Criminal justice update

Report: 11
Date: 09 January 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report is intended to inform the MPA of the following developments in relation to criminal justice:-

• New structures
• MPS/CPS Joint Steering Group
• Glidewell (covered in separate paper)
• Best Value Review ‘Bringing Offenders To Justice”
• London and Local Criminal Justice Boards
• Joint performance management
• Information technology
• MPS progress with white paper / Criminal Justice Bill
• MPS contribution to CJS measures and support of 3 year MPS strategy
• Reducing deaths in police custody

A. Recommendation

That Members note the contents of this update report

B. Supporting information

New structures

1. The Department for Criminal Justice was formed on 1 November and is located in the Territorial Policing portfolio. The department is headed by Commander Alan Given.

The responsibilities of the department include:

• Modernisation and delivery of criminal justice business within the MPS.
• Joint and integrated working with the CPS.
• Performance management .
• Joint agency working.
• Criminal Justice co-ordination.
• Co-ordinating activity to reduce deaths in police custody.

2. All activity in relation to criminal justice delivery is co-ordinated by Commander Given’s private office using a matrix with a traffic light control facility. This shows the current position and progress in relation to work undertaken; the facility can be viewed on the MPS Intranet.

3. The work undertaken on behalf of the business by Performance Information Bureau, Department of Technology, Directorate of Training, the Criminal Justice Office and Glidewell team is co-ordinated through a criminal justice work-stream meeting held monthly.

4. Internally, scheduled meetings are being held with the CJU managers to drive performance and provide updates on new developments and progress. Regular briefings are also being provided to the Borough Commanders at the Operation Safer Streets meetings.

MPS/CPS Joint Steering Group

5. To support integrated working a joint steering group has been formed, this group meets bi-monthly and the chair alternates between the CPS / MPS. The MPS chair is Commander Given. The purpose of this group is to drive activity and criminal justice performance between both agencies. Joint working and shared MPS/CPS facilities are key initiatives in the MPS’ aim to revitalise the Criminal Justice system.

6. In order to support this joint initiative, it is intended that joint offices will be located at both New Scotland Yard and the CPS Flagship building at Holborn. This is to ensure consistency in policy formulation with a focus on delivery.

7. Issues, which are currently being considered by the JSG, include:

•  Joint and integrated working.
• Charge pilots/Glidewell.
• Joint performance management.
• Electronic custody and case preparation packages provided by NSPIS.
• Secure email rollout.
• Modernising CJ processes.

Best Value review - bringing offenders to justice

8. Again, this is a key initiative in the aim to revitalise Criminal Justice systems. The draft of the final report has been approved at the project board. It commentates on some of the difficulties for the MPS in delivering criminal justice and makes recommendations on a number of issues that need to be resolved.

9. The work by ATOS KPMG takes into account the findings of the BOTJ review and will feature in the final model.

ATOS KPMG consultancy

10. This company has been engaged to deliver a blueprint and business case for change in relation to criminal justice in the MPS. The funding has been provided from the money made available from central government via the street crime fund. The work has been delivered within the twelve-week timescale and concluded 20 December 2002.

11. The vision that has been set for the work is ‘Excellence in victim and witness care with right first time outcomes in criminal justice’.

12. A steering group for the work was formed and met fortnightly during the course of the work, the group consisted of:

• Alan Given Commander MPS Project Director
• Reschard Auladin MPA (represented by Derrick Norton)
• Catherine Lee Home Office
• Keith Budgen Lord Chancellors Department
• Alex Machray CPS London
• Monica Curtice GLMCA
• Alan Nash Police Federation
• Robert Justham Trade Union Side
• Robert Quick Commander Territorial Policing Crime
• Mark Heath Chief Superintendent MPS
• Martin Jauch Chief Superintendent MPS

London and local criminal justice boards

13. The London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) is chaired by Ashley Truluck, Chief Executive of the Greater London Magistrates Authority. It currently reports to the London Criminal Justice Strategy Committee chaired by Judge Fabyan Evans who was appointed to the role by the Lord Chancellor. Attendance is by senior colleagues from the following agencies:

• Greater London Magistrates Authority.
• MPS.
• CPS London.
• Prisons service.
• Probation.
• Lord Chancellors Department.
• City of London Police.

