By Vivienne
Russell
18 May 2011
The scheme for paying self-employed prosecuting barristers
is too complex and could provide significantly better value for money,
inspectors have said.
A report from the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate,
published today, says there are significant savings to be made from the
Graduated Fee Scheme, which pays Crown Court advocates. A new scheme is being discussed
which the CPS says will address these issues.
Inspectors looked at the application of the current scheme
in six CPS areas, examining a total of 162 cases, which incurred costs of
£1.3m. They identified savings of over £202,000 or 15%.
Just over half of these savings could be achieved through
reducing the number of documents included in prosecution cases, some of which
are unnecessary, they said. They also found examples of inaccurate fee claims
and unnecessary court hearings.
‘It is clear that the majority of potential savings found could
have been made by CPS lawyers,’ the inspectorate said.
Better training of lawyers was necessary to ensure that they
understood the cost implications of their decisions.
Chief inspector Michael Fuller said: ‘Most significantly,
casework strategy needs to take greater account of the cost of presenting cases
in court, without reducing the likelihood of justice being done. This will
require something of a cultural shift in the CPS approach to the management and
control of its casework.
‘Managers, lawyers and caseworkers need to improve their
cost awareness, and understand the cost implications of their casework
decisions and processes… This will reduce costs, not only for the CPS, but
across the criminal justice system.’
Mike
Kennedy, chief operating officer at the CPS, said: ‘We are committed to
improving our system for paying external advocates and have been working
closely with the Bar Council for some time to devise a simpler and more efficient
scheme for doing so.’
He added
that the new fee scheme would provide greater value for money.
‘All CPS
lawyers and caseworkers will be fully trained in the scheme when it is
introduced so we can be sure cases are progressed properly, but without
unnecessary extra cost. This will be complemented by better record-keeping and
analysis of decisions in cases which fall under the scheme.’
