Following a National Audit Office Report in December 1999 which identified that over £41 million a year was wasted on ineffective hearings in the magistrates courts the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) called for improved co-operation and joint management amongst the agencies involved to address this problem.
In response to the PAC and following consultation with CPS a proposed JPM scheme was developed. This was endorsed by national TIG and by the Reducing Delays and JPM sub groups. Nine pilot areas in Cumbria, Durham, Dyfed Powys, Hampshire and the IOW, Northumbria, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Surrey and the West Midlands agreed to participate in the scheme. The pilot ran for 3 months from 2nd April 2001 to 29th June 2001.
Feedback from the pilot sites was obtained from questionnaires and visits to each area.
The main recommendations in this report for changes to the scheme are as follows:
Reduce number of reasons recorded by scheme from 32 to 20 for cracked and ineffective trials and from 15 to 11 for vacated trials. (pages 9-14)
Condense in court logging form from 2 pages to 1 page ( pages 8,9 Annex C)
Separate vacated trials from cracked and ineffective trials so that scheme concentrates on in court trials (pages 14,15 )
Reduce Spreadsheet file so that it can be electronically transmitted (page 15)
Improve presentation of data (pages 6, Annex I)
The general consensus was that subject to the above amendments the scheme was worthwhile and would provide the data which would help CJS partners work together to resolve the problem of the high level of cracked and ineffective trials in the magistrates courts.
The JPM Strategy group is requested to approve the scheme for national rollout in January 2002.
In their December 1999 report "Criminal Justice Working Together", the NAO identified that over £41 million a year was wasted on ineffective hearings in the magistrates courts. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) picked this up in their examination of the Permanent Secretaries of the Lord Chancellors Department and Home Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions and called for improved co-operation and joint management amongst the agencies involved to address the problem.
In the response to the PAC, ministers indicated that a scheme for monitoring the reasons for cracked and ineffective trials was under consideration for introduction from April 2001.
Following consultation with CPS a proposed JPM scheme was developed. This was endorsed by the national Trials Issues Group (TIG) and both its Reducing Delays and Joint Performance Management sub groups. Nine pilot areas agreed to participate in the scheme. These were Cumbria, Durham, Dyfed Powys, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Northumbria, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Surrey and the West Midlands.
The pilot ran for a period of 3 months from 2nd April 2001 to 29th June 2001. Most of the pilot sites are continuing with the scheme now that initial problems have been overcome and staff have become familiar with the forms spreadsheet and reports.
The following definitions were used throughout this scheme:
Cracked Trial - On the trial date, the defendant offers acceptable pleas or the prosecution offers no evidence. A cracked trial requires no further trial time. For the purposes of this analysis a Newton Hearing (trial of an issue) is counted as a trial
Ineffective Trial - On the trial date expected progress is not made due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court and a further listing for trial is required. For the purposes of this analysis, a Newton Hearing (trial of an issue) is counted as a trial.
Vacated Trial - Prior to the trial date, a request to vacate the trial date is granted. A further listing for trial may or may not be required and the court time vacated may or may not be filled with other case(s). For the purposes of this analysis, a Newton Hearing (trial of an issue) is counted as a trial.
The pilot sites were issued with joint Lord Chancellor's Department/Crown Prosecution guidance and the following documents and analysis tools;
Form CITM1 - for in court logging of incidences of cracked and ineffective trials
Form CITM 2 (including notes for completion) - A spreadsheet tool for analysis of the volume and reasons for cracked and ineffective trials
Form VT1 - A spreadsheet tool for both logging incidences of vacated trials and subsequent analysis
The proposed JPM scheme piloted by the nine areas relies on the collection and recording of agreed information about the reasons for the wasted hearing at the time of the hearing or point at which the trial is vacated:
Form CITM1 is initiated in court by the legal adviser and endorsed by the CPS (other prosecutor) and the defence representative if they are included in the scheme. The primary cause for failure is recorded before the parties leave court.
