Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

In making some observations on the government amendments put forward by the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General, I shall oppose the Question that Clause 105 stand part of the Bill, in which I am supported by other noble Lords. Listening to the noble and learned Baroness, I was to some extent relieved by the steps that have been taken. A lot of work has been done in a short time, but I retain some concerns and it is important that I express them. The use of non-legal advocates to prosecute in contested cases is an extension of the current rights of non-legal Crown Prosecution Service staff. It is helpful, and I am extremely grateful to the Minister and the Attorney-General, to have been kept in touch with the nature of all these proposals and, in particular, that it is not intended that non-legal Crown Prosecution Service staff would prosecute in cases that could lead to imprisonment. That takes the position a long way. But it is important to remember that even in cases in which someone will not go to prison, there is a stigma in a conviction and it is extremely important that those who prosecute should do that to a standard equivalent to those who are legally trained either as barristers or solicitors. There are criticisms, I have to say, and I have been told about them—some of them very recently—in relation to the way in which some non-legally qualified Crown Prosecution Service staff carry out their work. I understand that although the National Audit Office expressed the view that the Magistrates’ Association was satisfied with the way in which the non-legal Crown Prosecution staff conducted the cases, that is not the view of many members of the Magistrates’ Association. They are not, as I understand it, very satisfied: I am told that the Magistrates’ Association shares the Bar Council’s assessment that the proposal to extend the DCWs’ powers is all about cost-cutting. They are concerned that poorly prosecuted cases lead to longer and more expensive trials—and, of course, more expensive appeals and increased court and knock-on costs. I understand that the Magistrates’ Association gave a briefing paper to Peers in January, in which it said that it was opposed to this clause. It is also perhaps of some interest that the Bar Standards Board, a new organisation, has a consumer panel that has been in touch with the Bar Council. It comments: "““The panel recognised the value of an independent ““second look”” at prosecutions by a lawyer before they proceed, rather than cases remaining wholly with a case officer who has undertaken the preparatory work. There is felt to be always the danger that, if a case worker has sole ““end to end”” involvement, ""they could develop a personal stake in the outcome and would also miss out on that independent review, provided by a lawyer, to assess the strength of the evidence. … The panel would not want to see speed of outcome outweighing the quality of outcome.""Given the importance we give to the fairness of the processes, and the quality of the work, the Panel did support the public interest concerns raised by the Bar Council””." I felt it only appropriate to make those points on behalf of that board’s consumer panel. Therefore the Magistrates’ Association, the Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board’s consumer panel are concerned. It seems to me to be, among other things, a matter of training and three sorts of training may be required: training in how to be an advocate as a prosecutor; training in important issues of conduct such as the pre-eminence of the duty to the court, and other matters of great importance; and the importance of the line manager. I express my concern that a Crown Prosecution Service employee who says that a prosecution should not proceed because it is inadequate, or that something is wrong with it will have to face the line manager to explain why that prosecution did not continue. So line managers will have to be trained—they may not be lawyers, but it will have to be explained to them that there is a duty on the prosecution not to proceed if the case should not go forward. I am comforted by the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General in that the ILEX code of conduct and that of advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service are now being seriously considered with a view to harmonising them, as I think the noble and learned Baroness said, with the rules and practice of conduct of the Bar and of solicitors. If we are to have non-legal Crown Prosecution staff conducting contested trials, it is clearly be important that they should be subject to the identical rules that apply to anyone else who is prosecuting. That, again, becomes a question of training. I remain concerned. Many of my concerns have been relieved to some extent, but I should like to see one particular thing in the Bill. I have had discussions with the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General, who tells me that it is unlikely to be included, but I am concerned that the Bill does not provide that Crown Prosecution Service staff who are not legally qualified would not be engaged in prosecutions which potentially lead to imprisonment. I should very much like to see that in the Bill. However, I am comforted by the fact that I was given the current codes of conduct for both ILEX advocates and Crown Prosecution Service advocates, and I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for these. They are infinitely better than I thought they would be but they could be improved.