Law Society Criminal Justice Report_v5 (2)

8/3/2019 Law Society Criminal Justice Report_v5 (2)

1/44

Improving efficiency

in the criminal justice system:

a new approach5 October 2011

supportingsolicitors


2/44

Improving efficiency in the

criminal justice system

2 www.lawsociety.org.uk

1. During February and March 2011 the Law Society conducted a series of seminarsin London, Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham, Cardiff and Plymouth. Their

purpose was to provide an opportunity for local criminal justice practitioners to

identify and discuss the rubbing points in the criminal justice process in their

area, and to consider possible solutions to these inefficiencies. The events were

attended by defence and prosecution solicitors, Chief Crown Prosecutors, Crown

Prosecution Service (CPS) staff, barristers and Magistrates court staff. TheLaw Society gratefully acknowledges the extensive assistance that Ian Kelcey,

then Chair of its Criminal Law Committee, has given to this project.

2. In this time of severe financial restraint throughout all publically funded

institutions, including those involved in the criminal justice system, it isessential to ensure that any unnecessary delays and costs are eliminated. The

Crown Prosecution Service is facing a cut in its budget of 24% in the next fouryears; a recent Legal Aid Green Paper proposed cuts in funding available for

criminal defence services. If systems and procedures can be improved and

made more efficient, particularly through the use of information and

communication technology, it is essential, given the current economic climate,that these improvements are made.

3. The overarching theme, common to all the discussions throughout England and

in Cardiff, was the need for there to be much better communication between

the prosecution and the defence, to allow the early service of prosecutionpapers and for the defendants instructions to be taken at an early stage, and

thus to make the criminal justice system as efficient and as cost-effective as

possible. The prosecution should ensure it provides information to the defence

in a timely manner so that the first hearing can be effective, and can enable the

defence to make informed decisions about the conduct of the case. Defencepractitioners should not be required to make case management decisions

without proper and timely disclosure.

4. Other key changes that participants suggested should be implemented, all of

which the Law Society supports and calls on those responsible to implement,are:

Improved communication

Devise systems that will enable defence solicitors to communicate quickly

and effectively with Crown Prosecution Service solicitors or staff in relation

to individual cases, in order to discuss matters of dispute in contested

cases, or the basis of an acceptable guilty plea;

Simplified trial preparation form Simplify the Magistrates Court Trial Preparation form, and ensure that

courts will only require it to be completed in appropriate cases, and at a

stage in the proceedings when parties can provide meaningful responses;

Electronic legal aid applications

Allow applications for legal aid to be made using electronic means, either

by email or on-line, and allow verification by way of clients electronicsignatures;

Use of shared computer servers to view evidence

Develop a system whereby items of electronic evidence, such as CCTVfootage and police records of interview, can be loaded onto a central

computer server, to allow prosecutors and defence solicitors to view such

evidence by use of a password;

Introduction


3/44

3www.lawsociety.org.uk

Defence solicitor access to technology

Require the police to allow defence solicitors who attend clients in police

stations to have access to mobile phones and computer equipment to

facilitate efficient working;

Improved prison visiting arrangements for defence solicitors

Require that all prisons are aware of their duty to provide for sufficient

professional visiting time; ensure that security measures applicable to legalvisitors are proportionate and do not waste time; and require prisoner

movements to be communicated to booked legal visitors to avoid wasted

journeys. In addition, the Prison Service should allow solicitors access to

computer equipment when attending clients in prison custody.

5. Prior to the seminars, the Law Society conducted a Web survey of solicitorsworking in the criminal justice system to identify the reason/s for any delays

affecting their cases during a two-week period in November and December

2010. The findings of the survey as to the reasons for delays the blockages

that detract from better efficiency in the criminal justice system closely

mirror the frustrations expressed by those taking part in the road show

discussions. These include an inability to obtain timely information from theopposing party, most often the defence from the prosecution, difficulties in

visiting clients in custody, delays in the processing of legal aid applications, and

an overall lack of effective communication throughout the process.1

6. The Law Society is confident that, if implemented, these changes will have thecapacity to generate significant savings for all the agencies who participate in

the criminal justice system, without detracting from its fairness. While it is

difficult to estimate the quantity of the savings the changes could generate, in

its response the Ministry of Justice Green Paper on proposals for the reform of

legal aid in England and Wales the Law Society conservatively estimated that 9million per annum could be saved to the legal aid fund alone by reducing waste.

This figure is based on cutting out one unnecessary delay or adjournment that is

caused by a failure in the system other than on the defence side, for every two

representation orders granted, and with each hearing costing on average 40

(one half of 450,000 representation orders per annum, at 40 each). 2

7. Some of the procedural changes suggested by those who contributed this project

were recommended in the Law Societys Access to Justice Review, published in

November 2010. It recommended the promotion of effective case management,

the abolition of the police station call centre, and a review by the CPS of the

charging and prosecution of very complex and costly cases. Many of the ideasarising in the course of the road shows for improving procedural efficiency echo

these recommendations.

8. This report is structured to set out a number of the issues and ideas for

improvement that were discussed in the order that the criminal justice processnaturally takes place, from the police station, the pre-court stage and then the

court process. It then notes a number of more general issues that were raised.

1 A report of the survey results is published in this report or available online at

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2011/criminal-justice-survey-results-feb2011.pdf2 See Annex A - savings from Law Society Measures, at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/192196/d:/teamsite-

deployed/documents/templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Government%20proposals/Documents/alternative-savings-legal-

aid.pdf


4/44




9. It was felt by defence practitioners who attend police stations that the DutySolicitor Call Centre has in fact created a hindrance to effective communication

between defence solicitors and the police. It was suggested that it would be

better to revert to the former system whereby the police simply contact the

solicitor directly. Where a case is out of scope of the duty solicitor scheme and

is only able to have telephone advice the solicitor contacted by the police could

refer the matter to a small telephone advice service.

10. Solicitors require the ability to use mobile phones and computer equipment

whilst in police custody areas. This is, firstly, to ensure that they can work as

effectively as possible while at the police station in taking instructions and

looking up the law on-line; and secondly, to be able to communicate withothers, in particular those instructed as advocates to attend court the following

day.

11. Where the client is placed on pre-charge police bail with a requirement to re-

attend at the police station for further investigation or charge, the police shouldbe required to communicate with the instructed duty solicitor where the police

officer becomes aware that the further investigation, or charge, cannot take

place on the subsequent occasion. Practitioners expressed great frustration

about occasions where their client was bailed back to the police station, often

on multiple occasions, only to find the matter was not progressed. Police

officers failure to communicate with solicitors results in great deal of wastedtime.

12. Practitioners stressed the importance of the provision of early legal advice at

the police station as a means to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice

system. It ensures that the defendant comes into contact with their solicitor atan early stage of the case, and there is more likelihood that they will receive

legal advice prior to their court attendance, rather than seeing a solicitor for

the first time in court and asking them to represent them, or having to rely on

the busy duty solicitor.

13. Rural practitioners raised the fact that the escape amount was not also

reduced when the fixed police station fee was reduced. The fixed fee does not

apply to certain exceptional cases, but rather an ex post facto fee may be

charged due to the complexity and length of time involved on the particular

case at the police station. Although the fixed fee was reduced from 247 to200, in order to qualify for the escape ex post facto fee the amount of time

involved is still required to exceed an amount equivalent to three times 247,

rather than three times 200. This has led to a feeling that rural practitioners

are being unfairly penalised.

Police station attendance


5/44


14. In some regions it was noted that there were significant delays in relation to thegranting of legal aid. London was the worst example, where the delays could be

anything from 4 weeks to 3 months. There were further examples of delays of a

week or two in Wales, and in parts of Cornwall. In other areas, legal aid was

granted almost instantaneously upon the application been made to, and

processed by, the court, including application of means test procedures.

