News
Most Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) case files are not maintained in a satisfactory manner, a new report by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) concludes.
The HMCPSI’s audit of CPS performance in the quality and effectiveness of file endorsements and case file administration, found decisions and actions taken are frequently not recorded; and the lack of information and poor organisation made it sometimes impossible for case handlers to ascertain what had happened before. Documentation was also often hard to find.
The study found that the results of at least one court hearing was missing from the file in 11% of magistrates’ courts’ cases and 18% of crown court cases; clear recording of work undertaken between court hearings was problematic in numerous cases; defendants’ bail status was not recorded at each hearing in 36% of cases in both the magistrates’ courts and the crown court. In some files, cases had been incorrectly finalised on the case management system due to misleading or inaccurate endorsement of the result at court and the need for follow-up work after court hearings was not recorded or highlighted as necessary in 16% of magistrates’ courts and 35% of crown court files. This sometimes led to essential action not being taken and the case having to be adjourned at the next hearing, the HMCPSI found.
Factors contributing to the weaknesses include a lack of clear and uniform guidance relating to the requirements for recording actions and decisions on file; the absence of national requirements for the monitoring of file management; and the absence of standard design for file covers or a uniform approach to where information and documentation should be located.
Barristers say the CPS must concentrate on getting the basics right. Sally O’Neill QC, Criminal Bar Association chairman, says: “The knock-on effect of poor case management is felt in court. If a file is not properly managed and the orders of the court not properly recorded, the preparation of the case can go wrong. The advocate lacks proper instructions for the hearing and delays occur as attempts are made to put the case in order.”
She says the Bar wants to work with the CPS to encourage staff to improve all aspects of case management so that cases are presented to the court in a “well-prepared state”.
Stephen Wooler, HM chief inspector of HMCPSI, says: “Good housekeeping in relation to case files is an essential prerequisite of effective prosecutions. Information and documents must be accessible to those requiring them—especially at court.
“It is also essential that prosecutors improve the standard of recording actions and decisions so that staff working on files will be able to ascertain the current position and take necessary actions.” A legislation change which will legally allow a child to have two mothers and no father when parents undergo fertility treatment removes an “absurdity” in the present law, a family law expert claims.
Following a vote in the Commons, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will update previous legislation to remove the reference to a father.
Margaret Hatwood, an associate at Thomas Eggar, says: “Where two women are in a relationship and one has fertility treatment to conceive then the partner should be treated as the other ‘parent’ even when the couple are not in a civil partnership. In those cases no man can be treated as a father to avoid a child having three legal parents which would be an absurdity.”
She says it will be interesting to see whether once this Act is in force, it will give non-biological parent more rights.
“In Re G, heard on 26 July 2006 by the House of Lords, a residence dispute involving two lesbian mothers was ultimately resolved with the dispute being resolved in favour of the biological mother. Although a shared residence order was made it gave the biological mother more time with the children. The House of Lords gave priority to the biological mother’s claims even though the mother’s former partner was a psychological parent,” she says. “It would be fascinating to see if this case would be looked at differently when the new Act is in force.”