14. Local criminal justice boards comprising the Chief Clerk to the Magistrates, Borough Commander/CJU manager, and the CPS head of the Magistrates and Trials Units are currently being set up. The purpose of this structure is to support joint working on a local borough basis.

Joint performance management

15. Historically joint performance management (JPM) within criminal justice referred to the completion and collation of the results from the form TQ1. This form was completed by MPS CJUs and was then passed to the CPS for completion and returned to the MPS. The purpose of the TQ1 is to assess the file quality and timeliness of case files. In practice the return rate from the CPS was low and the completion a subjective assessment by individual lawyers, it is therefore of limited value in driving performance.

16. At the MPS / CPS Joint Steering Group it has been agreed that joint performance management will comprise a joint process across both agencies based on performance data highlighting attrition rates. This requires borough based performance data showing the attrition rate for cases per borough. Initially, performance information has been developed using CPS data.

17. The process will consist of performance-focused meetings involving Commander Given and the CPS equivalent, together with borough staff including the CJU manager and either borough Commander or Superintendent Operations. Initially this process will target those boroughs in the lower performance quartile, moving to cover each borough with a view to driving performance and reducing attrition.

Information Technology

18. Secure email; Between the MPS CJU’s and the CPS there has existed an extensive fax and memo culture to deliver further and corrective action in relation to case files. In a system with tight timescales and the requirement for a clear audit trail of communication and action this method is clearly not adequate.

19. The rollout of secure email via the police national network is now being undertaken and will be completed in 12 weeks. This will allow the passage of material up to security classification ‘restricted’, and is critical in supporting the delivery of the business.

20. NSPIS; This is a system which has been developed by Securicor Information Systems (SIS) on a national basis led by PITO. The project has been some considerable time in development. The product is designed to provide custody and case handling capability, and has a multi function capability to provide automatic PNC facilities without the need for multi -keying of data. A case tracking capability is built into the system.

21. The funding for the product is provided on a national basis. The MPS is approximately 25% of the business and has successfully negotiated a move from thick client to thin client to meet the MPS IT infrastructure requirements. PITO/ SIS has now moved to a thin client strategy.

A thin client can be used at multiple sites and data is collected on central servers. A thick client solution is only suitable for smaller forces.

22. The MPS has negotiated for early delivery of the product during 2003. Considerable change management is required in order to implement this product, however the benefits are considerable and the current systems are overdue for replacement.

23. ATOS KPMG have met with SIS and their work will inform the configuration of NSPIS. This will ensure that the product meets the requirements of delivering MPS criminal justice business in accordance with new processes.

MPS progress with issues from the white paper / Criminal Justice Bill
Previous convictions and allegations of misconduct

24. This issue is likely to be one of those that instigates some of the most heated debate over the Bill. We support the proposals in the Bill for the admission of Previous Convictions under the circumstances outlined. The MPS considers that since the government and society entrust juries and magistrates to make judgements based on the evidence before them, they are certainly responsible enough to properly weigh evidence of previous bad character if it is presented as an inclusive part of the trial.

Impact low as previous convictions are already part of the case file

Re-Trial for serious offences.

25. The MPS fully supports all of the clauses surrounding the issue of Double Jeopardy. There are numerous and robust safeguards built in to every stage of the process which render suggestions of future impropriety void. This legislation will ensure that people are not subjected to speculative, numerous re-trails. Only where there is new and compelling evidence, that was unavailable for good reason at the first trial, will such a course of action be possible and then only after close scrutiny. The MPS does not envisage that this will be a frequently used piece of legislation.

Impact low as this is unlikely to happen except in a very few cases.

Disclosure provisions.

26. The MPS has previously sought changes to these provisions as we believe that they are capable of exploitation by a minority of lawyers and that the judiciary has not always taken a firm line over inappropriate practices, such as late or inadequate defence submissions. The Bill goes a long way towards addressing these issues and will assist in getting to the heart of a case, to the issues which are really contested.

Impact high in terms of positive outcomes

27. The MPS believes that defence witnesses should be subject to the same conditions as those for the prosecution. There should be proper judicial pre-trial scrutiny of both the prosecution and the defence. This will minimise the risk of ambushes in the courtroom and facilitate proper cross-examination of witnesses on both sides of a case. The MPS does not oppose the Home Affairs Select Committee recommendations that interviews with defence witnesses be done in the presence of a solicitor and on tape, but we are seeking clarity over how that may be enforced.