15. The areas where there was greatest difficulty are those that utilised a

centralised assessment centre for the means test, and where court clerks are

not responsible for the interests of justice test.

16. In addition, there is an unfair transfer of risk to the defence solicitor where the

decision is not made in a timely fashion. For example, a solicitor may be

informed by their client that they are likely to be eligible because they are inreceipt of a passported benefit, but subsequently the solicitor finds out, some

weeks later due to the delay in processing the application, that the client has

provided false information and is not in fact eligible. This creates reluctance onthe part of defence solicitors to engage in work on a defendants case at an

early stage before a grant of legal aid is confirmed.

Post-police station, pre-court


6/44




17. There were clear differences throughout the country in the ability of the CrownProsecution Service to provide the defence solicitor with disclosure of the

prosecution case in a timely fashion before the first hearing.

18. At one meeting, it was suggested by the CPS that where they were able to

ascertain the identity of the defence solicitor present at the police stationstage, they should be able to email that solicitors firm with the Advance

Information in that case, which, at that stage, would comprise the statements

on which the decision to charge the defendant was made. If it transpired that

solicitors firm were not in fact instructed subsequently, the firm could transfer

the information to the instructed solicitor, on request, electronically.

19. Throughout the seminars the Law Society promoted the take up of secure email

by defence solicitors. It was, however, pointed out on several occasions bysolicitors who had signed up to the secure email system that they had not in

fact had any documents served on them by secure email at all. It seems there

may need to be a culture change towards using electronic communication in theCPS, as well as amongst the defence community. Some defence practitioners

said that the CPS had been unwilling to provide their secure email addresses,

which obviously frustrated communications by this means. In one instance, this

caused one firm that had signed up to the secure email system to cease using it.

20. While the overall benefits of communicating with the CPS by secure email were

recognised, there was an underlying concern that this could involve a transfer of

printing costs from the CPS to defence firms. It was pointed out that greater

efficiency and ease of communication would be likely to lead to less

adjournments, and thus to greater efficiency overall in the long term.

21. Many defence practitioners spoke of the desirability of being able to makeclients legal aid applications electronically, either by email or on-line. This was

identified as one very sure way to speed the process up dramatically. This could

involve the use of an electronic signature device for the client to sign theapplication. It was suggested that even being able to fax legal aid applications

would be advantageous. Neither of these methods are currently permitted, and

the normal postal service must be used to submit application forms.

Disclosure


7/44


22. It was noted there is a wide variation around the country in the time betweencharge and the first appearance in court, varying at the most between 5 and 6

weeks, to as little as 3 to 4 days. A standardisation of the period between

charge and first appearance would be welcome. It was felt the period should

allow sufficient time to complete the tasks that must be completed, by both the

prosecution and the defence solicitor, in order to ensure that the first hearing is

effective. Too little time between the point of charge and the first appearancecan have the effect that solicitors will err on the side of caution and advise the

defendant to enter a not guilty plea at their first hearing, simply because they

are not in possession of sufficient information to properly advise.

23. Defence solicitors reported a sense of frustration that CPS staff often do notrespond in a timely manner to letters of representation from defence solicitors,

or to requests and orders made by the court. Letters and court orders are notresponded to within the timetable set down by the court. Fears were expressed

that with the significant cuts that will be made to the CPS budget this situation

will only get worse, and result in even greater inefficiency. It was felt that use

of secure email may assist this decision-making process, but only if the CPS canmake the necessary culture change, and organise systems for working with

secure email so that it can operate effectively.

24. There was a consensus common to all attending the meetings, whether

prosecutor, court staff or defence solicitor, that the completion of the currentsix page Criminal Procedure Rules Magistrates Court Trial Preparation Form at

the first hearing is unworkable. Two Clerks to Justices in different regions

independently suggested it would be better to have a meaningful pre-trial

review in matters listed for trial in the Magistrates Court, similar to a Crown

Court Plea and Case management Hearing (PCMH), between the first hearingand the trial date, at a time when the solicitor has been able to take

instructions and with legal aid granted. Such a hearing would force the

defendant to come to court to have contact with his or her defence solicitor. It

was noted that very often a defendants attendance at court, when the defence

solicitor or advocate is in full possession of the facts of the case and is able to

provide robust advice, can result in a realistic re-evaluation of their plea. Ifappropriate, the case could be transferred immediately to a guilty plea court.

It is suggested this may lead to a significant reduction in the number of cracked

trials in the Magistrates Court.

25. It was considered that generally the Crown Court listing system works in a moreefficient way, because the PCMH takes place some time after the service of

prosecution papers, thus allowing an opportunity for the defence solicitor and

the advocate to consider the papers with the defendant. This may be a pointerto the way in which Magistrates Courts could be encouraged to conduct their

business.

26. In many Crown and Magistrates Courts, practitioners reported frustration at the

delay in transferring prisoners from the cells into the court rooms. The previous

practice of having prisoners waiting on the landing outside the court room seems

to have disappeared. Although the delay in each case may be quite small,

cumulatively it adds up to a significant amount of time being wasted in eachcourt, of approximately an hour per day.

At the court stage


8/44




27. It was suggested that Crown Court trials would be better accommodated withfixed lists rather than there being a number of floating trials. This would

cause less inconvenience to all parties, and, importantly, to the witnesses

involved in the case. This would also promote case ownership where the

advocate instructed in the case is the same advocate who appeared at the

PCMH, it is more difficult for case preparation tasks to drift. This would also

benefit CPS advocates, because they would be more likely to have the caseprepared before the day of trial. Fixed listings would therefore result in fewer

cracked trials.

28. In one meeting concern was expressed about a judicial directive that counsels

availability should not be taken into account when setting trial dates. This hasadversely affected both CPS and defence counsel, and has acted as a

disincentive for advocates to engage in early trial preparation.

29. It was noted that Bristol is adopting a similar system to the Liverpool Early

Guilty Plea Pilot. This is to be very much to be welcomed in straightforwardcases. There will, however, unavoidably be cases where this procedure will

provide fewer benefits because of the need for basis of plea discussions and

agreement, the need to take into account the late service of prosecution

papers, and issues around accessibility to the clients in prison.


9/44


Streamlined Forensic Reports

30. CPS representatives indicated that the CPS will be moving towards the

streamlining of forensic reports, whereby a basic report would be provided in

most cases, with a more detailed report only sought where the defence identify

the areas of dispute with regard to the expert evidence. This was generally

welcomed by the defence community.

Difficulties with Prison Visits

31. Access to clients in prison is a major problem and cause of delay. There is a

wide variation in different prisons ability to accommodate defence solicitors

visits. In some areas of London there could be a waiting list of up to a month,

and in other areas the waiting time varied between 1 week and 4 weeks. Thissignificantly hinders the early preparation of cases.

32. Further frustration occurs as a result of delays at the prison, which reduces the

available time the solicitor has to spend with their client. This is caused by

priority being given to social visits, and on occasions, prisoners not being at the

establishment in question because they have been moved without the defence

solicitor being notified. This problem is exacerbated further in high securityprisons, which have extremely complex security arrangements which appear to

be meaningless and ineffective, for example requiring solicitors fingerprints to

be taken on four occasions over a distance of less than 60 yards.

33. Concern was expressed that the efficiency gains that will hopefully result fromthe electronic service of prosecution evidence will not be realised if prisons

maintain their reluctance to allow electronic devices to be taken into prisons, toshow defendants the electronic prosecution evidence and to make solicitors

consultations as efficient as possible. This issue also applies in relation to the

use of such equipment in cell complexes at both Magistrates and Crown courts,and as previously referred to, in police stations.

CCTV evidence

34. The increasing use of CCTV evidence, and the fact that it is produced in a

number of different formats, leads to difficulties with accessing and viewing this

often very significant evidence by the defence. It was suggested by a

representative of the CPS that downloading this material onto a central CPS

server, with password access provided to defence firms, may ameliorate some of

these difficulties. Records of police interviews could also be centrally held and

accessed in this way.

General points


10/44




Defence solicitor engagement

35. The defence community reported that they continue to feel undervalued by

government policy makers, a fact evidenced by the apparent unwillingness of a

number of Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) to invite the involvement of a

representative of the defence solicitor community, and further evidenced by the

statutory restriction on defence solicitor membership of the National CriminalJustice Board. The point was made that, while defence solicitors cannot bind

their colleagues, they have a very wide breadth of knowledge and experience of

the criminal justice system and they are the only agency that is involved in the

case from the beginning at the police station, right through to its end in court.

The presence of defence solicitors on LCJBs could lead to much more accurateassessments of, and solutions to, inefficiencies that can occur in the criminal

justice process.

Planning for an electronic criminal justice system

36. With the clear CPS intention to move towards to a completely electronic way of

working by April 2012, the Law Society strongly suggests that it would be

sensible to establish a high-level criminal justice technology group, involving all

relevant agencies and including representatives of the defence community. Thiscould ensure joined-up thinking and hopefully allow all participants to be able

to fully realise the benefits of e-working, as progress is made towards the CPS

target date. This should also enable the various agencies to consider the cost

transfers that may occur and which may not be apparent, and to establish if

there is an overall business case for the progress of information technology

within the criminal justice system.


11/44


Executive Summary

This report presents findings from a web survey with criminal practitioners. The survey

collected information from a two week period in order to assess where significant

delays were occurring and to whom such delays were attributable. A total of 245

individuals completed the survey; of these 231 submitted answers online and 14

returned hard copy versions. Included in participants were 55 individuals working as

prosecutors and 172 individuals working as defence solicitors.

Just 8.7% of all respondents reported that they had experienced no delay at all

in their cases over the past two weeks.

For 25.3% of all respondents who had encountered delays, the most significant

delays were attributed to the police.

Nearly one half (45.4%) of all respondents had faced delay related to police bail

back. This was a significantly greater problem for defence solicitors and was

cited by 52.3% of all defence respondents, compared with just 1.8% of all

prosecutors.

Police were criticised for not providing the required Advance Information in a

timely manner. For prosecutors this had been the cause of delay in 14.5% of

their cases, whereas for defence solicitors this rose to 35.5%.

Defence solicitors were often unable to take instructions from a defendant who

was being held in custody and this had been an issue for almost one third

(31.9%) of all respondents; and specifically, had caused delay for 40% of

prosecutors.

Delay in the transportation of prisoners was cited by 70.2% respondents who

were left waiting for the prisoner to arrive at the courthouse, and 52.9% left

waiting for the prisoner to be brought from cells.

Commonly, it could take up to ten minutes for a defendant to be brought from

the cell area once a case had been called. This delay was an issue for 24.4%

defence solicitors and 12.7% of prosecutors. This may not seem a significant

delay on its own, but the accumulation of such delays across the day was cited

as a major problem.

A witness failing to attend court at the correct date and time was a common

occurrence and also a frequent cause of delay (cited by 32.7%).

Over one third (39.8%) of respondents had experienced delays when the

prosecutor left the courtroom to call their own witnesses.

Delays attributed to multiple cases being listed at the same time were cited by

45.5% of prosecutors and 44.8% defence solicitors.

The Probation Service was criticised for not supplying pre-sentence reports in a

timely manner. This was an issue cited by 34.3% of all defence solicitors and

14.5% of prosecutors.

An overall lack of communication was seen to pervade the entire process.

Web Survey of Criminal Practitioners on

the causes of delay and inefficiency in

the criminal justice processFebruary 2011


12/44


During November and December 2010, the Law Society conducted a web survey to

capture criminal practitioners experiences and views on delays in their cases and the

Criminal Justice System. The web survey collected information from a two week period

in order to assess where significant delays were occurring and to whom such delays

were attributable. The survey offered freetext spaces for practitioners to explain in as

much detail as appropriate where they had encountered problems in the current

police, defence/prosecution and court processes. A total of 245 individuals completed

the survey; of these 231 submitted answers online and 14 returned hard copy versions.

The survey questions appear at appendix 2.

A note of caution

The nature of web surveys means that it is not possible to control who sees or respondsto the survey. The web link was available to anyone who received Professional Update

or who happened across the page on the Law Society web site. In addition, the Society

approached a number of organisations to help raise awareness and attract participants

to the survey. These included: the CPS, who promoted the survey on their intranet, the

Criminal Law Solicitors Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors

Association. Hence, because we do not know the total number of people who

potentially could have completed the survey, it is not possible to generate a response

rate.

Whilst 245 is a positive number of completions, when compared to the results of other

web surveys, it must be remembered that where percentages are used in this report,

they refer to this select group of 245 individuals and cannot be seen as representative

of the wider field of all criminal solicitors. Equally, web survey participants tend to beself-selecting and this is usually because they have particular issues in relation to the

topic which they wish to raise.

The base number at the bottom of tables and charts refers to the number of individuals

who provided a valid answer to that particular question. A range of freetext comments

have been included where appropriate. Survey sponsors will have access to the full list

of all freetext comments.

Web Survey

1. Methodology


13/44


Participants comprised 55 individuals working as prosecutors, 172 individuals working as

defence solicitors and a further 10 who selected other. It is important to remember

whilst reading the results which follow, that some 70% of all respondents are defence

solicitors and this, therefore, biases results to a certain extent towards the defence

perspective.

Table 1: Participants role

Participants had been practising as a criminal solicitor for a mean of 12.9 years. The

longest serving criminal solicitors had been working in this field for around 40 years,

whilst the newest entrants had been in post for just a couple of months.

Individuals were based in a variety of regions across the country (see Table 2). The

majority worked in Greater London (21.3%); a further 12.8% worked in the City of

London. Outside of London, participants were most likely to be based in the South-

East, North-West or West Midlands (13.2%, 10.2% and 10.2%, respectively).

Table 2: Regional location of participants

2. Participants

no. %

Defence solicitor 172 72.6

Prosecutor 55 23.2

Other 10 4.2

Total 237 100.0

[Base 237]

no. %

City of London 30 12.8

Rest of London 50 21.3

South East 31 13.2

North West 24 10.2

West Midlands 24 10.2

East Midlands 19 8.1

South West 18 7.7

Yorkshire and Humber 16 6.8

North East 9 3.8

Wales 9 3.8

Eastern 5 2.1

Total 235 100.0

[Base 235]


14/44

The survey required criminal solicitors to record their experiences across the previous

two weeks in respect of any delays they had encountered in their cases. Extracting two

weeks in this manner risks bias to findings if the events of the past two weeks are in

some way extraordinary or not typical of the experiences criminal solicitors would

usually encounter. Therefore, participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1- 10,

where 10 is completely typical and 1 not at all typical, how typical these two weeks

had been for them.

Chart 1: Typicality of the past two weeks cases

For 44.9% of all respondents the past two weeks had been completely typical of their

usual case experiences. Just 13% of respondents rated 5 or under, indicating that this

week had not been typical for them. With a mean score of 8.34 it can be reasonably

assumed that the findings reported here are typical of the day-to-day experiences of

these criminal solicitors. Although caution should still be exercised at any attempt to

generalise too far beyond the views of this discrete group of self-selectingparticipants.

Web Survey


[Base 237]

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


15/44


Just 8.7% of all respondents reported that they had experienced no delay at all in their

cases over the past two weeks. For the remaining respondents, delays were most often

attributed to the police (by 25.3%) or the prosecutor (24.9%). Since the majority of

respondents were themselves defence solicitors it comes as no surprise that

prosecution solicitors fair badly, and that defence solicitors were held accountable for

delays by only 4.5% respondents.

Chart 2: Who is responsible for the most significant delay?

Chart 3, below, attempts to mitigate for this bias by presenting the results according to

the role of the respondent. Again the police are deemed to cause the most significant

delays overall by 26.7% of defence solicitors and 21.8% of prosecutors perhaps

because they are so near the start of the process. Both prosecutors and defence

solicitors also agreed that court staff are responsible for significant delays (18.2% and

17.4% respectively).

Differences occur in respect of roles where, as Chart 3 illustrates, solicitors were prone

to blame the opposing counsel for delays.

3. Findings

10%

4%

3%

5%

29%

29%

20%

Police

Court Staff

prosecution solicitor

defence solicitor

prison transport

lay magistrates

Other


16/44

Chart 3: Who is responsible for the most significant delay, by role of respondent.

Charts 4 and 5, below, indicate the regions in which prosecutors and defence solicitors

(respectively) have experienced delays.

Prosecutors working in the West Midlands were most likely to have experienced delaysin the past two weeks (given by 21% prosecutors), followed by those working in the

North West or Yorkshire and Humberside, where in each region 17% of prosecutors had

faced delays. Only 2% of prosecutors working in the City of London or in Wales reported

delays.

Chart 4: Delays experienced by prosecutors, by region

Web Survey


30

25

20

15

10

5

0

police court staff prosecutor

Prosecutor

Defence Solicitor

defencesolicitor

17%

17%

15%

21%

0%

2% 2%5%

7%

7%

7%

7%

%

7%

City of London

Rest of London

South East

North East

South West

North West

East Midlands

Eastern

West Midlands

Wales

Yorkshire/Hum


17/44


Conversely, the Criminal Justice System in the City of London had resulted in delays for

15% of defence solicitors. The majority of delays for defence solicitors had occurred in

the rest of London, cited by over one quarter (26%) of all defence respondents; delays

in this region had only been a problem for 5% prosecutors.

Chart 5: Delays experienced by defence solicitors, by region

3.1 Delays attributed to the Police

The vast majority of respondents (83.7%) had dealt with the police on at least one

occasion in the past two weeks.

Table 3: Delays attributed to the Police

City of London15%

15%3%

4%

8%

9%

9%

5%

5%

1%

26%

Rest of London

South East

North East

South West

North West

East Midlands

Eastern

West Midlands

Wales

Yorkshire/Hum

15%

9%

8%

no. %

On accompanying a client who has been bailed back

to the police station, the police require further time. 94 45.4

The police have not provided the required Advance

Information to the CPS to enable serving it on the

defence in time for an effective first hearing. 72 34.8

The police have failed to arrange an interpreter to

attend court. 52 25.1

No interpreter available at the police station. 27 13.0

Other reason. 105 50.7

[Base 207]


18/44

The most commonly cited cause of delays, expressed by nearly one half (45.4%) of

respondents to this question was that on accompanying a client who has been bailed

back to the police station, the police required further time. This was a significantly

greater problem for defence solicitors and was cited by 52.3% of all defence

respondents, compared with just 1.8% of all prosecutors. Individuals explained:

Client bailed to return to police station at 10.40am. I arrived in good time and

the client arrived precisely two minutes after me. The OIC did not invite the

client and I into the Custody Suite until 11.42am. Furthermore, at 10.50am, ten

minutes after the bail appointment time, the OIC was still at another police

station and had not even started to travel. This is despite the fact that it was

the OIC who wanted to conduct a further interview in the first place.

Not organised for Bail backs; Give times and still officers not in attendance for

bail backs especially. Still gathering evidence!

The most consistent delays appeared to be attributable to an overall lack of

communication. Respondents were particularly dissatisfied because they were obliged

to turn up at the time quoted to them by the police, but were then left hanging around

on the polices time frame:

Officer in the case never return calls, therefore we never know whether there is

to be a second interview etc. We have to guess as to whether to attend thus

causing us financial loss. This is because we may have employed solicitors at

court and therefore have to employ agents to cover (who charge 90).

The police also refuse to give even an approximate indication of what time aninterview is likely to take place, but then when they are ready expect the

solicitor to jump and be there immediately. Often this is not possible and

further delays are caused. Often they will say they are ready for interview and

then leave the solicitor sitting at the SDO for hours. There appears to be no

time management at all and any attempt to expedite things by the solicitor is

met with hostility.

Papers turning up late Papers for custody cases turning up incomplete General

hanging around in the custody block waiting for officers to attend for interview

when we have been told to get there for a particular time

The delays caused by the polices lack of communication with the solicitor or their

failing to be ready at the time arranged with the solicitor had financial implicationsbeyond the inconvenience of wasted journeys and hanging around:

Attending police station. Police have not obtained the appropriate advice

regarding charging with the Crown Prosecution Service, and therefore, WAITING

TIME, which is not paid under the fixed fee system.

I work predominantly in defence work at the police station. Some of the delays

caused by the police are genuinely outrageous. I am not necessarily suggesting

that the delays are deliberate but there increasingly seems to be the attitude

that it is perfectly alright to have a solicitor sitting in a waiting room or the

front office for an hour or more. One believes that the police are all too aware

of the fixed fee system these days! Waiting was not such a chore when you were

being remunerated but in the present market even a straightforward case canbecome a money pit if the waiting time stretches on endlessly.

Web Survey



19/44


Over one third of all respondents (34.8%) were critical that the police had not provided

the required Advance Information in a timely manner. The impact of a delay here was

felt by both prosecutors and defence solicitors. For prosecutors this had been the cause

of delay in 14.5% of their cases, whereas for defence solicitors this rose to 35.5%.

3.2 Delays attributed to the prosecutor

Just under one quarter of respondents (22.0%) claimed to have had no dealings with

the prosecution in the past two weeks though this proportion includes those who are

themselves prosecutors and, therefore, would not necessarily indicate that they had

been responsible for a delay or have encountered prosecutor-caused delays.

Table 4: Delays attributed to the prosecutor

The most commonly cited cause of delay was that the prosecutor had failed to comply

with their disclosure obligations, mentioned by 64.9% respondents. This failure had

caused delays for 51.2% of all defence solicitor respondents. However, freetext

responses to the previous question suggest that, in at least some of these occasions,

the prosecutors delay could be attributed to the fact that they were waiting on the

police to provide such information. Defence solicitors were still critical of a lack of

timely disclosure:

no. %

Prosecutor failed to comply with disclosure obligations 124 64.9

Prosecution representative at court without file 113 59.2

Prosecutor failed to comply with court order 98 51.3

Prosecutor failed to give proper instructions 46 24.1

Prosecutor called away in a supervisory capacity 30 15.7

Prosecutor failed to arrange an interpreter 28 14.7

Other 63 33.0

[Base 191]

Out of all the difficulties we have with the prosecution, which leads to delay, is

the lateness or lack of disclosure.

Promised disclosure has not arrived Disclosure served is unviewable Reviews

have not been carried out Papers not available in time for the hearing.

Failing to oblige Court Orders especially for disclosure.


20/44

Prosecutors were also criticised for turning up to court without their file and for failing

to comply with a court order (by 59.2% and 51.3%, respectively).

The use of Associate Prosecutors (AP) contributed to delays for two reasons. Firstly

where the AP had been assigned to a case without authority to make a decision and,secondly, where senior prosecutors were called away from other courtrooms to assist

an AP or act in a supervisory capacity:

Prosecutor respondents indicated that in some instances delays had been caused due to

a lack of staff:

Web Survey


Losing files, not telling defence of adjournments made administratively and

letting defence attend court when no need.

Four hours waiting for prosecution file to be brought to court.

Courts being dealt with by APs who cannot deal with youths in custody or bad

character/special measures applications therefore having to wait for a lawyer to

attend court or become available to deal. APs having to delay court to take

instructions from a lawyer on bail decisions or representations made on pleas.

In the remand court, unfortunately the Crown are represented by Associate

Prosecutors who do not have the power to review/making decision on charging.

This has meant that other prosecutors in the court rooms have to assist their

colleagues and make decisions on their behalf.

Often delay caused by ourselves is missing files or unavoidable matters such

witnesses failing to attend. Delay also occurs due to the lack of resources within

the CPS to deal with all matters

Short staffing and a move for the local CPS to another office have caused delays

in responses to correspondence, service of primary disclosure and affected their

readiness for trial.

Failing to respond to calls and letters and being completely noncommunicatable


21/44


However in response to the last comment a prosecutor reveals:

And there were general criticisms of the way in which the CPS operated as an

organisation:

3.3 Delays attributed to the Defence solicitor

Again, as the majority of respondents were defence solicitors, a considerably smaller

pool of people answered the questions in this section. Over one half of all respondents

(52.7%) said they had had no dealings with the defence in the past two weeks.

Table 5: Delays attributed to the Defence solicitor

I am prosecution. Defence writing to the wrong department, but the CPS have

delayed in sending the post to me. Also our post room is atrocious. Can take

days for post to be sent to you from a room 3 floors down.

There is considerable general delay caused by the prosecution as a result of the

way the work in the CPS is presently organised .The present system of hub

based working is hopelessly inefficient. It involves massive duplication as a

result of no individual lawyer having responsibility for a given file so each

lawyer dealing with a file has to read the whole file, as does the next lawyer to

deal with it etc etc. The lack of file ownership and personal responsibility

means that files are not dealt with thoroughly, defence requests are not dealt

with quickly and often cases have to be resolved on the day of the trial.

no. %

Defence solicitor unable to take instructions from

defendant in custody 36 31.9

Defence solicitor called away from court 29 25.7

Defence solicitor failed to comply with court order 25 22.1

Defence representative at court without file 16 14.2

Defence solicitor failed to comply with disclosure

obligations 14 12.4

Defence solicitor failed to arrange an interpreter 4 3.5

Other 63 33.0

[Base 113]


22/44

The most common cause of delay attributed to (but also experienced by) defence

solicitors was an inability to take instructions from a defendant who was being held in

custody; this question of access to the client or an interview room had been an issue

for almost one third (31.9%) of all respondents to this question. This had caused delay

for 40% of prosecutor respondents, compared with just 7% of defence solicitors.

Respondents said:

Just over one quarter (25.7%) of respondents who attributed delays to the defence

solicitor had been required to wait when the solicitor was called away from the court

room. This is a greater proportion than the 12.2% who had been left waiting whilst the

prosecutor left the court room in their supervisory capacity.

Defence solicitors were happy to use the freetext space on this question to assert that

delays were very rarely attributable to defence solicitors. However, the reality

appeared that those defence solicitors acting under legal aid were frequently required

to request an adjournment whilst they waited for the decision on their legal aid

application:

Adjournments needed for defence expert reports, legal aid and owing to a particular

advocate being committed to more than one courtroom at the same time.

Web Survey


I am often unable to take instructions on cjsss days due to lack of interview

rooms and volume of cases.

Instructions not taken so no pleas can be entered. Defendants failing to instructsolicitors until a day or so before the hearing despite all disclosure being made

to them. Defence solicitors failing to request medical reports when an

adjournment has been granted for this sole purpose.

Clients do not respond to letters to come in and give instructions so these have

to be taken at court, necessitating delays.

As a defence lawyer only delay caused by me is adjourning a case as I do not

have legal aid either because client cannot provide financial details or as court

have a 2 week backlog in dealing with applications

The only delays witnessed were due to Legal Aid not being granted and an

adjournment sought by the defence. Magistrates courts routinely have a 3

week backlog on routine applications. If involves additional info e.g.

payslips/bank statements-longer.


23/44


Changes to the legal aid means-testing system were one of the main requests by

respondents, including the speculation that solicitors should not be required to attend

court at all until they knew the outcome of their application.

3.4 Delays attributed to Prison transportation

Under one half (42.4%) of all respondents had experienced delays when waiting for

prisoners. The two most common causes of delays cited by these individuals were

waiting for prisoners to be transported to the court building (70.2%) or from cells to

the courtroom (52.9%).

Table 6: Delays attributed to Prison transportation

Waiting on the arrival of a prisoner at the courthouse was expressed as causing delay

by over one third (34.3%) of all defence solicitors, compared with 16.4% prosecutors.Three companies which provide prison transportation services were criticised for delay

in transporting prisoners to the court building. Freetext comments gave the impression

that at times prisoner transportation could be a bit of a shambles, with prisoners being

sent on the school run around various prisons and courts before arriving (late) at the

relevant courthouse. Equally, there was no guarantee that prisoners being held nearby

would arrive at the court sooner than those brought from much further away. Bad

weather was also seen to hamper attempts to transport prisoners.

One main and consistent delay seemed to be the inability to ensure prisoners were in

the right place in time for the 10:00 am court start time.

no. %

Prisoners arrived late at the courthouse 73 70.2

Delay moving prisoners from cells to courtroom 55 52.9

Other 36 34.6

[Base 104]

Any prisoner coming from a prison other than local remand prisons are produced

hours late. There is always a significant wait for prisoners to be produced in the

dock from the cells.

Overnight prisoners frequently arrive late

Arriving after 10.00am (when court starts sitting) is any every day occurrence.


24/44

One solicitor was completing this survey whilst at court, waiting to see if his detained

client would turn up. Beyond the delays themselves, he criticised the lack of

communication which meant solicitors were often left hanging around without much

idea of what was happening:

In some instances it was the solicitor who was required to travel due to a lack of

facilities at the local courthouse:

Respondents were also critical that, even once in the custody of the courthouse, it

could take up to ten minutes for a defendant to be brought from the cell area once a

case had been called. This delay was an issue for 24.4% defence solicitors and 12.7% of

prosecutors. This may not seem a significant delay on its own, but the accumulation of

such delays across the day started to add up. Such delays were mainly attributed to

staff shortages:

Web Survey


Insufficient cell staff to bring client into court!

The custody Court dealing with overnight prisoners wishes to start at 10am but

frequently prisoners do not get unloaded from the vans until shortly before

10am. This is despite [transport company] claims that most prisoners arrive at

about 9am. This is simply untrue.

1st day of trial at XXXX Crown Court the defendant was not produced from [far

away prison] until 15.25. The trial was a fixture with 10am start. The following

day the defendant was produced about 45m late from [nearby prison].

Our court does not have video link, so we have to travel to a court 25 miles

away to do video remands. A 5 minute hearing takes all morning when including

travel and waiting time.

I am currently at court waiting for a client who is awol in custody. Has been

arrested for breach of bail in our town, but the case is in another court in the

same cjs area of XXXX. Police and court cant seem to decide if he should be

here in [town1] or in [town2]. Currently 10.35 and he isnt at either court. We

have an agent on standby who will need an hour to get to court if client takento [town2]. Police should be communicating with us but seem to find it

impossible to communicate (the job of the custody sergeant I would say).


25/44


Health and Safety regulations were another cause of delay in the transportation and

handling of prisoners. In this instance delays were exacerbated by a shortage of

professional security staff as civilian guards were limited in their duties:

Logistical problem- lack of staff and resources for all parties.

Lack of support staff in cells has led to delays in bringing defendants up into

court room from cells.

Prisoner not brought to court and then DJ ordered he be brought to court and

we had to wait until 12pm. Not enough staff to bring prisoner up from cells to

court so we had to wait about half an hour (not unusual)

Ridiculous health and safety requirements of civilian prison guards meant that

only one prisoner could appear in court at a time so in a case where there were

two defendants in custody we had to hear the whole case twice (including facts

and mitigation) instead of just once.

Delay caused by routine application by civilian prison guards for defendant in

custody to be handcuffed when giving evidence in the witness box for health

and safety reasons. This application rarely succeeds, but does waste a lot of

court time.

In sealed docks, why do [prisoners] need to be returned to cells during every

adjournment? The bench should be made aware/ trained in methods of dock

management, something [prison transport company] could teach in an hour.

Routinely young people who are transported separately arrive at court late and

insufficient security staff to accompany them up to court

Time spent moving prisoners from cells to court is a joke. What are all those

[prison transportation] officers sat around reading the paper supposed to be

doing?


26/44

3.5 Delays attributed to the use of witnesses

Under one half of all respondents (45.3%) had cases involving witnesses in the past two

weeks. Of these respondents, well over one third (39.8%) had experienced delays when

the prosecutor left the courtroom to call their own witnesses.

Table 7: Delays attributed to use of witnesses

A shortage of staff impacted on the time taken to guide witnesses from the witness

room to the courtroom; respondents gave many examples of where the prosecutor had

to physically go and collect their witness due to a lack of ushers or other appropriate

staff:

It appears that witnesses failing to attend court at the correct date and time are a

common occurrence and also a frequent cause of delay (cited by 32.7%). Whether a

witness had merely agreed to attend or had been issued a summons made little

difference in whether they actually turned up at court this was particularly so in

cases of domestic violence:

Web Survey


no. %

Prosecutor leaves to call witness 45 39.8

Witness failed to attend 37 32.7

Defendant fail to identify witness to call 13 11.5

Other 43 38.1

[Base 113]

In my local courthouses for a number of months the tannoy system has been

broken. Prosecution witnesses cannot be expected to find their own way to the

courtroom and in the absence of an usher the role of collecting and returning

witnesses falls to the prosecutor. With witness rooms some way away this can

take up to five minutes or longer.

XXXX youth courts are as far away from the witness room as it is possible to be

and when there is no usher it is a nightmare dealing with witnesses.

No usher or witness care available so Prosecutor had to go to and from witness

room to get witnesses to court.

Witnesses have failed to attend in a number of trials, including a witness who

had been served with a witness summons.


27/44


Delays caused by the failure of witnesses to attend court were explained to be

exacerbated in cases of a sensitive nature, such as domestic violence. More than one

respondent bemoaned the fact that the prosecutor did not withdraw the case from the

court list on hearing their witness would not attend, but instead kept the listing in case

the witness changed their mind at the last minute. Whilst understandable in cases of

this nature, it meant for much time spent waiting around without knowing for certain

if the trial would proceed:

Last week, kept waiting for 2 hours, waiting as CPS hoped that aggrieved would

turn up in DV trial despite aggrieved making it very clear to police that she

would not attend. Indeed, this was the second trial date; the aggrieved had

made her position clear on the last occasion too.

Respondents were also critical that cases were delayed because the defendant had

failed to identify the witnesses to be called:

The Crown has failed to identify before trial that witness statements were

needed and these witnesses needed to attend, causing the trial to be vacated.

The defence failing to identify the witnesses they require. Ive also had to deal

with several police officers turning up five minutes before the trial without

having even read their statements.

3.6 Delays attributed to court staff/systems

Just over three quarters of all respondents (75.5%) had attended court in the past two

weeks. Of these, over one half had experienced delays when the court had failed to

make a decision or when multiple cases had been listed simultaneously (59.0% and57.9%, respectively).

Witnesses not attending when confirmed to attend.

With a worrying degree of frequency domestic violence witnesses still do not

attend court and cases are either adjourned or dismissed only at the day of trial

itself.

Witnesses reluctant to attend and do not show up on day of trial. This pertains

only to prosecution witnesses. Cps allows case to remain listed just in case

witness has change of heart. Most prevalent in domestic violence cases.


28/44

Table 8: Delays attributed to court staff/systems

Issues around the listing of cases were a significant problem, cited by many

respondents. Multiple cases were listed simultaneously, courts took no account of the

preference for listing expressed by solicitors, and those awaiting decisions on legal aid

applications were pushed to take unrealistic slots:

There is pressure to take the first list available. The Legal Aid application process takes

too long. 1st appearance dates should reflect the delay in Legal Aid applications.

Web Survey


no. %

Failed to make a decision 108 59.0

Multiple case listings at the same time 106 57.9

Not effectively listed case 83 45.4

Preferences to listing not taken into account 59 32.2

Failed to arrange an interpreter 22 12.0

A clients co-defendants or solicitors failed to

attend court 13 7.1

Other 49 26.8

[Base 183]

The delay in processing our legal aid applications is still huge and doesnt seem

to be improving.

Unreasonable delays in processing legal aid applications and a refusal to

communicate with defence solicitors in order to advise of result of legal aid

applications. Phones are routinely left unanswered in the legal aid departments

of virtually all London courts.

Legal Aid particularly slow at some courts. There appears to be a huge backlog.

We have submitted legal aid at the first appearance, and the case is adjourned

for 2 or even 3 weeks and we still have no decision on legal aid.


29/44


Delays attributed to multiple cases being listed at the same time were cited by similar

proportions of prosecutors and defence solicitors (45.5% and 44.8%, respectively).

Defence solicitors were more likely to encounter delays when their preference for case

listing was not taken into account: 27.9% compared with 14.5% of prosecutors.

Respondents expressed concerns over the court strategy for listing trials, which seemed

similar to airlines process of overbooking flights to avoid empty seats. Courts booked

multiple trials for the same time hoping another court would be free to catch any

excess:

As with other parts of the process, communication again appeared to be a concern:

Trials are routinely double or triple listed. Every week many are removed from

the list for lack of court time.

The Court also overlists in one courtroom, hoping that another court will free

up, where the listings could be spaced out over the week more evenly.

There have been two cases where the court have been informed that

defendants and witnesses are not available for proposed trial dates, but have

listed the cases anyway.

It is common for trials to be double-booked. The Court will deal with the case

that is ready.

I am sick of overlisting. The prosecutor is the only one who suffers. Im

particularly sick of pointless late nights and early mornings when if the court

listed properly, I would work office hours. I also think we shouldnt have to

explain the courts failings to tearful or angry victims and witnesses, who are

treated shoddily by a court that cares more about statistics than the community

it is supposed to serve.

We will call the court on some occasions and get passed from one person to

another over and over. They deny receiving letters even when we have

confirmed receipt and got a name. We have court staff putting the phone down

on us if they dont know the answer to a question asked. They pretend to be

trying to find the answer and then the phone just goes dead.


30/44

For some respondents attendance at court had been the start of a snowball effect of

increasing delays and costs:

3.7 Delays attributed to other agencies

Over one half of respondents (53.5%) had not dealt with any other agencies during thepast two weeks. For those who had, contact was typically with the probation service

and/or an expert witness both were remarked to contribute delay to a case, but the

probation service significantly so.

Table 9: Delays attributed to other agencies

Respondents commented that it could be difficult to get a final report from an expert

witness and this could delay matters. The use of expert witnesses also caused a delay if

the defence had to submit an application for funding to use the expert witness.

Web Survey


After waiting for the interpreter, adjourned for lunch, then delayed because of

long lunch, then too late to start so adjourned for three months.

The practice of Magistrates taking coffee breaks during the morning sessions.

These often take 10-20 minutes when the advocate is waiting - at cost. There

are often several advocates per court who have to wait - each with consequent

cost to the legal aid or other budget.

Failure to list cases when previously adjourned to date and client attends in

answer to bail and for bail variation, but no court or cps papers as result of

listing failure. Cases dealt between 3 different locations - listing, files and

hearings!!

no. %

Waiting for probation service pre-sentence report 71 54.6

Expert witness failed to provide report 20 15.4

Other 27 20.8

[Base 130]


31/44


However, the Probation Service came in for a much more targeted attack. The

respondents indicated concerns in relation to the Probation Service either not supplying

pre-sentence reports in a timely manner, or of sending in reports which were

contradictory or plainly wrong. This was an issue cited by over one third (34.3%) of all

defence solicitor respondents and 14.5% of prosecutors.

As with prisoner transportation, solicitors were critical of a lack of communication

which led to delays which could have been avoided:

The system of expert reports especially in relation to the mentally ill is a

shambles. Psychologists report ordered by the court, but massive waiting list.

Defendant in custody.

Preliminary rather than final report prepared by defence expert

Probation - no report because the probation officer failed to attend the client in

custody. Further three week adjournment in custody requested!

Case needed to be adjourned for probation to prepare a report that had not

been prepared due to lack of staff

The Probation Service wrote to a client at the address he was excluded from so

he missed his appointment. Also they provided a fast delivery report and full

PSR on the same client that had contradictory information about whether the

clients suspended sentence order had been activated or not.

Professional experts getting harder to get a response from. Much harder.

Getting funding for expert reports means defence applications to adjourn


32/44

In respect of the probation service, respondents reported instances of staff

shortage/sickness, internal policies and unnecessary bureaucratic mechanisms all of

which caused significant delays to cases and hearings:

One respondent called for a return Probation Officers at court to locate bail hostels:

Web Survey


Probation appointment not sent to defendant due to pressure of work on

probation service. Whilst this is understandable, it is inexcusable for the

probation, as a key stakeholder, to wait for all the parties to attend court

before stating that no report is available. It should be incumbent on the

probation service to advise the court and the defence in advance if there is

going to be a non-report.

I wish we could go back to the system of Probation Officers at court finding such

bail hostels as there are left (which seemed to have been traded off as

Probation etc hostels). The central system for finding a bail hostel is hopeless.

We have many clients in custody lacking an address, who cannot remember

anyones phone number because the police have inevitably seized their mobile

phone.

Probation failed to provide a PSR and indeed failed to notify the court in

advance that there would be no PSR (which they knew 11 days before the

hearing) and thus there was a wasted hearing. Matter could have beenadjourned without need for all parties to attend.

Stand down reports cause inevitable delay. There appear to be insufficient

experienced probation officers to manage the volume of reports asked for by

the court.

Probation due to their internal policies failed to provide a stand down report in

relation to one of my clients.

The Probation Service often fails to visit custody prisoners. Probation staff

sickness seems to be soaring.


33/44


3.8 Summary of delays

Below is a table of the most significant delays by each organisation/party, as

experienced by respondents. However, it is oversimplifying the whole process to

apportion blame for delays in this manner. All parties in the chain from police and

prisoner transportation to prosecutor and defence solicitor, court staff, witnesses and

other agencies are complexly interlinked so that a delay at any one point may

unavoidably cause delays elsewhere in the process. For example, one respondent said:

Police have not provided the papers to the prosecution so no papers at court for the

defence.

Table 10: Delays by organisation/party

It should also be remembered that the majority of respondents to this survey are

defence solicitors and therefore disposed to attribute problems to the actions of the

opposing counsel.

no. % of all

respondents

citing this

Prosecutor failed to comply with disclosure obligations 124 50.6

Court failed to make a decision 108 44.1

On accompanying a client who has been bailed back

to the police station, the police require further time 94 38.4

Prisoners arrived late at the courthouse 73 29.8

Waiting for probation service pre-sentence report 71 29.0

Prosecutor leaves to call witness 45 18.4

Defence solicitor unable to take instructions from

defendant in custody 36 14.7

[Base 245]


34/44

At the end of the survey respondents were invited to comment more generally on their

experiences of delays in the criminal justice system.

Clearly there are issues in the operation of the criminal justice system, some of which

are attributable to the actions/lack of actions of an individual and others to the

processes and working mechanisms of whole organisations. The two overarching themes

which came up in this section were (i) the delay (and knock-on effect) in getting a

decision on a legal aid application and (ii) the fact that courts did not appear to be

held accountable for their failure or poor performance.

The 72.6% of respondents who are defence solicitors were keen to use this space to put

the system right:

The delay whilst waiting for a decision on a legal aid application could result in many

unnecessary trips to court to adjourn the case yet again. The issues solicitors raised

around the way cases are listed and the delays waiting for the case to be called

exacerbated the delays and costs of waiting for legal aid approval.

Web Survey


4. Final words

The only group properly doing their job in the system at present is the defence.

If we behave as the courts, police and cps do, we would face costs and

enormous criticism.

My main beef is with the means tested legal aid application. It takes a long time

and delays all matters. We are under strict instructions not to act until it is in

place, yet it is inconsistent in its delivery. The rest is minor hiccups in the road

we must all endure due to human failings. But make one change-DJs

everywhere. You could close every mags court in London if you had a fully DJd

court at every point on the compass. Lay benches are a false economy.

It is often very difficult to get through to legal aid departments at courts via the

telephone. The CPS are very slow at responding to correspondence regardless of

how it is sent. Often when a fax is sent to them we will call to check it has

been received and often we are told it has not been received despite checking

we have sent it to the correct fax number.

Listen to the Defence Solicitors. We can identify the problem areas for you!


35/44


Some respondents also reported wasted time trying to get in contact with the

prosecutors:

Respondents were critical that the courts did not seem to be held accountable for their

actions in the same way that prosecutors and defence solicitors are:

Legal aid still has not been granted despite assurances that the matter would be

looked at. An inordinate amount of time has been wasted on the phone trying to

speak to and then reason with employees of the means assessment team.

It is very difficult to get in contact with anyone from the CPS in order toprogress cases (other than very serious offences which have specialist units) It

is often impossible to get through to someone who is supposed to be dealing

with the case, and that person is not qualified to make any legal decisions as

regards the case.

It is practically impossible to speak to a prosecuting lawyer other than by listing

cases for mention. when telephoning the CPS I am always put through to an

extension that is not answered, voicemails are never returned or if I do get

someone to pick up a phone am told they are not dealing with a case and

cannot help. It is normal to spend over an hour on each attempt to contact

someone before eventually abandoning the attempt.

An inability to speak to, let alone negotiate, with a CPS lawyer, so that

everything has to be resolved (or not) at court and cases are listed for mention

unnecessarily, huge delays at court occur (especially at the beginning of trials.

Court failures to deal with matters do cause delays but are brushed under the

carpet whilst prosecution and defence errors are subject to stringent scrutiny.

The cps and the court service should be a meritocracy. If I handled my clients

cases in the same way that they handle their cases I would have no clients.

There is very little accountability and no determination to do a good high

quality job.


36/44

Despite criticisms of the courts performance and lack of accountability, several

respondents felt that one solution to delays would be to give courts more power and

enable them to punish those at court who were unprepared or in non-compliance:

Dissatisfaction with delays and the associated costs suggested a significant impact on

the desire of defence solicitors, in particular, to continue to work in this field or, as

one respondent explained, of the public to continue to bring cases:

Web Survey


Courts should be more balanced and more proactive in case management. They

should have the power to dismiss cases where there has been failure to comply

with directions and they should exercise such power ruthlessly rather than

extend time limits or turn a blind eye to blatant failures on the part of a failing

organisation, the CPS.

The prosecution hardly ever comply with the CPR or statutory time limits. The

courts are complicit in encouraging this behaviour by tolerating it. It is highly

unusual not to have a wasted trip to the police station as a result of police

failing to communicate about a bail back.

In any case where there is a delay caused by any agent in the criminal justice

system, whether defence/prosecution/police/probation/court/[prison transport

company], the court should be obliged to record the reason for that delay. A

report should be prepared at regular intervals so that the causes of delay are

identified and sanctions given.

There should be a default expectation that where a party has caused a delay or

inefficiency they should be expected to pay the costs of that mistake. Without

such sanctions, the behaviour will never change.

I did not sign the latest criminal contract as I was so fed up with the

inefficiencies in the criminal justice system & the new contract was entirely

unreasonable.


37/44


Comments in this survey reveal not only where delays are prevalent in the criminal

justice system, but also the complexity of the system as a whole. A delay early in the

process can have severe ramifications for how a case proceeds and where further

delays may result. The impact of delays was felt not only in the amount of time taken

to resolve a matter, but in the amount of dead time spent waiting at police stations, in

courtrooms and for legal aid decisions. Whilst all parties involved were affected to

some extent by the delays, defence solicitors were most affected in terms of costs, as

they were more often the ones left waiting in situations where they were not being

paid for their time and had no recourse to claim back for time which could have been

productively spent elsewhere.

Respondents suggested ways in which the system could be improved. In many instances

simple matters could be implemented without major disruption or an overturning of

current processes. For example, a simple courtesy of the police to meet the time they

have pre-arranged with solicitors or to communicate at the earliest opportunity whenthey realise they can not meet the time would save many wasted journeys. Defence

solicitors called for a way to speed up decisions on means-tested legal aid and that

they not be required to attend court before the decision was made; thus negating the

need to call for multiple adjournments and the delays associated with attending court

to make the request. Overall, a lack of communication seemed to pervade all stages of

the process. There were many examples cited where one party had known of a likely

delay in supplying information, but had either not communicated this delay to all

others involved or had left the notification far too late to be effective. The aggregate

cost of delays to the criminal justice system in terms of empty court time, solicitor

waiting time and associated financial losses suggest many changes which are needed,

with little apparent reason why certain changes could not be made sooner rather than

later.

My wife is appalled by the enormous amount of administrative cost which has

been generated by one relatively small case which could have been dealt with

far more efficiently had it been dealt with quickly after the event, and in the

circumstances that have now occurred has gone on for nearly a year and she

fears will go on for longer. She is so concerned by it that she would hesitate

before reporting a crime in the future.


38/44

ABE Achieving best evidence

AI Advance Information

AP Associate Prosecutor

BTR Bailed to return

CJS Criminal Justice System

CJSSS Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary

CJU Criminal Justice Unit

CMH Case management hearingCPR Criminal Procedure Rules

CPS Crown Prosecution Service

DCW Designated case worker

DSCC Defence solicitor call centre

IOJ Interest of justice test for legal aid

MG5 Case summary form

OIC Officer in Charge

PCMH Plea and case management hearing

POCA Proceeds of Crime Act

PTR Pre-trial

TIC [Offences] taken into consideration

TWOC [Vehicle] taken without consent

VIPERVirtual identity parade

YOI Young Offenders Institution

Web Survey


APPENDIX 1Glossary of Terms


39/44


Survey of criminal solicitors

Q1. How long have you been a criminal solicitor? _____ years ____ months

Q2. Are you a

I Prosecutor

I Defence solicitor

I Other (please specify)

Q3. In which region are you based?

Q4. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 = not at all typical and 10 = exactly typical,

how typical have the past two weeks been in terms of your normal day-to-daycriminal law casework?

Q5. Have you experienced any delays in your criminal law cases in the past two

weeks?

I Yes Go to Q5a

I No Go to Q14

Q5a. If yes, which of the following do you deem responsible for causing the most

significant delays? (tick one only):

I The police

I Court staffI The prosecution solicitor

I The defence solicitor

I Prison transportation

I Other, please specify

Q6. Police

In the past two weeks, have you experienced any of the following in your

dealings with the police?

I No dealings with the police in the last two weeks. Go to Q7

I A police station job has been delayed because an interpreter wasntavailable.

I On accompanying a client who has been bailed back to the police station,the police require further time.

I The police have not provided the required Advance Information to the CPSto enable serving it on the defence in time for an effective first hearing

I The police have failed to arrange an interpreter to attend court

I Other delay caused by the police

APPENDIX 2The Survey

Please describe your experience, in the last two weeks, of delays which are

attributable to the police:


40/44

Q7. The Prosecution


dealings with the prosecution?

I No dealings with the prosecution in the last two weeks. Go to Q8

I The prosecution representative at court does not have their file.

I The prosecution has failed to comply with a court order, and requires anadjournment.

I A prosecutor is called away to offer advice in relation to a case in anothercourtroom.

I Proper instructions have not been taken by the prosecutor making anadjournment necessary.

I The prosecution has failed to comply with its disclosure obligations.I The prosecution failed to arrange the attendance of a

witness/intermediary/interpreter/expert

I Other delay caused by the prosecution

Q8. The Defence

In the past two weeks have you experienced any of the following in your

dealings with the defence, including the co-defence?

I No dealings with the defence in the last two weeks. Go to Q9

I The defence solicitor at court does not have their file.

I The defendant, or defence solicitor, has failed to comply with a courtorder, and requires an adjournment.

I A defence solicitor is called away to offer advice in relation to a case inanother courtroom.

I Proper instructions have not been taken by the defence solicitor making anadjournment necessary (please note if this was because it was impossible

to take instructions from a defendant in custody.)

I The defendant has failed to comply with his or her disclosure obligations.

I The defence solicitor has failed to arrange the attendance of awitness/intermediary/interpreter/expert

I Other delay caused by the defence

Web Survey



attributable to the prosecution:


attributable to the defence:


41/44


Q9. Prisoners

In the past two weeks, have you experienced any of the following in

respect of prisoner transportation?

I No cases have required prisoner transportation in the last two weeks.Go to Q10

I Prisoners have arrived late at the courthouse, meaning that the casecannot be called at the correct time.

I There has been a delay in moving the prisoner from cells to thecourtroom.

I Other delay caused by the transport of prisoners.

Q10. Witnesses


use of witnesses?

I No cases have required the use of witnesses in the last two weeks.Go to Q11

I In a trial hearing, witnesses have failed to attend because they werenot warned.

I The prosecutor has had to leave the room to call a witness from thewitness room.

I The defendant has failed to identify prosecution witnesses it requiresto be called.

I Other delay in the use of witnesses.

Q11. Court


dealings at court?

I Have not attended court in the last two weeks. Go to Q12

I The Court has listed two or more trials at the same time, and yourtrial listing has therefore had to be adjourned.

I The court has failed to provide an interpreter.

Please describe your experience, in the last two weeks, of delays

attributable to the transportation of prisoners:

Please describe your experience, in the last two weeks, of delays

attributable to the use of witnesses.


42/44

I The court has not effectively listed the case, resulting in delay.

I The preferences as to listing date of the solicitor advocate orbarrister have not been taken into account.

I The court listing of the case has led to delay or inefficiency.

I The clients co-defendants and/or their solicitors have failed toattend court, and the case must be adjourned.

I The court has failed to make a decision in relation to a cli

Law Society Criminal Justice Report_v5 (2)

Documents

Transcript of Law Society Criminal Justice Report_v5 (2)