Minutes:
A presentation on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service was given by Mr Toks Adesuyan, the Legal & Stakeholder Manager (London South & Youth Team) based in Croydon.
It was explained that the Youth Court Team in London was restructured in 2013, and consisted of a Magistrates Court Division, and a Crown Court Division. Mr Adesuyan worked for the Magistrates Court Division.
The head of the CPS was the Director for Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney General was the person responsible to Parliament. The CPS was independent of the Police and Government.
There was a guidance book called “The Code” issued by the DPP that the CPS had to be guided by and adhere to. The Code sets out a two stage test to be applied when considering prosecutions. These were the Full Code Test and the Threshold Test.
The Full Code Test consisted of two stages:
· The Evidential Stage
· The Public Interest
The former refers quite simply to having enough evidence to bring a prosecution, whilst the latter asks if bringing a prosecution would be in the interests of the general public. The latter takes into consideration the seriousness of the offence; culpability of the offender; the circumstances of the case; harm done, and other issues like age. Mr Adesuyan explained that the CPS worked with groups such as the Courts, Witnesses, DV Services and Youth Offending Teams. The primary aim of the CPS was to deliver justice for the public and the CPS worked to twelve core quality standards. Mr Adesuyan outlined that two priority areas for the CPS were racial hate crime and domestic violence. All racial hate crimes had to be referred by the Police to the CPS.
Mr Adesuyan explained that a Domestic Strategy Group had been set up to improve performance in this area, and that prosecutors involved in domestic violence cases benefited from specialist training. The CPS would sometimes use special measures like screens or restraining orders to progress cases where required.
Conviction rates for prosecuted DV Cases in Bromley recently were:
· October 2013 55.2%
· November 2013 79.4%
· December 2013 78.6%
The average conviction rate for London in the same period ranged between 64.8% and 67.8%.
In terms of general prosecutions for all crimes, the conviction rates for Bromley during the last quarter of 2013 ranged between 74% and 84.2%; this compared with an average for London of 82%.
Mr Adesuyan outlined that the CPS had a Youth Court Team for London, and that whenever possible, they would try and avoid custodial sentences for young people. One of the exceptions to this was knife crime; most sixteen to seventeen year olds involved in knife crime were prosecuted.
Mr Adesuyan stated that the CPS was now employing “digital working”, and that now evidence and cases were being processed digitally.
Councillor Douglas Auld asked if the CPS had any controls over Police cautions. Mr Adesuyan responded that the answer to this question was no, and that this was a Police matter. However, it was the case that the DPP had issued guidance in connection with Police cautions. Certain categories of offences had to be referred to the CPS; if the Police issued a caution in breach of the guidance, then the CPS would have to take this matter up with the Police directly.
Councillor Peter Fookes asked if there was scope for closer links and collaboration between the CPS and Bromley Council. Mr Adesuyan responded in the affirmative, and it was hoped that closer links could now be maintained between the two organisations.
Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP was pleased with the strong line being taken with respect to prosecuting domestic violence cases, and also felt that the introduction of case management forms in conjunction with digital working was positive. Councillor Bennett was glad that the introduction of digital working seemed to have stymied the problem that was endemic previously in terms of files going missing.
Councillor Bennett highlighted that case preparation by individual prosecutors varied considerably; some were very good, but others were very bad. Councillor Bennett asked what was being done to prevent poor advocacy.
Mr Adesuyan responded that in such cases feedback should be provided to the CPS so that they could identify issues of poor performance and take appropriate action. It was felt that with the recent introduction of the Case Review Teams, that cases should be in a better shape before the first hearing.