Robert Buckland Weblog

The issue of “undercharging” by the CPS has now moved from the stuff of robing room anecdote to national news. In the last few weeks, the BBC has covered this issue in some depth, speaking with Magistrates, lawyers and members of the public. It is becoming increasingly clear that there has been a change of approach to many offences in recent times. Only a few years ago, a public order incident in the middle of many of our towns and cities would have been brought to court and dealt with accordingly. Nowadays, many offenders are given a fixed penalty fine for their drunken exploits.

Another theme emerging from recent coverage is the importance of the “clear up rate” to the system – yet another target imposed from above. “Clear ups” is an umbrella term covering the resolution of all crimes, whether it be by conviction, fixed penalty fine, caution or reprimand. It is quicker and easier to clear up a crime by other means than prosecution in court. The importance to the system of solved crimes has also led to an emphasis on dealing with so-called “easy wins, for example, motoring offences or domestic violence. It would be wrong to minimise the importance of some of these types of offence, but is it right for the police to pick “winners” whilst allowing difficult and often serious matters requiring a great deal of detective work to slide down the scale of importance? I know that fraud matters, for example, require a great deal of time and effort. It would be appalling to think that some crimes are being treated as second class by the system, but increasingly, this seems to be the case.

I have used the word “system” rather than “police” in this article, to make the point that individual officers and forces should not take the blame for all of this. All the police officers I meet during my work would dearly love to take a different approach.

An interesting illustration of the attitude of police officers to the way in which we deal with crime is to look at how they behaved when they had sole responsibility for charging suspects. The process would be swift and effective. Charging officers would not hesitate from charging people with very serious offences. The powers that be did not like the fact that very often, these charges would have to be lessened because the evidence (eg medical statements that are not received for some time after the incident) would not support the allegation. A little face was lost, maybe, but swift charging led to quick and urgent investigating in order to meet court deadlines.
Now that the CPS are responsible for charging, the delays in decision-making are chronic and unacceptable. Desk officers at the station, who are on the scene and have a genunie feel for the seriousness of a situation, are reduced to having to telephone a remote lawyer to ask for their advice. Very often, a decision is not made there and then. People accused of serious violence are often bailed for months before the decision to charge is made. Witnesses can become unenthusiastic or plain forgetful.

The process no longer resembles a fast-flowing river; it is more like a meandering brook, lost amongst the watermeadows. Whilst it is helpful for a lawyer to have an input into the charging process, this wholesale takeover by the CPS is leading to delay and inefficiency. We all deserve better.