This report has therefore been tendered to meet this requirement and to seek MPA approval for the amendments to the funding proposal.

Pilot sites

3. IPT pilot sites were introduced at three boroughs (Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest) in Spring 2007. The operational model and business processes have been subject to review by the MPS, CPS and LCJB and lessons learnt have been integrated into the implementation plans for future boroughs. These include the requirement for a 20-week lead in time to prepare each IPT site for the required business change, together with a transitional period during which the existing MPS and CPS business processes are wound down and migrated across to the new IPT processes. Also included in implementation plans for further sites are revised accommodation specifications relating to dedicated Technical Equipment Rooms to support CPS Information Communication and Technology (ICT) provision.

4. Since the inception of IPTs at the three pilot sites, utilising a single prosecution file process, significant improvements have been achieved in relation to:

• Performance for discontinued cases, ineffective trials and attrition rates in Thames Magistrate’s Court, which were all on target in the last quarter of 2007/8 (this had not been achieved previously).
• Increases in guilty pleas within Magistrate’s and Crown Courts. For example in April 2008 in Hackney over 80% of Magistrate’s court cases resulted in a guilty plea and nearly 75% of Crown Court cases resulted in guilty pleas as against a London average of 68%.
• Bail appointments for CPS decisions being used more effectively, and overall reductions being achieved in the number of cases where detainees are being bailed to return.

5. The London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) has instigated a performance evaluation framework for the Simple Speedy Summary Justice (SSSJ) workstream of which IPTs are an integral part. Reports on IPT sites generated from this framework are submitted to the IPT Project Board for scrutiny.

6. Subsequent examination of IPT processes at the pilot sites has led to a further review of the IPT model to be adopted for future sites. This has identified the potential for reductions in police staff supervisory roles (Band D grades) provided that the IPT model is fully implemented at each site. These potential savings will be subjected to further work and decision making by the TP Command Team but would equate to a minimum 16 Band D posts (£578K per annum).

Implementation

7. Since February 2008 significant work has been undertaken with Property Services Department (PSD), CPS, Boroughs, Directorate of Information (DoI) and other key stakeholders such as the trades unions to review the suitability of identified buildings within the MPA Estate to accommodate IPT units. As a consequence of this activity, the implementation schedule has been reviewed; a summary of this schedule is attached at Appendix 1. This primarily is based upon the known lease expiry dates of CPS accommodation and availability of accommodation within the MPA estate.

8. An additional 6 boroughs have been confirmed to go live with IPTs during 2008/9. These are Barnet, Bexley, Camden, Islington, Haringey and Ealing. The majority of remaining boroughs will be rolled out at intervals during 2009/10 subject to finalised delivery of accommodation requirements. Subject to any further solution being identified, the boroughs of Westminster, Barking and Dagenham and Merton are reliant upon delivery of Borough Based Custody Centres for implementation of IPTs. Consequently, the implementation of IPTs in these boroughs is currently timetabled for delivery in 2010/11.

9. The MPA have previously questioned whether there should be an exit strategy in respect of the IPT programme in the event that either organisation sought to withdraw from this process. Both the MPS and CPS are fully committed to the delivery of IPTs as part of the overall LCJB Criminal Justice Reform Programme. The introduction of IPTs forms part of a national agenda including DGSP and SSSJ designed to reform post-charge processes and introduce fundamental changes to the way in which case files are compiled and managed. The level of investment by both the MPS and CPS in terms of personnel and other resources, together with the significant business change being undertaken will ensure that IPTs become the embedded way of working for both agencies. Consequently it is considered highly unlikely that either the MPS or CPS will seek to curtail IPTs or to reinstate previous working practices.

C. Race and equality impact

See attached Equality and Impact Assessment at Appendix 2.

D. Financial implications

1. The revised financial implications of fully implementing IPTs across all BOCUs is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 -  Revised IPT costs/savings

2. Additional savings have been included in the above table for the 16 Band D posts (referred to at Para 5 of the main report).

3. The changes to the original figures as reported to COP on 17 February are summarised below:

Table 2 - Reconciliation of changes to financial implications

4. Provision for the set up costs is available in earmarked reserves set aside for this purpose. The costs identified assume full roll out of IPTs to existing borough accommodation. Where this is not possible, alternative solutions will need to be found which may include the prioritisation of Borough Based Custody Centres at those sites to allow for the implementation of IPTs. The impact of this could be to reduce PSD/DOI set up costs.

5. The shortfalls identified for 2008/09 and 2009/10 will be managed within the existing criminal justice reserve or from within the Territorial Policing budget as finally approved. These financial implications will be built into the Authority’s 2009-12 budget submission.

6. CPS London have also secured funding of £1.8 million to implement IPTs across London, this will fund all their removal, relocation, ICT and furniture costs. These costs are not included in the table above.

7. In the February report, reference was made to the CPS realising savings from property leases expiring between 2010 and 2014. Reference was also made to negotiations with the CPS in relation to rent for occupation of MPS premises by CPS staff which was anticipated as being between £800k and £1m per annum (commencing 2010). The results of these negotiations will be subject to a separate report to Committee. The potential financial impact of these negotiations has not been built into the project estimates.

8. As outlined in the February report, the accommodation and DOI estimates are based on the experience gained on the three pilot sites but must still be considered indicative at this stage and will be kept under review. An allowance has been included for any building costs associated with displacing staff from existing accommodation to create the necessary space for co-located IPT, although this is considered to be unlikely to be required. The DOI costs reflect CPS needs in placing their ICT in separate MPS infrastructure. Some elements of these costs may be capital and if so will need to be added to the capital programme budget. To the extent that this is the case, any capital expenditure will be matched by a revenue contribution to capital. Any significant variation in costs will be subject of a further report to committee.

E. Legal implications

1. Letters of comfort covered the tenancy of the CPS in the three pilot sites. An overarching lease agreement is currently being drawn up between the two agencies to enable the occupational arrangements be confirmed in a legally binding format. The lease agreement will cover occupancy costs, the maintenance of facilities, CPS furniture heating and lighting and business rates.

2. The lease agreement currently being drawn up between the MPS and CPS includes a clause stipulating a period of notice required by both parties to terminate the CPS occupying our buildings. It is anticipated that this will be a period of 24 months.

3. This will allow - in the unlikely event of the lease agreement being revoked – for both the MPS and CPS to review their policies and procedures and implement contingency plans. There would be a need for the MPS to reinvest in staff should the IPT model cease to exist due to termination of lease agreement.

4. Similarly, the lease agreement will stipulate a period of notice to be given by the MPS in the event that the CPS element of an IPT is required to move elsewhere within the MPA estate. This will allow for the CPS and MPS to manage the transfer of existing IPTs into Borough Based Custody Centres in the future. It is anticipated that the period of notice will be 6 months.

5. The MPS and CPS are currently drawing up a Service Level Agreement this will document the commitment of both parties to implementing and maintaining the IPT model in London.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author(s): Commander Paul Minton, Territorial Policing, MPS

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Table Appendix 1 - IPT implementation dates for boroughs

Dates in black denote confirmed dates
Dates in red are provisional dates (i.e. all the dates from Ealing onwards)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback