Criminal Justice Process- Blueprint For Change

Report: 04
Date: 13 March 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report briefly sets out the methodology, findings and proposals from the ATOS KPMG study in to criminal justice processes within the MPS.

A. Recommendations

That the committee

1. notes the report; and
2. endorses pilots of the model subject to a business case and implementation plan being developed during the period of the pilot and presented to members with an evaluation of the pilot.

B. Supporting information

1. In December 2002, ATOS KPMG completed an twelve-week project in which they reviewed the MPS’ existing criminal justice processes. The purpose was to provide a coherent and co-ordinated plan to support the MPS’ vision to “deliver individual victim and witness care and right first time outcomes in bringing offenders to justice”. (Not attached to this report).

2. The ATOS KPMG report concluded that changes were required in a number of key areas:

• The provision of individual victim and witness care throughout the CJ process
• CPS involvement pre-charge
• MPS involvement post charge
• Early and consistent quality assurance
• Early and consistent supervision throughout the CJ process
• Professional development of staff
• Technology enablement (single electronic case file)

Methodology

3. A project team was formed comprising:

• ATOS KPMG
• 1 x Chief Inspector
• 2 x Detective Sergeant
• 1 x Detective Constable

4. The scope of the project had been previously agreed and the work was divided into two halves. The first part of the project established ‘as is’ processes which were confirmed by Commander Alan Given in November. The remaining weeks then concentrated on the development of a ‘to be’ model. The Project Team reported on a fortnightly basis to a steering group, chaired by Commander Given and comprising representatives from the Home Office, CPS, Lord Chancellor’s Department, the GLMCA, the MPA, the TUS and Federation.

5. At both stages of the project the team held workshops with key practitioners within the CJ system. These included representatives from CJUs (all ranks and grades), the CPS and operational officers. There were a number of site visits and meetings with key stakeholders from both the MPS and partner agencies. The team also reviewed the recently completed MPA Bringing Offenders to Justice report to ensure that the conclusions from this work were acknowledged and incorporated as part of the team’s findings.

Findings

6. The team has developed two models for the future:

The Victim/Witness Service Liaison Model

7. This model recognises the importance of supporting (particularly vulnerable and sensitive) victims and witnesses throughout their entire involvement in the CJ system.

8. It is proposed that in future, individual victim and witness care will be provided through a three tiered structure based on the assessment of individual needs. The service will be based on three levels of response:

• High Risk – serious offences/extremely vulnerable witnesses. This will incorporate current SOI and FLO provisions.
• Medium Risk – less serious offences/vulnerable victims/witnesses
• Low Risk – minor offences/non vulnerable victims and witnesses

9. The provision of care will be Borough based and a bid is being made to the Police Standards Unit to obtain additional staff resources for the units.

Case Progression Unit

10. The Case Progression Unit (CPU) Model has been designed to provide a ‘cradle to grave’ approach to dealing with all level 1 crimes (less serious offences) investigation cases, and if appropriate some level 2 crimes (more serious assaults, burglary etc) cases (although this will depend on the level of training that officers receive). It is envisaged that the CPU will own the case in totality from the point of the prisoner’s detention to closure. Once a prisoner has been booked in to custody the initial investigating/arresting officer will ‘handover’ to the CPU who will then be responsible for prisoner interviews, obtaining victim and witness statements and the development of the case file.

N.B. It is anticipated that the current process for allocating allegations of crime will remain unchanged.

11. The size of the CPU will depend on the size and nature of the Borough. It has however been designed to include, police officers, essential civil support staff, CPS Charge Advice Lawyers and victim and witness support groups. Although it is accepted that at first, BOCUs will require additional resources to set up the unit, ultimately it will replace the existing CJU structure and will after initial upgrading become self-resourcing.

12. There are fundamental differences between the CJU operating currently and the new approach of Case Progression Units. Currently the personnel asset employed in CJUs are engaged on administration of a case file and this activity is repeated in the CPS administration units. This results in stretched lines of communication and poor case file quality. By moving to the case progression model the MPS asset is invested in the initial completion and building of the case file leading to a professionalisation of the case preparation system engaging a workforce that will be trained, practised and therefore capable in this area of the business. A key success factor is to increase patrol time. On average it currently takes two officers three hours each to process a prisoner. This time will be reduced to approximately one hour per officer and thereby release the resource to operational patrol. It is reasonable to assume that increased file quality will impact on the right first time culture and have a positive effect on the numbers of cases discontinued and therefore improve the number of offences brought to justice.

Amongst others, the benefits of this model are:

• Increased professionalism among a dedicated group
• Ownership of the criminal justice process within an identifiable team
• Likely increase in the number of offences brought to justice
• Consistency of quality assurance
• Reduction in case file administration costs
• Redeployment of case workers to perform victim/witness care functions

The way forward

13. It is proposed that the above two models are introduced at Southwark, which already has CPS lawyers at the point of charge at Walworth and a great deal of preliminary work has been done regarding the existing victim and witness pilot. The Borough Commander is supportive of this proposal and the implementation team have already held some initial meetings to see how the pilot can best be taken forward.

14. The KPMG report makes it clear that there is a cost attached to the success of this project and indicates that there a possible funding gap of £26.7m between now and the end of 2007. Although it is reasonable to assume that this may indeed be the case, much of that cost is based on an estimation of the future workloads due to the increase in officer numbers and the enhanced Criminal Justice facilities that would be required to meet that need.

15. The roll out programme for London, as envisaged, was slow and required a dedicated implementation team, working within each borough prior to their go live date. The costs above also included the fees associated with employing Atos KPMG for a protracted period of time to deliver this product.

16. Even though the ATOS KPMG report is relatively new, circumstances have developed even since its completion and it has become clear that legislation, possibly passed in the autumn this year, will require lawyers to draft all charges preferred against prisoners. A lengthy roll out programme is no longer a viable option. A decision has been taken not to approach the MPA for funds to employ KPMG further as it is considered that project management on this scale is well within MPS capabilities.

17. The first site to benefit from this new model is Southwark and an internal team of eight staff are helping Southwark to develop the new approach. In its immature state it is, however, difficult to establish the exact level of additional resource that will be required at each borough to ensure success in this critical area. Evaluation of the operation at Southwark will make this clearer and will take place by the end of this calendar year. It is not anticipated, however, that the roll out will be delayed pending this evaluation, instead we will learn as we develop. Early indications are that about ten additional staff are required on each borough to service the functions correctly. This number will, however, reduce over time as functions in the current CJU and consequently the staff attached to those posts become redundant freeing up a resource to work to deliver the new processes.

C. Financial implications

1. A bid has recently been submitted to the Police Standards Units for funding of just over £1m to ensure the project is correctly resourced as it is developed on each of the boroughs. This funding, if agreed, will allow for a small number of staff to work on the programme during the roll out period. These staff will subsequently be released as CJUs/ CPUs become more efficient.

2. A key element of success in this programme is the development, on each borough of victim and witness focus desks. This is an entirely new function that has never been resourced. It is anticipated that each victim and witness focus desk will employ three members of essential civil support staff. This results in growth of 96 civil staff posts, and an ongoing annual cost of approximately £2.4m, any future funding for criminal justice will need to be aware of this increase. Ultimately the new models will be largely augmented from within existing resources. They will be substantially more cost effective than complete MPS/CPS co-location as envisaged in the original Glidewell recommendations.

D. Equality and diversity implications

1. It is anticipated that the improved and graded support that these models will provide to victims and witness will result in such individuals having a more positive experience of the criminal justice system. The level of support will be tailored to mirror the individual’s needs, which is particularly important for vulnerable and sensitive witnesses and those who have been the victim of hate crime. This will have the effect of opening up the criminal justice system to people who in the past may not have felt comfortable in reporting crimes to police.

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