CPS Nottinghamshire

Annual Report 2001-2002

Introduction by the Chief Crown Prosecutor

During the year we launched a number of initiatives, which will improve the effectiveness of prosecutions and the service we offer to victims. In November 2001 we launched a new Domestic Violence Policy to strengthen our response to this "hidden" crime which destroys so many families and, if left unchecked, often leads to the death of the victim.

In December 2001 we began implementing the Direct Contact with Victims Scheme, which will provide more information victims about the progress of their cases, and in particular to inform them promptly of the reasons for any change to the charges faced by the defendants. I hope this initiative and others we plan for the future will help to improve public confidence in the Criminal Justice System (CJS).

There have been many achievements and successes during the year, but the most significant has been the achievement of the Government's target to reduce by half the time taken to deal with young offenders. Three years ago Nottinghamshire was one of the worst performing Areas, but due to the unstinting efforts of the Youth Team and the excellent co-operation of the courts, police and Youth Offending Teams, we have now met and exceeded the target.

Our success, which is based on deploying specialist prosecutors in a discreet team working closely with our partners in the criminal justice agencies, will provide a model for tackling other areas where we need to show an improvement in performance.

One of the most exciting developments over the last year has been the launch of the local Criminal Justice Plan for Nottinghamshire, under which all criminal justice agencies have agreed to work together to improve the service we offer to the public.

The Plan has four key elements:

Active Case Management

The first aim is to establish a robust active case management system in Nottinghamshire that identifies, monitors and takes action to progress long-running cases in the system and can assist in the joint measurement of performance on timeliness and quality.

A High Quality Victims and Witnesses Service

The provision of a high quality victims and witnesses service in Nottinghamshire will be another key aim, in particular establishing working practices to provide a dedicated joint service to witnesses and victims, and to improve the consistency of information on witness availability.

Joined Up Performance Management Approach

The lack of joint performance monitoring and sharing of information across all agencies prevents sound managerial decisions and joint decision-making. We will create a jointly administered system which provides regular feedback on performance to all agencies. The system will focus on performance measurement with a purpose.

Quick and Effective Communications

The final aim intends to address the real need for quick and effective communication systems. This applies across agencies to speed the dissemination of information, and equally with respect to developing a presence in the wider community in Nottinghamshire. This theme therefore addresses the intention of the CJS to develop a public presence.

This year we have made a significant investment in information technology and, for the first time, all our staff have access to modern computer systems. This will be a key building block in improving the efficiency of our case management and improving our communication with other agencies.

For the current year our main priority will be to focus on the growing problem of street crime and in particular robbery.

Peter Lewis Chief Crown Prosecutor

The Trials Unit

This year, which was the first full year of operation of our Trials Unit (TU), has seen us consolidate the good work achieved in the previous year. We were set demanding targets for this year, which we have met, including targets for our casework such as timely delivery of committal papers to the Defence and the timely delivery of briefs to Counsel engaged to prosecute on our behalf in the Crown Court.

We also took part in a ground breaking initiative by asking colleagues from our West Yorkshire office to undertake a "Peer Review" of our Unit. This involved an assessment of our performance against our targets and in the quality of our service delivery, both to our own colleagues as well as to the police, the courts and members of the local Bar. This has been a successful and worthwhile exercise contributing to the development of our Unit. We are grateful to those of our external partners who contributed to the review and we are including the suggestions for improvement in next year's plan.

As for our Crown Court casework, last year I reported on the introduction of the initiative by which our most serious cases — those which can only be tried on indictment — are sent to the Crown Court, usually after one appearance in the magistrates' court. These cases now form a significant part of our work, being in the region of 25 per cent of our overall caseload. Much of this has been high profile work attracting media attention. Examples include cases such as Birtles, where the defendant posed as a social worker and, having obtained access to the houses of elderly people, stole either cash or jewellery.

The reviewing lawyer identified that the defendant had a previous conviction for similar offences and used evidence from the previous case, as the allegations at Nottingham were strikingly similar. A substantial amount of work was undertaken in conjunction with the Police, involving identity parades and providing witness care for the many elderly and frail witnesses. Eventually, the defendant pleaded guilty to over 30 offences and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

In another case, Phillip Kambeta, a care worker who had been employed through an agency to work at a care home, was convicted of the rape of a lady resident who had severe learning difficulties. He was jailed for 12 years for this offence.

A number of cases have been prosecuted following fatal road traffic accidents. One such case, Panesar, involved the tragic death of two Trent University students. Panesar had driven his motor vehicle the wrong way down a one-way street, losing control of the vehicle. His blood/alcohol reading was calculated at over three times the legal limit.

As we place great emphasis on our witness care, particularly in cases such as this, both the Police and The CPS lawyer handling the case were in close contact with the families throughout the proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment (later reduced to six years by the Court of Appeal) and was disqualified from driving.

In an unusual case, ex-Trent University Professor Stephen Gray, described in Court as "a high flying academic" was convicted of 10 counts of indecent assault on male models who had been helping with his latest research into air crew clothing. He was later sentenced to a term of nine months' imprisonment.

Finally, in what must be one of the first cases of its kind to appear before the Crown Court, Allan Porter was successfully prosecuted for breach of a sex offender order. He was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment for failing to abide by the terms of a sex offender order made earlier in the Magistrates' Court.

The number of our lawyers who have achieved Higher Courts Advocate (HCA) status has increased, with Kevin Kavanagh and Jeremy Rawlins now joining colleagues who qualified last year. In the forthcoming year we hope that even more of our lawyers will realise their ambitions and qualify as HCAs. During the year our HCAs prosecuted in some 160 court sessions, and as they continue to gain further experience in the Crown Court, we are planning to extend the range of cases they prosecute to include some contested trials.

During the year we implemented a major initiative involving direct contact with victims. Now, when we decide to make an alteration to a charge that may substantially affect the eventual sentence, or decide not to continue a prosecution, we write to the victims explaining our reasons for the decision.

In appropriate cases of any seriousness, such as those cases involving a death or serious sexual assault such as rape, we will offer a meeting with the lawyer responsible for the handling of the case, so that the reasons for our decisions can be explained personally to the victim or victim's family. This should help to provide victims and victims' families with better information and understanding of casework decisions than has previously been available.

On 1 October 2001, a further initiative was implemented concerning Victim Personal Statements. As a result victims now have an opportunity to describe the wider effects that the crime has had upon them. They can also raise any concerns they may have regarding bail issues or compensation. This information can be put before the courts for consideration when dealing with bail applications or sentencing defendants. Victims can also indicate whether or not they feel in need of the support of a helping agency such as Victim Support.

Finally, in concluding this overview of the year's work, I would like to pay tribute to our staff who have worked hard to ensure that we could meet our targets for casework and deliver our part in the important criminal justice initiatives that have been implemented during this year. The next year will, I am sure, be equally challenging, and I am confident we shall be playing a full part in the wider criminal justice system.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIT

This Unit deals with all magistrates' court casework across the county. The Unit is divided into four teams.

Youth Team

This team deals with all youth cases within the county. The prosecution team leader is Martin Bramley who, along with his team of specialist lawyers and caseworkers, are responsible for all the cases brought before the youth courts. They have had the challenge of meeting the Government pledge of reducing the time taken to deal with young offenders to 71 days by 1 April 2002. With great determination and a coordinated effort from the police, courts and the youth offending team, they have successfully met the pledge.

Indeed the performance of the team, both and lawyers and caseworkers, has been impressive. The average period from arrest to sentence in Nottinghamshire was 57 days for the quarter ending December 2001. The national average for the same period in England and Wales was 68 days. Nottinghamshire's performance was placed 12th out of 44 police forces.

One of our youth specialist layers, Eileen Stewart, was honoured with an OBE in the New Years' Honours List last year. This was for Eileen's services both to Victim Support and her work over many years as a Crown Prosecutor.

The other three teams are aligned with police divisions. They prosecute all cases in the magistrates' courts from those divisions and provide advice and guidance to police officers in respect of casework. They continue to work in partnership with the police. Indeed, this year, we have expanded the number of joint training sessions we have delivered to the police to improve performance and resolve joint issues.

City 1

This team is headed up by Amerdeep Somal and a team of 10 lawyers and caseworkers, including a Designated Caseworker dealing with all cases from Central, Beeston, West Bridgford and Carlton divisions. We now have a specialist lawyer on that team who deals with breaches of anti-social behaviour orders.

They also liaise closely with the police and the county council staff who deal with ASBOs. This is to ensure that we have a coordinated approach to these cases so that they can be prosecuted more effectively and all relevant information is available from the agencies.

City 2

The prosecution team leader is Angela Clark, and her team consists of seven lawyers and administrative caseworkers and two Designated Caseworkers. The team deals with all cases from Hucknall, Arnold and Radford Road police divisions. The team has specialist lawyers dealing with child abuse and domestic violence.

The team also deals with the majority of road traffic cases which includes providing advice to the police in respect of the most serious and sensitive fatal road traffic accidents. In such cases, if the family requests a meeting with the lawyer who has advised on the file to explain their decision, we will arrange such a meeting.

County

This team is led by Jane Ball and consists of 10 lawyers and caseworkers including a Designated Caseworker. The team deals with all cases from Mansfield, Worksop, Newark and Retford and the lawyers and Designated Caseworker prosecute in those courts. Eileen Stewart OBE.

They have a dedicated team of administrative caseworkers who work closely with the lawyers in dealing with the varied caseload. The county team is currently planning and preparing for its co-location to Mansfield to create a joint criminal justice unit with the police.

By integrating our administrative systems with the police, we hope to provide a more efficient prosecuting system which reduces delay and duplication. We are aiming to establish the unit in Autumn 2002.

Wildlife and CountrysideAct Prosecution

Bethan Harries-Jones, a county lawyer, was responsible for the successful prosecution of Ashfield District Council for nest and egg destruction, thought to be the first conviction under section 69 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

On 2 May 2001 Ashfield District Council began to uproot an ancient hedgerow at Malvern Park, Kirkby-in- Ashfield, to make space for a local carnival. As the work started, local resident Ivan Bradow informed the JCB driver that there were probably birds nesting in the hedge and managed to stop the work.

Bradow contacted a local councillor who also told the workman to stop as it was against council policy to pull up hedges in the spring. A council official attended and it was agreed the work would cease. Unfortunately, once everyone left, a decision was taken to continue the work and the 100 metre hedge was uprooted. Mr Bradow returned and contacted the RSPB for advice.

The police, the RSPB and Bethan Harries-Jones all worked together in preparing the case. The case came before Nottingham Magistrates' Court on 17 December 2001 and the Council pleaded guilty and was fined £2,800 and ordered to pay £55 costs.

Such cases are invariably difficult too prosecute as establishing both criminal intent and actual nest/egg destruction are usually not possible. The prosecution was successful as a result of the excellent work by PC Smith, the RSPB and The CPS.

Initiatives

Victims

We have further improved our close working relationship with Victim Support and now notify them of all witnesses who are called to give evidence at trials. They continue to offer support victims and organise court familiarisation visits for witnesses when requested.
We have been working jointly with all CJS agencies this year in planning the implementation of our joint victim and witness unit which is due to start operating in May 2002. This will be based at CPS offices and will include CPS and police staff. Through the unit we hope to improve the service we provide to our victims and witnesses.

Direct Communications with Victims

The independent review of The CPS, conducted by Sir Iain Glidewell, and Sir William McPherson's report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, recommended that The CPS should take responsibility to communicate prosecution decisions direct to victims rather than via the police.

Under the new systems, if The CPS decides to drop or alter a charge substantially, the crown prosecutor reviewing the file will write direct to the victim to inform them of the reasons for their decision. In certain serious categories of offence involving child abuse, sexual offences or racially aggravated offences, a meeting will be offered if further explanation is required.

In Nottingham we decided to roll out this initiative team by team. The youth team implemented the new systems from December 2001. This involved a substantial commitment to training, as all our lawyers have to attend an intensive three-day training course to ensure they have the skills to write the letters and conduct the interviews with victims.

The initiative has been implemented successfully thanks to the commitment and hard work of all the caseworkers and lawyers on the youth team. Indeed, in the recent evaluation the team was commended for its performance both in terms of the quality of the letters sent and the timeliness.

In the period December 2001 to March 2002, 175 letters were sent out.The case of Laura and Emma will demonstrate how the system works in practice.

The case of Laura and Emma*

Laura is a 14-year-old schoolgirl. She was jointly charged with Emma for burglary and theft of a community school. She also faced a charge of causing a nuisance on educational premises.

She had previous convictions for shop theft and criminal damage.

Her friend, Emma, also 14, was charged only with the joint burglary. She too had previous convictions for shop theft, assault and disorderly behaviour.

The girls had stolen clothing and bags from the school cloakroom and were seen by witnesses, who later identified them to the police, as having been seen leaving the school carrying a large amount of clothing, some of which they had put into a pushchair. They both pleaded not guilty to the burglary and the case was adjourned for trial on 22 January. At the trial all the witnesses attended. Both girls then offered to plead guilty to theft of the coats and bags from the cloakroom. The prosecutor at court decided to accept the plea to theft and withdraw the burglary charge. He explained the decision to the witnesses.

We then sent a letter to all the witnesses setting out in detail our reasons, which were, that the magistrates' powers of sentence were the same for burglary or theft. Both girls accepted all the facts as outline by the prosecution, and so accepting a plea to theft would not affect the sentence of the court. Laura also pleaded guilty to causing a nuisance on educational premises.

Both girls were sentenced to a three-month action plan order. One of the witnesses phoned the prosecutor to thank her for the letter of explanation and said how happy she was to receive feedback about the case. The prosecutor then had the opportunity to explain the sentence further to the witness.

This is one example of many, which illustrates how our new system is providing an improved service to our victims and witnesses.

* In view of the offenders' ages, their names have been changed to protect their identities.

Victim Personal Statements

These were introduced from 1 October 2001. They give victims and opportunity to say how they have been affected by the crime. They may wish to talk about their fears of intimidation, their concerns about bail and whether they would like help from any of the support agencies. We will take account of what the victim says when we are making our decisions on the case and will ensure that, where appropriate, the court is aware of the content of the Personal Statement.

Domestic Violence

In November 2001 The CPS launched its new domestic violence policy. The policy sets out how The CPS regards domestic violence as particularly serious because there is often a continuing threat to the victim's safety and, in the worst cases, the victim's life and the lives of others (including children's) may be at risk.

When we are deciding whether or not to prosecute, the safety of the victim, children and other person involved will be a priority for us.

In Nottingham we work closely with the police and with the voluntary agencies through the domestic violence forum to share information and ensure a coordinated approach to these cases.

We now have a domestic violence coordinator, Alison Hallet, who is part of the national network of specialist lawyers who are now able to share good practice.

We monitor all domestic violence cases and we share our findings with the police and the domestic violence forum. To improve our prosecutors' awareness and knowledge of domestic violence issues we have arranged for training from Women's Aid.

One of our prosecution team leaders, Amerdeep Somal, sits on the management committee of Roshni, which is a local charity providing advice and refuge to victims of domestic violence within the Asian community. This is a very important link as we know that victims in minority ethnic groups are less likely to report offences. This can be due to language, culture, religion, ethnic or national background.

Amerdeep spoke at the media launch of the new policy on domestic violence in November. She gave an account of her experience of prosecuting such cases in Nottingham.

The case of R v A

The defendant was charged with an allegation of assault upon his common law wife. She had two sons from a former relationship aged 14 and 16.

The complainant, who was a lady of Asian origin, retracted her statement to a police officer. In her statement she said that the decision was hers and the defendant had not placed any pressure upon her to retract.

The day before the case was due for trial, the victim attended our office and spoke to Amerdeep and said very clearly that she did not want the case to proceed and had made the statement out of fear.

Witness summonses were obtained the same afternoon and were served upon her for trial the following day. She attended at court with the defendant and the defendant's solicitors. Amerdeep made it clear to the defence that she intended to proceed with the case despite the retraction. There was good medical evidence on file and there were admissions in interview. The defence, after much deliberation, changed their plea to one of guilty.

The court proceeded to hear the facts of the case. The defence said that the victim and defendant were now reconciled.

The defendant's record revealed a conviction relating to two charges of common assault. The Magistrates enquired whether those related to the same victim. The defence solicitor approached the victim and the defendant and they both told her it was not the same victim.

Amerdeep could sense from the victim's body language and her general demeanour that there was more to this conviction than the record showed and so she insisted that the Court record be brought down for examination. The Court record showed that this lady was indeed the victim to the two assaults shown on the record. The case was adjourned for pre-sentence reports.

On the next occasion, the District Judge passed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and gave no credit for the guilty plea on the basis that he was in no doubt that the complainant had been coerced into saying that the convictions did not relate to her and the defendant had lied in Court through his Solicitor.

Community links

Crime and Disorder Partnerships

The CPS have a role to play in the Crime and Disorder Partnerships which were established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Whilst we cannot be full members due to the need for us to maintain our independence within the criminal justice system, we are working very closely with the Partnerships to reduce the fear of crime and to promote confidence in the judicial system generally.

Our prosecution team leaders now regularly attend the Crime and Disorder Partnership meetings. We have pledged to take into account when considering the public interest any initiatives that the Partnerships are involved in. We also feedback to our lawyers so that they can inform the magistrates when dealing with such offences and take the information into account when sentencing.

We continue to work in partnership with the local Racial Equality Council, a member of whom sits on our Equality and Diversity Committee offering advice and guidance. We continue to monitor all cases involving allegations of racism so that we can be assured that we are correctly applying our policies in respect of such cases. We have continued to liaise closely with the police and with the Asian and Afro- Caribbean Forum to ensure that we identify all relevant cases and prosecute them appropriately.

Links with Schools

We offer work experience to pupils in schools throughout the county. We also attend schools and give talks on the role of The Crown Prosecution Service. We have now established a partnership with the Manning Comprehensive School.

On 5 April last year we hosted a "take your daughter to work day" for the school. Twenty-five pupils were taken to work for the day. Prosecutors and caseworkers were involved in hosting the event.

The girls were taken to the magistrates' court in the morning where they observed various court hearings. In the afternoon they were taken to CPS offices where they were given a presentation by both prosecutors and caseworkers about the criminal justice system and The Crown Prosecution Service. They were then given mock case study files to review and they had to decide whether or not they would prosecute.

The day was a great success and was enjoyed thoroughly not only by the pupils but also our prosecutors and caseworkers who enjoyed playing 'teacher' for the day. We received letters from all the pupils thanking us for hosting the day. The career coordinator wrote to say: "We believe the day to have been a great success.

"On the whole, the girls are elated by their experiences. The majority are full of confidence and enthusiasm about making their choices for the future. Many of them now have a realistic base on which to start building their plans and their experience of the working world has certainly been increased."

We have continued our partnership with the school and are now implementing a mentoring scheme and organising further visits to the school by our staff.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document and is available on our website.

Further copies may be obtained from: Crown Prosecution Service Communications Branch 50 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7EX Telephone: 020 7796 8442: Fax: 020 7796 8351: E-mail: commsdept@cps.gov.uk

Translations into other languages and audio cassette or braille copies are available. Please contact CPS Communications Branch (above) for details.

About The Crown Prosecution Service

The Code for Crown Prosecutors

The CPS prosecutes all cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code is of fundamental importance to the core business of The CPS as it provides guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied in all prosecution decisions, and acts as a public statement of policy allowing everyone to see and understand the basis upon which these decisions are made.

A revised Code for Crown Prosecutors was published in 2000 in order to reflect important developments in legislation, criminal procedure and The CPS' own structure. As part of that revision process, an extensive programme of public consultation was carried out and almost every aspect of the Code commented upon. New features of the Code include a reference to our position and obligations under the Human Rights act 1998, clarification of the relationship between victims and public interest and a paragraph on youths to reflect new procedures for reprimands and final warnings.

The Auld Review

Lord Justice Auld's Criminal Courts Review was published in October 2001. It recommends an overhaul of the criminal courts with a unified criminal court in three divisions and a single administration to replace the existing and separate Crown and magistrates' courts structures.

Another proposal is that The CPS rather than the police should decide charges in all but minor, routine offences, or where a holding charge is needed. The change should help improve the quality of files and lead to earlier decisions on when to charge and what charges should be brought. The Home Secretary has agreed that the procedure be piloted for six months in five CPS Areas in advance of the Government's decision regarding the Auld recommendations.

The Facts

The CPS is responsible for prosecuting people in England and Wales charged by the police with a criminal offence. Nationally we prosecute more than 1.4 million cases every year and our annual planned expenditure for 2001-02 was £416.3 million. This included £30.4 million from the new criminal justice reserve, to speed up the reform of the Service.

Currently we:

Advise the police on possible prosecutions.
Review prosecutions started by the police to ensure the right defendants are prosecuted on the right charges.
Prepare cases for court.
Prosecute cases at magistrates' courts and instruct counsel to prosecute in the Crown Court and higher courts. Some CPS lawyers are now qualified to appear in the Crown Court in certain cases.
Liaise with other agencies and other Government Departments to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system. °¥ The CPS is headed by Sir David Calvert-Smith QC, Director of Public Prosecutions; the Chief Executive is Richard Foster, who took up post in January 2002.
The CPS employs around 7,100 staff and has an Equal Opportunities Policy. Parts of the Service have achieved the Investor in People standard while others are pursuing accreditation.
A Diversity Unit was set up in October 1999. The Unit's remit is to turn The CPS Equality Statement into a reality. The aim is to ensure that The CPS does not discriminate in either its employment practice or its prosecutions. A Steering Group has been set up to oversee the Service's commitment to change following reports by barrister Sylvia Denman and also the Commission for Racial Equality that highlighted discrimination against ethnic minority staff in The CPS. It is chaired by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
The Attorney General's Race Advisory Group includes representatives from external organisations. It examines and comments on proposals by The CPS to improve equal opportunities in response to the Denman and CRE report recommendations. There is commitment from the top of The CPS to having a Service which is fair and has proper approaches to diversity.
The CPS continues to develop new electronic information and media. It has an intranet service with an internal website, CPS Online. CPS Online gives staff better access to information, improved internal communications and allows The CPS to manage its information and knowledge better.
The CPS' internet website is at http://www.cps.gov.uk and is available in English and Welsh. It provides a considerable amount of information about our business, staff and structures.
The CPS, and its criminal justice partners, are working together to help realise the Government's pledge to halve the time it takes to deal with persistent young offenders in youth courts and in Crown Court.
The CPS is taking forward initiatives to speed up justice proposed by Martin Narey in his Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System. These include new Designated Caseworkers — specially trained CPS staff, who are not lawyers, review and present in the magistrates' courts a limited range of cases involving straightforward guilty pleas.
CPS Areas are working in partnership with police forces to establish joint and co-located criminal justice units to reduce duplication and delay in bringing cases to court. They are also establishing Trials Units (TUs) to deal with the preparation and presentation of the more serious cases at Crown Court. Most TUs will be located in CPS premises, but some are planned for Crown Court centres.
The CPS has 42 Areas corresponding to the 43 police forces in England and Wales (London Area covers both City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces). Each Area has a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP) who is responsible for prosecutions. In London the CCP is supported by Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors. Area Business Managers are responsible for the efficient running of the Area.
The CPS Vision and Strategy is "to be a prosecuting authority of stature, providing the best possible service to society. We want to be a professional organisationwhich values all its people, performs to a high standard inspires public confidence, and works in partnership".

Where we fit in the criminal justice system

The Law Officers: The Attorney General is assisted by the Solicitor General. The Attorney General has final responsibility for enforcing criminal law and superintends the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The police: Police forces investigate crime and arrest or detain suspected offenders. Once a suspect is held they decide whether to caution them, take no further action, issue a fixed penalty notice — in the case of motoring offences — or charge them and send the papers to prosecuting authorities, mainly The CPS.
The Lord Chancellor's Department: The Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and responsible for the administration of the court system in England and Wales.This includes the magistrates' courts.
The Court Service: Responsible for the High Court and administration of the Crown Court and County Courts in England and Wales.
The Home Office: Responsible for matters relating to law and order.
The Prison Service: The Service is responsible for keeping in custody people on remand awaiting trial and those sentenced to imprisonment by the courts.
The National Probation Service: The Service provides courts with advice and information on offenders to help sentencing decisions and implements community orders made by the courts.
There are other prosecuting authorities. They include: the Department of Trade and Industry; the Serious Fraud Office; HM Customs and Excise; the Health and Safety Executive; the Department of Social Security; the Inland Revenue; the Department of Food and Rural Affairs; the Intervention Board; the Bank of England; the Army; the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy prosecuting authorities; the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.

Leaflets and publications

The CPS publishes a range of leaflets and publications about its work that are available free of charge to members of the public. Leaflets currently available include: a description of the work of The CPS (Introduction); the people who work for the Service (People); information about careers with The CPS (Careers); the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) — and an abbreviated version of the Code (Prosecutions); The CPS policy on dealing with Domestic Violence and advice for vulnerable witnesses attending court (Witnesses); and a leaflet on how to make a complaint (Complaints). Most publications are available in alternative formats and in other languages.

For more information, contact The CPS Communications Branch, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7EX; telephone: 020 7796 8442.

Dealing with complaints

Our comprehensive complaints procedure is set out in a leaflet available from Area offices and on our website: http://www.cps.gov.uk

If you have a complaint about our handling of a case you should write to The CPS office which originally dealt with it. Please include as much information as possible such as the defendant's name, the court where the case was heard, and any hearing dates and reference numbers you may have.

If you are not satisfied with replies you receive you should contact The CPS Area's Chief Crown Prosecutor. They will look into the complaint

If you are still not satisfied you can write to the Customer Service Unit Manager, 50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX.

Complaints that cannot be resolved locally are referred through this Unit to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Chief Executive.

Performance in the Crown Court and Magistrates' Courts

All prosecutions start in the magistrates' courts. These include offences ranging from minor motoring matters to assaults and theft. Usually the more serious cases proceed to the Crown Court.

Some cases can only be tried in the Crown Court. Other cases go to the Crown Court either because the defendant chooses to be tried there or because the magistrates decide they are serious enough to need Crown Court trial. If a defendent pleads not guilty, the case will be tried before a judge and jury.

There has been a decrease in both the total number of cases received from the Police and those that have been finalised at court during this year.

We have dealt with 96.4% of our cases which remains the same as last year.

Our indictable/either way caseload has increased in percentage terms to 50.4%, whilst summary only matters have reduced. this indicates that we are dealing with a caseload of more serious crime than in previous years. In order to manage this effectively we have introduced a back to basics programme which has improved our file preparation and enabled our lawyers and caseworkers to proactively manage cases prior to court appearances.

The percentage of our advice work continues to increase at 3.6%.

The reduction in our overall caseload is due in part to the implementation of the Recommendation 35 initiative during September 2001. Under this system many road traffic cases are now dealt directly by the magistrates' court. This is a more cost effective method which has increased the number of traffic cases finalised at first appearance.

The number of defendants pleading guilty has increased to 88.4% which has contributed to an overall high conviction rate in the magistrates' court of 98.1%. Our dismissal rate remains the same as at last year.

Chart 1 Caseload (receipts and finalisations)

Cases received from the police from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 32,205
Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 31,185
Cases received from the police from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 29,138
Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 28,116

Chart 2 Case Categories

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

Total cases dealt with 31,185
Of which summary only 15,038 (48.2%)
Indictable/either way 15,072 (48.3%)
Advice 1,075 (3.4%)
Other 0 (0%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

Total cases dealt with 28,116
Of which summary only 12,932 (46.0%)
Indictable/either way 14,180 (50.4%)
Advice 1,004 (3.6%)
Other 0 (0%)

Chart 3 Case Results

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

Total Case Results 21,244
Of which guilty pleas 18,556 (87.3%)
Proofs in absence 1,317 (6.2%)
After Trial 976 (4.6%)
Other (dismissals) 395 (1.9%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

Total Case Results 20,295
Of which guilty pleas 17,940 (88.4%)
Proofs in absence 1,077 (5.3%)
After Trial 887 (4.4%)
Other (dismissals) 391 (1.9%)

Chart 1 shows as received the number of defendants whose cases the Area received from the police and the number of defendants whose cases were finalised between April 1 2001-March 31 2002 and in the previous year. Our caseload depends on the number of cases the police send to us. Several factors affect this, such as the level of arrrest and the number of people the police caution.

Chart 2 shows the different types of work dealt with by the Area between April 1 2001-March 31 2002 and in the previous year. They are:

Summary – cases which can only be tried in the magistrates' courts.

Indictable/Either Way – Indictable only offences (such as robbery) must be tried in the Crown Court, but either way offences (such as theft) may be tried in either the magistrates' courts or in the Crown Court.

Advice – cases in which the police ask for our advice about whether proceedings should be started.

Other Proceedings – non-criminal matters, such as forfeiture under the Obscene Publications Act

Chart 3 shows the disposal of those cases which were heard in the magistrates' court, not including those which were discontinued or committed to the Crown Court.

Chart 4 shows as received the number of defendants who came before the Crown Court and the number whose Crown Court case was dealt with by the Area between April 1 2001-March 31 2002 and in the previous year.

Chart 5 shows case categories in the Crown Court. They are:

Committed for trial – Indictable only and some either way cases are sent from the magistrates' courts for trial to the Crown Court. Since January 2001, indictable only offences have been sent to the Crown Court under section 51, Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which, in most cases, means that committal proceedings are not held.

Appeals – Defendants may appeal to the Crown Court against the conviction and/or sentence that they received in the magistrates' court.

Committed for sentence – Some defendants tried and convicted in the magistrates' courts are committed for sentence to the Crown Court because the magistrates decide that greater punishment is required than they have the power to impose.

Chart 4 Caseload (receipts and finalisations)

Cases received from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 3,142
Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 3,242
Cases received from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 2,923
Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 3,024

Chart 5 Case Categories

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

Total cases dealt with 3,242
Committed for Trial 2,372 (73.2%)
Appeals 28 (6.4%)
Committed for sentence 662 (20.4%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

Total cases dealt with 3,024
Committed for Trial 2,137 (70.7%)
Appeals 197 (6.5%)
Committed for sentence 690 (22.8%)

Chart 6 Case Results

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

Total cases dealt with 2,043
Guilty Pleas 1,758 (86.0%)
After Trial 161 (7.9%)
Acquittals 124 (6.1%)

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

Total cases dealt with 1,716
Guilty Pleas 1,460 (85.0%)
After Trial 181 (10.5%)
Acquittals 77 (4.5%)