The court will collate these forms using the CITM2 spreadsheet for further analysis.
Data from CITM1 forms should be routinely collated by magistrates' court staff on form CITM2 on a daily or weekly basis.
The vacated trials log (form VT1) will be compiled and maintained by the court.
Analysis of the data was completed on a monthly basis and these reports together with copies of the CITM2 forms were to be forwarded to the CPS.
The JPM approach to this scheme would enable trends to be identified when they become apparent, and allow the courts and agencies involved deal with possible reasons for these trends, and any other unusual performance issues, which may have been identified.
Some of the areas, for example Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Hampshire and IOW, involved in the pilots already had a scheme in place for logging cracked and ineffective trials. Involving these in the scheme was beneficial as comparisons could be made with those piloting the scheme without any previous experience.
Before the pilots began a meeting was held on the 26th March in London with representatives from the courts and CPS. A meeting was also held with the Law Society who wrote to all of the pilot areas to encourage the Defence Solicitors involvement in the scheme.
After the initial 3 month pilot period, questionnaires based on the success criteria agreed at the above meeting were sent out to the pilot areas MCC, CPS, local TIG's and the Law Society. The replies from these questionnaires together with discussions held with court and CPS staff during visits I made to each of the pilot areas towards the end of the three months have formed the basis for the evaluation of this scheme.
Data Collection
Cracked Trials
Cracked and Ineffective information required for this scheme is collected in court on form CITM 1 (Annex A ) which is completed by the court clerk. Feedback from court staff in many of the pilot sites was that this form was too complicated and had too many reasons to complete quickly in court. Some of the information had not always been available for completion in court, for example "was the Advocate in court the same as at the PTR?" Another question was difficult to assess; " was use of the time possible?" When these forms were returned to the office, court office staff would then have to check files to find additional information before they could input the form. They found this frustrating and time consuming. Some comments were received that clarification of some of the definitions given for the reasons on the form would be helpful. Additional reasons have been requested from the CPS to increase Prosecution end case which is currently one reason (offer no evidence), to three; prosecution witness absent/withdrawn, insufficient evidence and other, as it was felt that it was important to provide this extra information.
Some court clerks had found difficulty in getting the form completed and signed after the hearing while at the same time preparing for the next case. To rectify this the CPS in one area had made arrangements to check and sign any unsigned forms that the court office received back from court. Comments were received that deciding on the reason was not always straightforward as occasionally two or more could apply (despite this being explained in the guidance). CPS lawyers would normally sign the form for the prosecution but where agents had been used who had not been informed of the scheme, they had been reluctant to sign. Difficulties arose in one area when the CPS was not asked to sign the form by the court clerk. When the CPS had later investigated the problem after receiving copies of the forms CITM1 they found that some cases had been wrongly attributed to CPS action or lack of action. This underlines the importance of agreeing the reason and the signing of the form wherever possible.
The involvement of Defence lawyers varied, some areas reported that many were content to sign the form but in others they weren't.
The feedback from some court clerks had been that this was yet another form to complete and this could get in the way of the smooth running of the court. Overall though, once the scheme had been running for some weeks and staff had got familiar with the form, completion of it had become part of the routine.
It was suggested that modifications should be made to CITM 1 to make it less complicated. This could be achieved by amalgamating some of the less common reasons and by removing some the fields where the information was felt as either not required or difficult to assess.
Vacated Trials
Collection of the vacated trial data did not start well as some pilot sites had overlooked that collection of this information by the listing section with the form VT1 (Annex B) was a requirement of the scheme. Most areas soon rectified this and included this data but others either decided that they did not think that collecting this data was worthwhile at this stage of the scheme or did not manage to capture all the vacated trials in the period.
Most areas had collected this data by the end of the 3 month period. It was however seen as time consuming and some areas expressed the opinion that they did not consider the inclusion of this data worthwhile and therefore not worth the resources taken to collect it. If vacated trial data is not collected or only partially then this will impact on the results and make an area look better as regards effective trials and worse for cracked and ineffective trials than the headline figures suggest (see page 14). This will have implications for any national comparison figures.
A recommendation of this report is that the vacated trials be a separate optional part of this scheme. This scheme will not then capture the overall effectiveness of the listing of cases and why listing is not successful, but will concentrate on those cases that reach court.
Effective Trials
Effective trials were straightforward to record but court clerks did not always complete a form and therefore these could be missed and have an impact on the headline results. Two pilot sites wanted more information on these and had adapted the CITM 1 form to give them this.
Data Input
There were initial problems with the spreadsheet, which required the consultant to produce a revised version. Overall the inputting of the data was not seen as burdensome, some of the busier courts did this weekly but others were able to do this on a monthly basis with the input taking a few hours. One of the pilot sites operated an older version of Excel (95) than the other pilot sites and this had caused problems.
A major problem that arose was that after data had been entered the spreadsheet was often too large to successfully send by e-mail. This involved copying data onto disks and sending them by post which added to the resources required to operate the scheme.
Cumbria had previously used an Access database (this scheme uses Excel) which they considered superior as this was more flexible in the production of different reports for varying time periods. This can be adapted so that it collects the same information so that direct comparisons can be made to the national scheme. User knowledge in other MCC areas would mean that a system based on Access is not a feasible option for a national scheme.
Reports produced by Scheme
The reports (see Annex E) were seen as very useful especially the headline percentages. Comments were mainly favourable but many expressed the view that the report which was currently four pages could be made smaller. This could be achieved by combining some of the reasons and deleting the table which contained the grid of the breakdown of the case type into each reason which was seen as trying to give too much information and that they distracted from the main areas of the report.
The addition of separate data on the number of police witnesses that attended unnecessarily was also requested.
The areas that had already operated a scheme had produced graphs and trend reports to make the data clearer to understand and improve the presentation at meetings. Areas new to a scheme commented that it would be useful to be able present data in this form and that they would like the facility to produce these. Most felt that a national performance table would be worthwhile.
The production of the reports was straightforward but some areas reported that they didn't have the resources to then copy the many CITM1 forms to make these available to the CPS, which is a very important part of making this a JPM scheme.
At Annex E is the combined report from all of the 9 TIG areas that took part in the pilot scheme for the 3 month period 2 April to 31 May 2001.
Success as a JPM Scheme
The major benefit, which emerged, was seen as making this a joint CJS partners scheme. Pilot sites have commented that prior to this scheme cracked, ineffective and vacated trials had mainly been seen as just a court problem
All areas reported or saw the potential in the benefits that resulted from meetings to discuss the outputs from the scheme. One commented that huge benefits had already been seen that had resulted in improvements. New groups were set up in some of the pilot areas to discuss the data and in other areas which already had joint performance groups established this was included as an item for regular discussion. All saw the important role that the introduction of this scheme had played in establishing joint ownership of this problem.
The Police became involved in many areas. They could see a benefit from this scheme in helping to reduce the unnecessary attendance of police officers. Their involvement in one area had already led to positive action being taken to reduce the non attendance of police witnesses at cracked and ineffective trials.
The Defence were helpful in some areas and quite willing to assist with the scheme but did not want to sign the form or give comments in others.
As the CDS nominate local representatives for Defence lawyers it was hoped to involve these in future and this should increase their involvement in the scheme.
To operate successfully as a joint scheme the reports must be considered with the forms CITM 1 which contain comments from the court clerk, CPS lawyer and in some instances the Defence lawyer. As the pilot had only been for 3 months some CPS areas had not yet had these copied to them but were keen to receive these. In some instances the courts had considered that the copying of the CITM 1 forms was too resource intensive and had not been able to copy them. This needs to be resolved if the scheme is to run properly. The time taken to copy these forms would be reduced by making the form one page instead of two.
Many comments, in particular from court staff who had to collect and collate the data, was that this scheme was too complex and should be simplified. Feedback and comments about the scheme was sought from questionnaires which were sent out to all the pilot MCC areas, local TIG chairman the Law Society and CPS representatives. During late May and June I visited each of the pilot areas for feedback and attended a local TIG meeting which included a discussion on the scheme.
I have collated the main comments from these questionnaires and visits under the success criteria for the scheme at Annex H. In the following pages I have highlighted the main issues to arise from the pilot sites testing of this scheme and have then put forward suggested proposals to remedy them. The representatives, including the CPS have seen these and although it is difficult to get universal agreement in schemes such as this, this is what I consider to be the general consensus from the pilot sites of how the pilot version of the scheme can be improved. Dealing with Cracked and Ineffective Trials first I have split this into data collection and the reports produced by the scheme. Vacated Trials are dealt with separately as it is my recommendation that these be separated from Cracked and Ineffective Trials.
Data collection
Simplification of the in court collection form (CITM 1) was sought by court staff from many pilot sites. This could be achieved by amalgamating some of the reasons and removing or revising some of the questions. The revisions proposed are as follows.
Removal of the following fields.
Prosecution Advocate at PTR
This question caused some confusion as some areas had completed the advocates name and others had replied just yes .The name was not always available or completed in court and this meant that court staff had to search for this afterwards. Comments were made the scheme would not lose too much without this information and this field could be removed.
Defence Advocate at PTR
The same reasons for deletion of this field as above.
Is the advocate in court the same as at the effective PTR
Again this field was not always completed in court and involved staff in searching for this information before the input of the data could begin. Again it was felt that this field could be removed without any great loss to the value of the overall scheme.
Use of court time possible
This was difficult to assess when filling in the form as if some of the time had been used was that applicable or should all or most of the time have had to be used to answer in the affirmative? This means this data is subject to interpretation and the accuracy of it suspect.
Adding the following fields
Effective Trials
To give the complete picture of all trials in court it was felt that effective trials should be added to the data collection form and how long the trial took recorded.
Pre Trial Review held?
This was proposed so that the effectiveness of Pre Trial reviews could be measured.
Amendment of the Reasons
Feedback from the majority of the pilot sites was that there were too many reasons used in this scheme and that this made the scheme unnecessarily burdensome. As the reasons are reproduced on the CITM 1 form this form was two pages. This caused problems in court as some court clerks forgot to complete the second page that contained the comments box on how the cracked or ineffective trial could be avoided and the signature of the CPS and Defence. Some pilot sites stated that the copying the 2 page forms to other agencies was too resource intensive.
Analysis of the reasons from the 6,213 cases recorded by the pilot sites during the 3 month period shows that for some of the categories very few cases were recorded. This is illustrated in the following tables, which give the totals and the percentages for both cracked trials and ineffective trials for the 9 pilot sites for each of the 32 reasons.
Cracked Trial Reasons
| Total % |
| Late plea change - Prosecution accept guilty plea not previously consideredLate plea change | A | 37.14 |
| Late plea change - Prosecution accept guilty plea previously considered | B | 7.46 |
| Guilty plea on alternative charge -Prosecution accept guilty plea to alternative charge(s) not previously considered | C | 10.64 |
| Guilty plea on alternative charge -Prosecution accept guilty plea to alternative charge(s) previously considered | D | 2.10 |
| Defendant bound over - Prosecution accept defendant being bound over without trial not previously considered | E | 7.69 |
| Defendant bound over - Prosecution accept defendant being bound over without trial previously considered | F | 2.02 |
| Prosecution end case - Prosecution offer no evidence | G | 30.85 |
| Defendant absent - Defendant deceased | H | 1.17 |
| Other - Defendant found unfit to plead | I | 0.93 |
Ineffective Trial Reasons
| Total % |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution failed to attend | J1 | 0.09 |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution failed to disclose unused material | J2 | 1.11 |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution not ready for trial - further preparation needed | J3 | 2.72 |
| Prosecution witness absent - Prosecution witness failed to attend - Police witness | K1 | 6.89 |
| Prosecution witness absent - Prosecution witness failed to attend - Civilian witness | K2 | 16.33 |
| Prosecution witness absent - Prosecution witness failed to attend - Expert witness | K3 | 0.77 |
| Defendant absent - Defendant ill-trial stood out | L1 | 5.27 |
| Defendant absent - Defendant failed to attend | L2 | 16.84 |
| Defendant absent - Defendant not produced from custody | L3 | 2.13 |
| Defence not ready - Prosecution served late evidence - defence not ready | M1 | 1.96 |
| Defence not ready - Defence had received additional evidence but had not considered it | M2 | 0.85 |
| Defence not ready - Defence not ready for trial - further preparation needed | M3 | 6.12 |
| Defence witness absent - Defence witness failed to arrive | N1 | 3.49 |
| Defence witness absent - Defence request attendance of witness not previously warned | N2 | 1.28 |
| Defendant now in custody on other matters | O | 0.85 |
| Right to representation problems - Defendant's legal representative failed to arrive | P1 | 0.60 |
| Right to representation problems - Defendant dismissed legal representative | P2 | 0.17 |
| Lack of court time - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time to start trial | Q1 | 1.45 |
| Lack of court time - Defence increased time estimate - insufficient time to start trial | Q2 | 0.77 |
| Lack of court time - Time estimate correct but insufficient time on the day | Q3 | 9.52 |
| Other reason - No magistrate available | R1 | 0.00 |
| Other reason - No court clerk available | R2 | 0.43 |
| Other (specify in comments box ) | S | 20.41 |
The results from individual pilot sites when analysed and compared to the combined table are generally consistent with the above results and so I would expect this being replicated on a national basis. By removing those reasons that had only a small percentage of the total and combining them into other reason as follows, the overall total of reasons would be reduced making data collection an easier task.
Cracked Trials
Defendant absent -Defendant deceased recorded only 1.17% of cases. Other -Defendant found unfit to plead recorded just 0.93%. These two reasons could be taken out and when they did occur put under a general other category and specified in the comments box. Feedback from the CPS requested further specific categories of Prosecution ends case (30.85%) to be -Witness absent/withdrawn, insufficient evidence and other, so these have been added. This will give 10 cracked trial reasons.
Ineffective Trials
Under the heading Prosecution not ready, the separate reasons Prosecution failed to attend (0.09%) failed to disclose unused material (1.11%) and further preparation needed (2.72%) could be combined. For Prosecution witness absent this should still be split between police and civilian but expert witnesses (0.77%) could be included in the civilian figure. Defence not ready can become a single reason ( 8.93% combined). The two Defence witness absent should be combined (3.49% and 1.28%). The reason Defendant now in custody on other matters recorded only 0.85% and could be deleted as could the two Right to representation problems which only accounted for 0.77%. Again the 3 reasons for lack of court time should be merged into two reasons by combining Prosecution and Defence insufficient time estimate (1.45% and 0.77% ). For Other reason - no magistrate available (0.00 %) and no court clerk available (0.43%), when these reasons occur this could be recorded as other and specified in the comments box.
This would reduce 23 ineffective reasons to 10.
Proposed Reasons
By combining and deleting these ineffective reasons and creating two new cracked reasons (for Prosecution end case -witness absent/withdrawn and insufficient evidence) would give 20 reasons, 10 for cracked trials and 10 for ineffective trials as follows. Some suggestions from users to clarify the wording for the cracked trial reasons have also been incorporated.
Cracked Trials
| Late plea change - guilty plea first time offered (inc original charge) | A |
| Late plea change - guilty plea previously rejected | B |
| Guilty plea on alternative charge - first time offered | C |
| Guilty plea on alternative charge - now accepted previously rejected | D |
| Defendant bound over - first time offered | E |
| Defendant bound over - previously rejected | F |
| Prosecution end case - insufficient evidence | G |
| Prosecution end case - witness absent/withdrawn | H |
| Prosecution end case - other | I |
| Other - specify in comments box | J |
Ineffective Trial Reasons
| Prosecution not ready | K |
| Prosecution witness absent - police | L |
| Prosecution witness absent - other | M |
| Defendant absent - did not attend | N |
| Defendant absent - ill | O |
| Defendant absent - not produced from custody | P |
| Defence not ready | Q |
| Defence witness absent | R |
| Lack of court time | S |
| Other - specify in comments box | T |
Vacated Trials
The pilot scheme contained 15 reasons for vacated trials.65% of these were Prosecution end case by discontinuing prior to the trial date and Other. Another 20% was accounted for by Prosecution Witness absent . The other 12 reasons accounted for only 15%. This would suggest that to simplify the data collection and interpretation of the reports some of these reasons should be amalgamated.
Prosecution not ready failed to attend and failed to disclose unused material recorded only 0.09% and 1.11% and should be left off and recorded under the catchall of Prosecution not- ready further preparation needed. The same applies for Defence not ready received additional evidence (0.85%) and Defence not ready Prosecution served late evidence (1.96%) which should be included with Defence not ready further preparation needed. The two Defence witness absent categories could be combined as Defence request attendance of additional witness not previously warned only recorded 1.28%.
By amalgamating these as above would leave 11 reasons.
The full table of the vacated trial data collected in pilot period is shown below.
| Total % |
| Prosecution end case not ready - Prosecution discontinue case prior to trial date | A | 36.41 |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution failure to disclose unused material | B | 0.55 |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution not ready for trial - further preparation needed | C | 3.28 |
| Prosecution witness absent - Prosecution witness not able to attend trial | D | 19.98 |
| Defendant absent - Defendant ill or deceased | E | 2.19 |
| Defence not ready - Prosecution served late evidence | F | 0.36 |
| Defence not ready - Defence had received additional evidence but had not considered it | G | 0.46 |
| Defence not ready - further preparation needed | H | 3.56 |
| Defence witness absent - Defence witness not able to attend trial | I | 3.19 |
| Defence witness absent - Defence request attendance of additional witness not previously warned | J | 0.36 |
| Right to representation problems - Defendant dismissed legal representative | K | 0.09 |
| Lack of court time - Prosecution request increased time estimate | L | 0 |
| Lack of court time - Defence request increased time estimate | M | 0.36 |
| Lack of court time - Court vacate trial due to anticipated lack of court time | N | 0.46 |
| Other reason | O | 28.56 |
Proposed Vacated Trial Reasons
| Prosecution end case - Prosecution discontinue case prior to trial date | A |
| Prosecution not ready - Prosecution not ready for trial - further preparation needed | B |
| Prosecution witness absent - Prosecution witness not able to attend trial | C |
| Defendant absent - Defendant ill or deceased | D |
| Defence not ready - further preparation needed | E |
| Defence witness absent - Defence witness not able to attend trial | F |
| Right to representation problems - Defendant dismissed legal representative | G |
| Lack of court time - Prosecution request increased time estimate | H |
| Lack of court time - Defence request increased time estimate | I |
| Lack of court time - Court vacate trial due to anticipated lack of court time | J |
| Other ( Specify in comments box) | K |
Form VT1 would be amended to reflect these changes and reports.
The Spreadsheet and Reports for the scheme
As reported in the key findings, it had been felt that the reports would be easier to interpret if they were set out differently and the breakdown of each case type into every reason was felt to drill the data down too far. The spreadsheet presently has a number of macros and over 300 separate calculations which means the file is quite large and this led to the problems of e-mailing this when data has been input. The transfer of this via e-mail is important to the courts trying to collate this information, so changes are needed so that this can be done (most courts do not have the facility to zip files).
The problems of the collection of Vacated trial data have been highlighted in the Key Findings, how this wasn't reliably collected and the impact this can have on the results.
This is illustrated by results from two pilot sites reproduced below.
Area A
| No of cases |
| Cracked | 32% | 79 |
| Ineffective | 28% | 68 |
| Vacated | 31% | 76 |
| Effective | 9% | 22 |
Area B
| No of cases |
| Cracked | 46% | 58 |
| Ineffective | 42% | 53 |
| Vacated | 2% | 2 |
| Effective | 10% | 13 |
A higher figure is better for effective trials and lower figure better for cracked and ineffective trials.
Because Area B had not collected Vacated Trial data fully it has worse Cracked and Ineffective results and a better Effective result than should be the case. When any national comparisons are made the results would be misleading.
It is therefore recommended that Vacated Trials be removed from the spreadsheet and reports leaving Cracked, Ineffective and Effective Trials and that Vacated Trials be offered as a separate data collection and reports package (see Annex G). This scheme would then focus on what happened on the day that a trial is listed in court.
The revised reports (see Annex F) would reflect the reduced reasons and provide just the headline totals for case and Defendant type. Extra information would be provided in regard to witnesses differentiating between police and civilian witnesses.
By making these changes the spreadsheet should be e-mailable in its reduced format.
Presentation of Data
The ability to present data in graph and table form was requested by a number of pilot sites. It is a straightforward matter to produce tables and graphs from the data produced by the reports. Examples from the national figures are shown at Annex I. Instructions on how to produce these could be supplied as part of the package for any national rollout.
When enough areas have the scheme operational this data could be provided centrally to the Lord Chancellor's Department who could produce a 6 monthly national comparison table.
| Issue | Solution |
| CITM 1 Form too complicated and on two pages | Using data collected from pilot sites reduce
number of the reasons (mainly Ineffective) to 20 instead of 32. Produce on one page to reduce copying and offer in portrait and landscape. |
| Spreadsheet Too large to e-mail Some reports too complex and not used. More information required in some areas. | Reduce size by removing vacated trials (to separate spreadsheet). Remove breakdown reports on type of case/defendant. Add extra information on witnesses who attended unnecessarily and PTR's. |
| Collection of data | Ensure court staff including court clerks are properly trained. Ensuring CPS including agents and Defence lawyers are aware of scheme and of no blame culture. Separate vacated data collection and input. |
| Presentation of data | LCD to supply guidance that courts could use to produce graphs and trend reports. MCC's to supply data centrally for national comparison table. |
Overall the feedback from the pilot areas is that subject to some modifications this scheme is worthwhile and would provide the data which would help CJS partners work together to resolve the problem of the high level of cracked and ineffective trials which currently occur in many of the Magistrates' Courts. The major benefit is seen to be the involvement of the other agencies. Many of the pilot sites commented that before the introduction of this joint scheme cracked and ineffective trials were seen as a court only problem. The bringing together of agencies and the positive feedback on the success of these meetings has been very encouraging and this provides justification for the resources and time spent in collecting and analysing this data.
However to successfully achieve the introduction of this scheme on a national basis better training for all staff involved in the scheme must be provided. In some of the pilot sites I felt that some staff had not received enough training and this together with problems with the spreadsheet may have led to some initial negative reaction . These were generally overcome when staff got used to the data collection and the spreadsheet was amended.
Subject to the above modifications being made and tested, the JPM Strategy Group is requested to endorse the scheme and recommend to the Trials Issues Group the national rollout in January 2002.
Having a national scheme in place should help address some of the criticisms highlighted by the National Audit report and taken up by the Public Accounts Committee.
Further copies of this report and its appendices can be obtained from Alan Hutchings at the following address:
Alan Hutchings
Lord Chancellor's Department
Magistrates Courts Division
Fourth Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QW
Telephone: 020 7210 8758
or by email from: Alan.Hutchings@dca.gsi.gov.uk