CPS Board meeting minutes - December 2024

Members

Monica Burch (Chair) (Lead Non-Executive Board Member), Stephen Parkinson (DPP), Dr Peter Kane (NEBM), Subo Shanmuganathan (NEBM), Kathryn Stone (NEBM), Steve Buckingham (CFO), Julie Lennard (COO)

Guests

Nick Price (Director Legal Services), Baljit Ubhey (Director of Strategy & Policy), Tristan Bradshaw (Director of Operational Change & Delivery), Andrew Hunt (Portfolio Manager), Harvey Palmer (Principal Private Secretary), Lindsey McNally (Shadow Board Chair)

Secretariat    

Max Looker, Stephanie Bradshaw

Apologies

None

Item 1: Declaration of any conflicts

1.1        It was noted that Peter Kane would provide a list of his interests to the secretariat for publication. No additional conflicts of interest were raised.

Item 2: Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising

2.1     The Chair welcomed Peter, Julie and Lindsey to their first meeting of the CPS Board.  

2.2    The Board reviewed and agreed the minutes.

2.3     The Board noted actions have been closed since the last meeting and were on track for completion.  It was confirmed that those actions that had been delegated to RemCom should be considered at that Committee.

Item 3: Update from the DPP

3.1     The DPP provided an update on the following key points:

3.2     Disproportionality

The DPP thanked the Board for its input into the communications and noted the supporting quotes from the Disproportionality Advisory Group.  

3.3     Senior Structure

The DPP welcomed Julie to the senior team and confirmed that the structure would now start to fall into place with recruitments underway, or planned, to fill the existing interim roles.  

3.4     Area Visits

The DPP confirmed that he has started his second round of Area Visits and that EG had been taken “on the road” to increase staff visibility of the senior team.    

3.5     Legal Aid

The DPP Confirmed that he had started to raise his noted concerns raised about the mechanisms for remunerating defence lawyers at hearings with payments being made at different stages of the process, even when these hearings result in a guilty plea.  It was confirmed that a better approach, and one which may alleviate pressures on the courts, would be to pay a flat fee irrespective of the number of hearings.

3.6     The Board welcomed the approach to legal aid and queried when the results might be expected, as long-term benefits could be included in a business case which would provide evidence to the Treasury of the efficiencies being identified across the CJS.  

3.7    The Board also raised a discussion on performance and queried whether there was a need for corporate uniformity across the areas’ leadership of the CPS.  The DPP confirmed that he was keen for there to be uniformity in approach but to allow some local empowerment.

Item 4: Business Plan – Q2 update

4.1     Baljit and Andrew joined the meeting provided an update on several key issues including Digital Jury Bundles had been added to the Business Plan.

4.2     The Board noted a recurring pattern of delay and queried why so many activities within the Business Plan were already reporting a delay so early in the year. Baljit confirmed that work was ongoing to reduce optimism bias but that uncertainty from early in 2024/25 had impacted the CPS’ ability to deliver.

4.3     The Board also suggested that there be more discussion regarding mitigations before agreeing to delays, or extensions to delivery targets.  Baljit confirmed that discussions were taking place with SROs but that they would ensure that records were maintained, and it was reported if there were further delays to activities.

4.4    The Board also noted the role of the SRO and that letters of appointment were required which included reference to targets, deadlines and exception reporting.

Item 5: CPS Q2 Performance Update

5.1        Tristan joined the meeting and presented the following key updates:

• There had been improvements in charging which confirmed that interventions were having the desired impact
• HMCTS sitting days will have a significant impact
• CTL failures are steady, with seven reported during the reporting period
• People KPIs are under review.

5.2     The Board welcomed the updated report and asked that CTLs be reported in percentages as well as absolute numbers going forward, as this would provide them with a better overview of the issues being identified.

5.3     The Board also noted the attrition rates for VAWG cases and queried whether the data was available to be able to indicate whether victims stepped away from cases at the pre-charge point or during court. Tristan confirmed that it was generally a mixture of things taking too long and at key stages.

5.4     The Board also raised the high figures of Average Working Days Lost (AWDLs) and queried whether there was any variation in Areas. Tristan confirmed that there were variances, and deep dives were being considered to provide more clarity over the reasons for the increasing numbers. Steve commented that Workplace Stress Assessment surveys were being completed over the course of the next couple of months which would provide greater insight into the issue.

Item 6: Case Strategy

6.1     Nick joined the meeting and presented the following highlights:

• Phase one was complete, and improvements were being identified through Area Improvement Reports and the external assessment from HMCPSI
• Phase two was focusing on areas where the improvements haven't been as noticeable
• Next steps include marketing the work to the whole organisation.

6.3     The Board welcomed the update and that the approach was aimed at ensuring some consistency in approach across the CPS.

6.4     The Board queried whether there had been any consideration of offering the learning as part of lawyer’s CPD.  This was perceived as being a way to motivate staff to undertake any training available and increase engagement.

6.5     The Board also suggested that work be undertaken to ensure that the CPS was maximising the potential from AI in relation to Case Strategy and Nick confirmed that he was meeting with Digital colleagues to explore these opportunities further.

6.6    There was also confirmation that Case Strategy had been developed with no budget and that a small amount would enable a better product. It was confirmed that any requests for budgets would need to be made through a business case.

Item 7: Productivity Review

7.1     Tristan provided the following key updates:

• Analysis was reliant on staff inputting time spent on specific activities to the Resource Efficiency Model (REM) system.
• Future work will provide a better data set to enable managers at Area level to flex resources as appropriate
• The intention is the reduce Area variance, improve productivity and identify efficiencies.

7.2     The Board welcomed the approach but cautioned the Executive on the potential for sacrificing quality for speed. The DPP confirmed that quality was part of the analysis, and that each metric was to be considered alongside the context of each case. Tristan also noted that work was underway to identify the mechanisms to measure both and that this formed part of the existing thinking.

Item 8: Complaints

8.1     Harvey joined the meeting and provided an overview of the Public Correspondence and Complaints Team (PCCT).  

8.2     The Board welcomed the overview, particularly as they have received correspondence themselves.  There was an ask for some themes from the contact made through existing channels and suggestions that the availability of these channels was driving up numbers.  

Item 9: Board Operating Framework

9.1     The Chair asked the Board if they were content to sign off the Board Operating Framework and terms of references for the Board and its Committees.

9.2     The Board suggested that the Executive Group be included in the structure with a dotted line as it was not a Committee of the Board and agreed that all terms of references can be finalised.

Item 11: AOB

11.1     No items of AOB were raised.

Meeting closed.

Secretariat – Max Looker & Stephanie Bradshaw

December 2024