Impact high in terms of positive outcomes at trial

28. Clause 30 Unused expert evidence. The MPS strongly supports this measure and believes that inclusion of the actual statements of the instructed experts would have gone even further towards balancing the system. It seems likely that it has been phrased in these terms to allow the prosecution to apply to the expert for the content of their evidence, but to allow the court to exclude that which may be subject to privilege.

Low Impact – Positive outcomes in terms of allowing prosecution team access to all defence expert evidence

29. Review of PACE Codes of Practice

The MPS welcomes the majority of the proposed changes to PACE. However we have requested further information on how the practical use of “street bail” would work. We also have reservations about clause 6 which may leave the MPS open to allegations of impropriety over a detained person’s property. We have also sought clarity over the issue of the extension of permitted time in detention to 36 hours. While we fully support the measure which will allow for more satisfactory investigation, if the level of authority for detention to that time remains with superintendents, their workload will increase enormously. We would support a change to PACE that allowed that such reviews and extensions should be done by telephone, or, as an alternative, that inspectors authorise detention up to the 36 hours after which the authority of a court would be necessary.

Impact – Street bail is an unknown quantity. Authorisation by phone positive to support business delivery

CPS to determine charges in all but routine cases.

30. Guidance issued by the DPP for the purpose of section 37(7), although not yet published, would help to support the principle of getting the charge right first time. The MPS would welcome consultation at an early stage to ensure that the guidance provisions address the particular cases and circumstances that arise within the Metropolis.

High impact – positive outcomes already coupled to the new MPS approach to Glidewell

Police power to impose conditions on pre-charge bail

31. The Bill has stepped back from the White Paper proposals to allow police to impose pre-charge bail conditions on suspects to deter them from interfering with the investigative process. The Bill allows such conditions to be imposed only upon those who been referred to the CPS for a decision as to what the charge should be after the investigation is complete. The MPS still supports the principle of the imposition of these conditions but has sought further information from the Home Office as to the intent of the relevant clauses of the Bill.

Impact – potentially high in terms of positive outcomes in ensuring cases are trial ready at an early stage post charge

Potential challenges presented by the Bill.

32. Conditional Cautions, Clause 19, may require the MPS to submit post –charge files to the CPS, only to see the invested resources be lost as a result of a decision to caution. Provided that police have adhered to the DPP’s guidance, and charged correctly, these occasions should be rare. However, early consultation on the detail of the application of this proposal will be undertaken.

Impact - low

33. New Methods of Instituting Proceedings. Clause 24. This clause may have a major impact on the MPS as it recommends that for those people who have been bailed while the CPS determine what the charge should be against them, it will be the responsibility of the police to serve them formally with documents that place a requirement upon them to attend court. This could potentially be more of an administrative burden than the warrants system, and require enormous amounts of police time and resources to ensure it was successful. The Home Office has been approached on this subject and we await their response.

Potentially high impact in terms of the administrative burden. A positive outcome is the increase in custody officer resilience by reducing the number of prisoners returning to custody suites

34. Sending cases to Crown Court. Clause 35. The MPS has recommended that this clause be re-considered in the light of the administrative burden it is likely to place on CJU’s. If a magistrate’s court declines jurisdiction over a case, rather than a defendant elect trial by jury, (which is less likely given the new sentencing powers of magistrates and the early indications of likely sentence.), then the case is to be “sent” to the Crown Court under the same provisions as Indictable Only offences. That would cause serious difficulties in CJU’s across the MPS.

Reducing deaths in police custody

35. The Department of Criminal Justice has responsibility for ensuring the necessary activity is undertaken to reduce the risks of deaths in police custody.

36. A full inspection of cell accommodation has been undertaken by PSD to evaluate the current risks in terms of state of repair, ligature points etc. The inspectorate have been engaged to support the work by review of current compliance with policy, in particular risk assessment and action taken to reduce risk to individuals detained.

37. The Department of Criminal Justice has implemented a multi- disciplined team to tackle this issue, involving:

• PSD
• Inspectorate
• Directorate of Training
• Department of Technology
• Criminal Justice Office

38. A programme of work has started involving the replacement of high-level ligature points within cells and the refurbishment of cell wickets. This work is being undertaken on an intelligence led basis, using analysis supplied by the DPS.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no financial implications in this paper

D. Financial implications

There are no equality or diversity implications.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Alan Given, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback