Contents

Report 5 of the 08 May 03 meeting of the Planning, Performance & Review Committee and sets out the current work being carried out by the Department of Criminal Justice.

Criminal justice update

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Criminal justice update

Report: 05
Date: 8 May 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report sets out the current work being carried out by the Department of Criminal Justice. Including victims and witnesses activity, case file preparation and joint working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with the ultimate aim of bringing more offences to justice. Outline is also provided of the proposed fourth strand of the Narrowing the Justice Gap Plan that has been provisionally approved by the London Criminal Justice Board.

A. Recommendations

That the Committee note the report.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The combination of CPS lawyers at the point of charge and case progression units with victim and witness focus desks are being implemented at Southwark and Lambeth. These two boroughs operate in the same CPS and court areas and, therefore allow for meaningful evaluation using the performance data within the Department of Criminal Justice.

Introducing CPS lawyers at the point of charge

2. The first CPS lawyers began work at Walworth on 28 January 2003. The target is to have lawyers operating at 20 sites by the end of March 2004. The TfL site at Marlowe House will have a lawyer operating with police staff in June 2003 and this can be considered to be a co-located site.

3. The CPS are currently contracted to work between the hours of 9am – 5pm. The experience at Southwark has, however, seen the lawyers working early and late shifts to cover what they see as being the most appropriate advice hours. At a recent criminal justice conference attended by the CPS, MPA, MPS, GLMCA and Attorney General, there was general agreement that negotiations within the CPS would have to be progressed in an effort to formally extend advice hours to those times when such professional advice is most needed.

4. The following schedule indicates how the roll out is currently due to take place and is a reflection of a combination of a number of factors including, MPA accommodation, volume of cases and lawyer availability.

Borough	Status (subject to confirmation by site visits)	Space found	Action required	Delivery date
Southwark -Walworth	Initial site - completed			14/1/03
Southwark - Peckham	Initial site (agreed by MPA 13/3)		Peckham is currently being covered through visits.	June 2003
Lambeth -Streatham	Initial site	Yes	CPS to identify number to be at Streatham	By September 2003
Lambeth – Brixton	Initial site (agreed by MPA 13/3)	Yes	CPS to identify number to be at Brixton	By September 2003
Lambeth - Kennington	Initial site (agreed by MPA 13/3)	Yes	CPS to identify number to be at Kennington	By September 2003
Barnet	By March 2004 as part of joint CJU already underway	Yes	Issues around rent and security clearance to be resolved between CPS/MPS/MPA – applies to Enfield also and all other sites)	By September 2003
Bexley	By March 2004	Yes	CPS and PSD to visit to confirm minor works needed and space appropriate
Camden (Holborn)	By March 2004 as part of Glidewell	Yes	CPS to discuss with branch prosecutor	By September 2003
Croydon	By March 2004	Yes	Joint CPS/MPS/PSD visit to be arranged	By December 2003
Enfield	By March 2004 as part of joint CJU already underway		SB to revisit available accommodation	By September 2003
Greenwich	By March 2004		SB to visit CPS to identify numbers to be at Greenwich	By March 2004
Hackney	By March 2004	Yes	CPS to identify number to be at Hackney	By March 2004
Hammersmith and Fulham	By March 2004	Yes	Information about patterns of arrest and charge to be provided by SB to CPS CPS to speak to branch prosecutor	By March 2004
Haringey	By March 2004 (Accommodation permitting)	Provisional	Major difficulties in identifying appropriate accommodation. SFRM at TPHQ pursuing	By March 2004
Hounslow	By March 2004		CPS to consider whether full time presence needed and decide if existing space could be used	By September 2003
Islington	By March 2004		May be covered by visits from Camden (Holborn).	By December 2003
Kensington and Chelsea	By March 2004	One room	CPS to decide whether Chelsea is appropriate site and decide on number to be at Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston	By March 2004		CPS to discuss with branch prosecutor to identify numbers to be at Kingston, and to consider use of Narey review accommodation.	By December 2003
Merton	By March 2004		Site visit required to assess options CPS to identify numbers to be at Merton
Richmond	By March 2004	2 rooms for 5 if needed	Confirm means of providing service
Tower Hamlets	By March 2004	Yes	CPS to identify numbers to be at Tower Hamlets	By December 2003
Waltham Forest	By March 2004		CPS to consider whether full time cover needed	By December 2003
Lewisham	PFI site	Space for 5 allocated in new building	Check if change of use negotiations needed. Update July 03
Bromley	PFI site	Space for 2 allocated in new building – other space in CJU possible	Check if change of use negotiations needed. Update July 03
Sutton	PFI site	Space for 3 and other office allocated in new building	Check if change of use negotiations needed. Update July 03
Barking and Dagenham	Later		Review Sept 03 – no space at site of custody suite
Brent	Later		Review Sept 03 – refurbishment at QD
Ealing	Later		Review Sept 03 – cannot identify space
Harrow	Later		Review Sept 03 – major refurbishment
Havering	Later		Review Sept 03 – cannot identify space
Heathrow	Later		Review Sept 03
Hillingdon	Later		Review June 03 – one room used by CPS; consider if sufficient.
Newham	Later		Review Sept 03
Redbridge	Later		Review July 03 – gym to be closed; space may then be available
Wandsworth	Later		Review Sept 03 – depends on Earlsfield being vacated by SC
Westminster	Later		Meeting to be held to consider how to deal with this borough

Key: SB – Stan Barton (MPS employee); CPS – headquarters

5. There are costs associated with the introduction of lawyers at the point of charge, but considerable advantages in only retaining the critical element of pre-charge advice and not incurring the cost of amalgamating the administration units as was envisaged in the full Glidewell programme and undertaken at Holborn.

6. Many of the challenges that the Glidewell programme was designed to address have been resolved by the introduction of secure email facilities between MPS buildings and CPS offices. There has been a recent commitment by the CPS to use this facility in all but the more complex cases where the transfer of large files will still be undertaken by hand. The arrival of the ‘NSPIS case and custody’ systems in the MPS and the ‘Compass’ equivalent within the CPS will enhance the case preparation and case progression arrangements.

7. The Glidewell programme, as previously planned, would have required the MPS to both find and fund large premises for full co-location. There is of course a cost to providing accommodation to CPS staff in charging sites, which will also have an impact on the space available for new recruits joining the Service. The financial cost is, however, balanced by equivalent accommodation being provided by the CPS for police staff working in a centralised traffic unit. A detailed description of the financial and resource implications of this initiative is set out later in this report.

Introducing case progression units

8. The development of case progression units (CPUs) will in the short to medium term replace the existing criminal justice units. These units are currently responsible for the administration of case files and have little if any impact on quality or standardisation.

9. The staff required for case progression units will undertake ‘case building’ which will involve working closely with the CPS and the officer in the case to provide case papers that provide a true reflection of the prosecution case and a united front on the prosecution of the offender. This will undoubtedly be reflected in a lower attrition rate at all points of the process and an increased number of offences brought to justice.

10. Essentially, case progression units have two new elements, quality assurance and investigators. The new units will, however, be supported by existing resources. Although an increased number of staff will be involved in the case preparation stage, it will remove the need for individual team sergeants to supervise case papers and, therefore, increase the time they are able to patrol with their staff.

11. Additionally, it will reduce the hours an officer is required to spend preparing case papers, instead he or she will be required to provide evidence as a professional witness and the case will thereafter be progressed by the CPU. It is estimated that this process will more than halve the time officers are engaged with paperwork.

12. Effective case progression units will require case builders (current CJU staff), a quality assurance post (known as the gatekeeper), and qualified investigators. All of these new roles can be absorbed by existing staff. The case builders will be provided from the existing CJUs who carry out similar duties and will, therefore, not represent an additional financial burden.

13. Quality assurance is key to the success of these initiatives. Each borough already has an individual (in the main a sergeant) who carries out a quality assurance role, but unfortunately it is carried out at the end of the process rather that at the beginning where it is possible to remedy faults. It is proposed to move this role to the front of the process where interaction can take place with the CPS lawyer. It will be necessary to increase the number of officers engaged in quality assurance to provide appropriate shift cover.

14. Ultimately the borough will be required to supply investigators (uniform or detective), but in effect these are the same officers who would currently be providing advice to colleagues in many crime cases.

15. This role would vary in both style and number depending on the borough concerned, but they would have to be available during the busier shifts. High quality advice and security of evidence at this point will shorten what can be a very protracted process. In the early stages it is anticipated that on average a borough will require eight officers to undertake this function.

16. This groundbreaking approach to case preparation is being implemented at Southwark to be followed soon at Lambeth. The implementation at Southwark began in February and will be completed in late May. These units will deal with all prisoner processing and subsequent enquiries once the arresting officer has completed his or her evidence. The units will be staffed with a combination of police officers and the resources from the CJU, which will migrate to the CPUs as the change is developed. The role of the CPU will differ from that of a CJU, as it will move from one of file administration to file building ensuring case readiness. Critical training will be provided jointly with the CPS to quality assurance officers in these units to ensure that case files are prepared correctly at the outset. These officers will also be responsible for ensuring that staff are not released back to patrol until evidence is completed to the required standard.

17. It is intended that the CPUs will deal with level 1 and 2 crime and so ensure that case file quality is improved in relation to volume crime. All probationers will be expected to work in these units alongside experienced staff as part of their development.

18. A detailed description of the financial and resource implications of this initiative is set out later in this report.

19. Introducing victim and witness focus desks as part of the CPU

20. Victim and witness focus desks will be provided to boroughs as Case Progression Units are rolled out across the MPS. The first live site is at Southwark and to help with implementation extra IT equipment has been provided.

Role of the victim and witness desk

21. The role of the victim and witness desk can be best highlighted as follows:

Risk assess the needs of each victim and witness
Provide a single point of contact
Referral to other support agencies
Pro-actively provide case updates
Warn all prosecution witnesses including officers
Facilitate additional services including security devices/transport
Referring cases of breaches of bail conditions, intimidation and harassment to the investigating officer and CPS lawyer
Assist with criminal injuries compensation claims
Advise on the criminal justice process and procedures

22. A detailed description of the financial and resource implications of this initiative is set out later in this report.

Joint MPS/CPS case administration (Traditional Glidewell concept)

23. Prior to implementation of CPS lawyers to the point of charge the principal of full Glidewell co-location was tested in London. Holborn was the test bed for the initiative and although to date it has only completed phase 1 of 3 phases it has proven to be prohibitively expensive and is an unrealistic prospect to roll out across the MPS. It has been agreed at PPRC on the 13th March that phase 2 at Holbon involving integrated working of police and CPS will be allowed to continue to ensure that maximum learning is achieved from the experience.

24. The CPS units at Colindale and Edmonton are closer to the original concept and do include an element of administrative co-location, but these are the last two units to be created in this way. Colindale and Edmonton are so far towards completion that it would be counter – productive to reverse the decisions made in respect of those two joint units. Both of these units will of course include professional legal advice at the point of charge.

Implementing recommendations from the BOTJ best value review

25. Recommendation 1: Introduction of custody detention officers
There are significant costs attached to this recommendation. Further examination of this proposal is being progressed through the MPS Reform and Growth Team.

26. Recommendation 2: Introduction of prisoner processing teams
Prisoner processing teams (PPTs) are an integral part of the of the Case progression unit and the recommendation is being implemented

27. Recommendation 3: Improvements to victim and witness support to be handed to PPTs
Victim and witness focus desks form part of the structure of the Case Progression Units, this recommendation is being implemented.

28. Recommendation 4: Restrictions on the use of investigative bail and the introduction of monitoring mechanisms
This recommendation is contrary to one of the recognised success factors, where police bail is used to ensure that cases are better prepared prior to entering the CJS system. The benefits include a higher plea of guilty rate at early hearings, reducing cracked and ineffective trials and freeing up court time for more cases to be heard.

Use of pre-charge bail is a critical element in the success of CPS lawyers at the point of charge. The new Criminal Justice Bill should allow police to impose conditions on pre-charge bail.

29. Recommendation 5: Introduction of the CPS at the point of charge
Covered above, this recommendation is being implemented.

30. Recommendation 6: Flexibility for Narey court dates to allow better case preparation
The Lord Chancellors Department is working on a Case Progression Project, this is a multi agency project designed to ensure that maximum benefit is gained from court time by ensuring that cases are trial ready when listed. Negotiations are currently underway to identify a site for implementation of this approach in London.

The likelihood is that it will be located within the courts fed by either Lambeth and Southwark or the Snaresbrook catchment area in order that the full benefits of a joined up approach by all the agencies can be properly evaluated.

31. Recommendation 7: Introduction of a corporate case file
A corporate case file will be delivered by the case progression units, the intention is that the investment made in completing a higher standard of file at the outset will deliver a higher number of early guilty pleas and reduce the need for subsequent corrective action. This recommendation is being implemented.

32. Recommendation 8: Introduction of a single prosecutions unit that integrates police and CPS units
Covered above, this recommendation is being implemented.

33. Recommendation 9: Creation of a central command for criminal justice
Complete. This recommendation has been implemented.

34. Recommendation 10: Systems to improve the administration and execution of warrants
Warrants form part of the performance framework outlined in previously submitted papers. A target of reducing the number of outstanding warrants by 10% has been set. A police notice was published on 17th March 2003 which introduced a system of grading warrants. Negotiations have been undertaken with the GLMCA to develop a protocol on the timely production and delivery of warrants by the courts. This recommendation has been implemented.

35. Recommendation 11: Move away from judicial disposals to measures based on court outcomes
Judicial disposals do not appear in the next round of MPS performance targets. Targets that impact on the judicial system as a whole are seen as more appropriate and as an example a decision has been taken to remove the ‘court usage’ time from the courts performance targets in an effort to ensure that ‘over listing’ of cases ceases. This recommendation has been implemented.

36. Recommendation 12: Delivery of secure email between the MPS and CPS
The MPS Department of Criminal Justice has implemented secure email between the MPS and the CPS and is now available at 31 of the 32 boroughs. . Westminster is the last borough to go ‘live’ and will be complete in April 2003. The CPS has agreed to use email for the transfer of the majority of case files. This recommendation has been implemented.

37. Narrowing the justice gap
A fourth strand has been provisionally agreed by the London Criminal Justice Board at a meeting on 10 April 2003 covering joint working between the MPS and CPS. This will be finalised at the next LCJB.

A copy is attached at Appendix 1.

C. Financial implications

1. The three initiatives described in this paper will have finance and resource implications for the MPA and MPS. These implications have been set out below, together with the proposed funding arrangements.

Lawyers at the point of charge

2. This initiative involves placing lawyers at the place of charge in as many of the 56 charging sites across London as possible. In recognition of their reduction in accommodation needs, the CPS has agreed to an ‘accommodation equivalence’ agreement.

3. The basis of this agreement is that the CPS will lease and pay for all running costs of Marlowe House. This accommodation was house relocated Traffic CJU staff who will vacate Borough accommodation thus freeing space for CPS lawyer.

4. As Borough sites are occupied, the proportionate floor space will be ‘counted’ against Marlowe House until ‘equivalence’ is reached.

5. Each party will bear its own fitting out and equipping cost. The CPS will bear all costs of fitting out, minor alterations, equipment, etc. of Borough premises occupied. The MPS will bear the cost of fitting out, equipping etc. Marlowe House. There is provision of £1m in the 2003/04 capital programme for these costs.

6. All other running costs will be borne by each party for its respective buildings i.e. Marlowe House – CPS, Borough premises – MPS.

Victim and witness focus desks

7. It is estimated that each Borough will require an additional three members of civil staff to fulfil the victim and witness care function, a total of 96 for all 32 Boroughs. The estimated cost of these staff in a full year is £2.9m. Each member of staff will need access to the crime reporting system (CRIS) as well as furniture, telephone etc. estimated as £182k one-off costs, with a small ongoing maintenance charge.

8. The MPA agreed a sum of £500k ongoing budget provision from 2003/04, and it proposed to commit no more than this sum on the full year costs of employed civilian support staff and ongoing maintenance costs. A sum of £350k one-off funding has been provided by the Home Office Police Standards Unit to support the pilots. This will be use to fund the one-off equipping costs, and to engage agency staff to provide sufficient staff. The cost of agency staff unable to be contained within the Home Office grant will be met from the £1.853m one-off funding agreed by the MPA in December 2002.

9. This funding will enable a small number of pilot sites to test the concept. If pilots prove successful, a bid for permanent funding will need to be supported by the MPA as part of the Medium Term Financial Projection and 2004/05 Budget process.

Case Progression Units

10. Case Progression Units will be implemented by a phased replacement of existing Criminal Justice Units. Therefore there will be no ongoing additional staffing finance and resource implications. However, there will be an element of ‘dual-running’ that will require additional one-off support, as well as an initial training and office equipping costs. These one-off costs will be met from the £1.853m one-off funding agreed by the MPA in December 2002.

11. The recent KPMG report identified a substantial cost associated with CPUs, this was however ‘opportunity costs’ as the existing staff working within CJUs will be deployed. These ‘opportunity costs’ of CPUs breakdown as follows:

Case progression units – opportunity costs

Requirement	Number per borough	Number for the MPS	Total opportunity cost (,000)
Quality assurance staff (sergeants or qualified constables)	3 in addition to the one already working in CJUs.	96	£4,560
Investigators	8	256	£10,780
Total (opportunity cost)			£15,340

Aims and measurement

Aims

12. Aims include:

To reduce the cost of failure and increase the number of offences brought to justice by:
Reducing the rate of case discontinuance
Increasing the number of effective trials
Reducing the number of discharged committals
Decreasing the number of outstanding warrants
Improving performance against persistent young offenders
Increasing the number of offences brought to justice committed by persistent offenders
Decrease the number of outstanding case results (impending prosecutions)
To create excellent victim and witness care by:
The development of victim and witness focus desks on all boroughs in London
Increasing the number of effective trials by ensuring that more victims and witnesses attend court hearings

Measurement

13. Both the National and London Criminal Justice Boards will measure performance in these areas. Accountability for all agencies will be monitored through close supervision of the Narrowing the Justice Gap (NJG) plan.

14. Joint performance management (police and CPS) will take place on boroughs to ensure that local activity reflects the priorities in the NJG plan.

D. Equality and diversity implications

This a key area within criminal justice, PIB is currently undertaking an evaluation of the diversity data that can be extracted from current and future systems in relation to criminal justice.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Cmdr Alan Given

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Priority 4: Joint Working

Outline of priority

This priority is concerned with contributing to the narrowing of the justice gap by improving inter-agency joint planning and working arrangements. There will be a strong focus on delivering improvements in performance through joint performance monitoring.

The intention is for joint planning and working to focus on the issues of:

discontinuance
discharged committals
warrants
cracked and ineffective trials
Persistent Young Offenders
results of cases

Target(s)

To reduce the number of cases that are discontinued
To reduce the number of discharged committals
To reduce the number of outstanding warrants
To reduce the number of cracked and ineffective trials through prosecution failures
To meet the national PYO targets
To reduce the number of outstanding results on PNC

Agencies involved

Metropolitan Police
Crown Prosecution Service (Lead Agencies)
City of London Police
Crown Court & Magistrates’ Courts
Probation
Prison Service
Yots (in a minority of cases)

Actions to deliver priority

Action	Responsibility	Date
Action 1: To create a joint steering group to co-ordinate joint working across agencies.	MPS/CPS	Completed
Action 2: To deliver an MPS/CPS secure e mail link between all MPS case progression units and CPS criminal justice and trials units.	MPS/CPS	June 2003
Action 3: To deliver CPS lawyers at point of charge in at least 20 charging sites within London.
Set up a CPS project board to deliver a shadow charging scheme in London	CPS	April 2003
Establish shadow charging centres at Walworth and Peckham police stations	CPS/MPS	June 2003
Establish shadow charging centres on MPS BOCUs at Lambeth, Barnet, Enfield and Camden. Implement a shadow charging centre for City of London police and British Transport Police.	CPS/MPS	September 2003
Establish shadow charging centres on MPS BOCUs at Croydon, Hounslow, Islington, Kingston, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. Establish a shadow charging centre for traffic work.	CPS/MPS	December 2003
Establish shadow charging centres on MPS BOCUs at Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey and Hammersmith and Fulham	CPS/MPS	March 2004
Action 4: To create case progression units within each borough in London.
Develop a model for case progression units	MPS/ATOS KPMG	Complete
Establish an implementation team	MPS	Complete
Develop an implementation plan	MPS	Complete
Action 5: To develop a quality assurance function within each of the borough case progression units
Establish quality assurance criteria	MPS	Ongoing
Identify skills requirement and resources	MPS
Action 6: To develop performance data which will be analysed on a borough basis to authenticate reductions in relation to the targets above.
Identify data sets and sources of data.	MPS/CPS	Complete
Arrange for exchange of information	MPS/CPS	Complete
Develop analytical capability in conjunction with the London Area Performance Advisor	MPS/CPS	Ongoing
Action 7: To establish the cause of failure in each PYO case that fails to meet PYO timeliness standards and ensure action is taken to reduce delays.
Establish a monitoring mechanism to gather information on reasons for PYO case failure	MPS	Complete
Include monitoring information in Borough performance meetings	MPS	Ongoing
Current London PYO action plan to be reviewed and revised by all agencies.	All agencies	31 May 2003
Monitor performance monthly by court area and undertake quality assurance reviews with those areas that do not meet the target.	LCJB	Ongoing
Review the 30 longest running PYO cases sentenced each month to identify issues and common themes. Report findings to local Borough criminal justice Groups for local implementation.	LCJB	Ongoing
All court based tracker meetings to routinely (fortnightly) review all PYO cases	BCJG’s	1 April 2003
Action 8: To reduce the number of outstanding results on PNC (Impending prosecutions)
Review the process for recording results at court, transmitting results to the police service and the updating of results on the Police National Computer.	MPS/ GLMCA/ Crown Courts	September 2003
Obtain regular data by police BOCU on the number of Impending Prosecutions and include in the suite of performance indicators for Borough performance meetings.	MPS	Complete
Action 9: To implement NSPIS Case and Custody products in the Metropolitan Police Service.
Establish a Project Board	MPS	Complete
Establish an implementation team	MPS	Complete
Pilot NSPIS case and custody products at a pilot BOCU	MPS	End 2003
Establish a roll out program	MPS	September 2003
Action 10: To implement the ‘Compass’ case progression system across CPS London.	CPS	Awaits CPS
Action 11: To joint performance manage each borough prosecution team.	MPS/CPS	Ongoing
Monitoring arrangements Overall monitoring responsibility will rest with the Executive Secretariat via the relevant sub-group. Links between the Executive Secretariat and the Local Borough Criminal Justice Groups will be strengthened to ensure that the groups are in place, meet on regular basis, are effective and provide regular feedback on performance via the Performance Officer for London.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback