49 Chambers

01746 761545 Civil * Criminal * Employment * Family * Professional Negligence

Why I’m voting yes to No Returns

When I moved my family from our council flat in Peckham (in a southern city now known as ‘Moscow-on-Thames’) to the relative housing sanity of the Midlands at the turn of the century, legal aid remuneration was considerably better than it is now. Even basic agency rates in 2000 eclipsed those currently offered by the CPS.

 

I set up on my own after enduring practice with an HoC who habitually rolled into Court with three pilot cases full of PCMH’s, leaving rent fodder (as I then was) with the odd probation breach. Ten years later, I still enjoy freedom from the rents and constraints of most conventional Chambers. With a common law practice incorporating Public Access work, I readily admit to being not so vulnerable to the effects of the cuts. That does not mean I am in favour of the terrible destruction of the criminal justice system by, of all people, the Ministry of Justice.

 

 

The following years brought no increases in AGFS, just cuts from the government. The criminal Bar were extremely restrained. Indeed, when we did summon up the courage to undertake limited industrial action, in 2005, it was over even before it began to take effect, our Circuit Leader of the time announcing to the press, without any ballot: ‘We have made our point and have returned to work.’

 

In 2014, the present cuts mask a wholesale attack on the criminal justice system.

The Law Society rolled over meekly, much to the fury of many small firms whose profit margins will disappear under the burden of 17.5% cuts.

The only route to survival for those firms will be to do Crown Court work in-house, leaving even less for the criminal Bar. That is so even if we leave the current ‘deal’ in place and cuts to AGFS (VHCC aside) staved off for another year.

 

We were told that this ‘deal’ was only open to the CBA for two days, leaving no time for consultation in the form of a ballot. I openly criticised (@carnybull) Circuit Leaders for agreeing without consulting the membership, feeling that the ‘deal’ took the impetus away from our successful action. Yet it now emerges (via Simon Csoka QC) that the Bar Council were seemingly in negotiations over the ‘deal’ for a couple of weeks before it was presented as a fait accompli.

 

In other words:

 

(i)            the Bar Council said nothing to its members about preliminary negotiations, even as it was announced that the ‘deal’ was done; and

(ii)          there was time for a ballot before anyone agreed to the ‘deal’; and

(iii)         if the successful ‘No Returns’ action was not suspended, there was more pressure on the MoJ to adopt a less unilateral position during a ballot; and

(iv)         ‘No Returns’ combined with the actions of LCCSA and CLSA members, as they failed to apply for rep orders for the Crown Court, would rapidly bring the MoJ to their knees.

 

We are not in this for greed. We took action for a noble cause and that aim remains true.

Rejecting the ‘deal’ and reinstating No Returns gives us – and the small and medium-sized solicitors most us depend upon – a fighting chance of defeating the cuts. Yes, there is a chance that Grayling will bring cuts forward and reconsider OCOF. But he can do little if the criminal Bar and solicitors maintain industrial action which rapidly brings the Courts to a halt.

 

To those who say juniors have suffered enough over No Returns, I ask you to remember how effective the strategy proved over just 3 weeks, compared to the year of the Miners’ Strike.

 

We are not going to suffer anything like the Miners. It is not too much of a sacrifice to continue No Returns and just as, if not more, risky to live with the ‘deal’. We have a chance to fight or to lose anyway; as otherwise dual contracts force solicitors to move further into Crown Court work.

 

After all, what is the use of a stay of execution if it means you can’t eat enough to survive?

 

That’s why I’m voting YES.

 

Alistair Mitchell

49 Chambers

Bridgnorth

Advertisements

Pre-Recorded Judging?

The retired Lord Chief Justice the Lord Judge spoke out in his recent lecture “The Evidence of Child Victims: the Next Stage” (Bar Council Annual Law Reform Lecture
 21st November 2013) in favour of the pre-recorded out-of-court cross-examination of child witnesses. This will, apparently, relieve the tension inherent in the courtroom and put a young witness at ease.

Lord Judge urged that:

Our long term ambition must be that not one single one of those lives will be distorted by the forensic process, and that the impact on them of the unhappy events of which they speak will not be exacerbated by the process.”

In an ideal world, plans for out-of-court cross-examination would be unobjectionable. However, there are a number of obstacles.

From a purely mercenary point of view, nowhere does Lord Judge suggest any changes to the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme, as a defence advocate undertakes work, formerly integral within the trial process, in a pre-trial environment perhaps subject to a later, pre-trial CPS decision not to prosecute. Never mind, no doubt the MoJ can overcome that difficulty with another revision to the AGFS and, given their current predilection for costs savings, another reduction in fees.

According to Lord Judge, the new world of pre-recorded cross-examination will allow:

better pre-trial decision making by both sides, in other words, the prosecutorial decision whether to proceed, and the plea to be offered by the defendant are both better informed.

Moreover, it will produce:

a trial taking place months after the evidence of the main witness for the prosecution will have been completed.”

Perhaps of more concern to the interests of justice is Lord Judge’s failure to address fundamental problems thrown up by pre-recorded cross-examination.

The prosecution is entitled to an opening speech outlining the evidence they propose to call as a benchmark for the jury and defence.     If the pre-recording of cross-examination takes place, the prosecution opening will assume more of the character of a closing speech, given the advantage of assessing the impact of defence cross-examination beforehand.

This cross-examination will take place in an environment far removed from the courtroom, perhaps in a comfortable witness suite. Presumably, no prosecutor would be present, just as no defence representative would be present during an initial police witness video interview. How, one wonders, does a court deal with a defence advocate transgressing against the rules of cross-examination, or riding roughshod over the pleas of an intermediary to put questions in a format readily understood by the witness?

Lord Judge said that:

I recognise that the judge must be in charge of the process.”

So how is a judge to control unnecessary, perhaps psychologically damaging, cross-examination without being physically present during the recording?

Ordinarily, the prosecution could object or the trial judge would intervene to prevent oppressive, prolix or irrelevant questions. Yet in this brave new pre-recorded world, barring any agreement to edit the DVD, there will have to be an argument before the trial judge, followed by any necessary editing. Even then, the witness may have already been damaged or discouraged from further participation by unethical questioning.

The recent slew of ‘grooming’ cases posed serious questions on ‘repeat’ cross-examination of young witnesses in a multi-handed trial. The difficulty with outlawing repeated cross-examination by defence advocates is that if co-defendants run ‘cut throat’ defences (i.e. A was outside the room but B did the act – and vice versa) then it is surely not be in the interests of justice to allow A to cross-examine on the facts, whilst simultaneously preventing B advancing their defence?

Yet if these out-of-court cross-examination proposals go ahead, there will be no judicial control of questioning by the defence advocates and even less protection for these witnesses by judges from needless repetitiveness than the system currently affords.

Will the same advocates be available, months after all this recording? Will the prosecution (if available after the defence cross-examination) have the chance to re-examine their witness on DVD, or does that have to wait for the trial?

With rape trials frequently listed only in a warned list, trials will be un-returnable if no defence advocate will accept a brief including the labour of another in cross-examination. In consequence, trial delays will be exacerbated.

When the trial does begin, months after all this pre-recording, how long will the court sit without the jury to hear argument on the DVD’s and transcripts of the witnesses from both sides? How long for any necessary editing thereafter?

Whilst one criticises unventilated issues, it cannot be said that Lord Judge’s speech was all in favour of measures to assist only prosecution witnesses. He specifically mentioned the difficulties faced by child defendants:

I do not see why the processes which protect the child witness or victim should not be available to the child defendant. To my mind it is not just a question of equality of arms, it is simply that the defendant who is a child is a child like the complainant who is a child.”

If a child defendant is to be treated in the same way as another young witness, Lord Judge’s espousal of the merits of pre-recorded testimony should surely extend to such defendants? However, the time for a defendant to consider whether to give evidence is at the close of the prosecution case. If the defendant then pre-records their evidence and the prosecution cross-examine, the defence may then want to re-examine. Thus further delays will occur, whilst jurors sit idle, awaiting the recording and subsequent legal argument to finish – before taking even more court time to view the DVD’s.

Pre-recorded testimony represents a laudable aim, fully in keeping with the former DPP’s frequent press releases on vulnerable witnesses, but a closer examination of Lord Judge’s proposals reveals a yawning chasm between theory and practice. One ventures to suggest that you do not have to be Gypsy Rose Lee – let alone a Queen’s Bench Division Justice – to foretell the inevitable pitfalls.

Alistair Mitchell                     49 Chambers

24 November 2013              Bridgnorth

 

CPS refuse to disclose ‘Tick and Star’ documents

As long ago as 14 March 2013, I sent a Request under section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to the CPS asking for documents relating to their ‘Tick and Star’ policy. This first came to light following a leaked e-mail in which staff serving Isleworth Crown Court were advised to mark briefs with either a tick or a star, denoting whether they were expected to produce guilty pleas or were complex or difficult matters. The guidance recommended sending the latter type to the independent Bar.

The DPP wrote to re-assure the Chair of the Bar Council that he had no evidence that the practice at Isleworth was anything other than localised.

Today, way beyond the statutory time for a response and over four months on since the Request, the CPS refused to disclose documents relating to the ‘Tick and Star’ policy. They cited s.36(2)(c) FOIA 2000, on the grounds that disclosure would interfere with the proper administration of public affairs, as there was an ongoing ‘review’ and staff would not participate openly if they knew their input [on these public affairs]  would not be kept ‘private’. After I sent a previous FOIA Request, the DPP did not rely on s.36(2)(c) to prevent  disclosure of staff e-mails over Agency policy in the West Midlands.  Starmer told the Bar Council on 24.04.13 that ‘Tick and Star’ guidance  was issued only in the London North Area. Despite this knowledge, the CPS now say disclosure will ‘prejudice the whole process of establishing the CPS position with regard to the allocation of  case files’.

So why is Keir Starmer Q.C. so coy about ‘Tick and Star’ material before he leaves in September? I only asked for documents – not a round-robin discussion!  Just what have they got to hide?

For the CPS s.17 FOIA 2000 refusal click here: Mitchell 3887 s17 notice

For my response in a complaint today to the Information Commissioner’s Office click here: ICO  Watch this space…

Post Navigation