John Edwards (see [2004] Gazette, 20 May, 15) is correct in his analysis of one of the probable effects of the proposal to increase the scope of work undertaken by lay staff in magistrates' courts.

It is not so long ago that this firm applied to the local magistrates' court for permission to use a trainee within two months of qualification for low-grade advocacy. Despite the trainee having many years of experience instructing and observing counsel in court at all levels, our request was rejected out of hand.


It makes no sense to have experienced advocates involved in charging in police stations while unqualified advocates work in the courts. As the system now operates, the solicitors in the police stations know nothing other than what they are told by the investigating officer, yet the CPS takes the view that the decision made at the police station will not be subject to review. This means that even experienced prosecutors in court are reluctant to negotiate a plea, no matter what further evidence has been obtained since the police station interview. Clearly, if the CPS will not negotiate during the pre-trial procedure, cases will be listed for trial and even more time and money will be wasted.


What the CPS needs is experienced, independently minded, properly qualified lawyers who understand how the trial process works, both in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Courts, and who have freedom to exercise initiative and discretion, at whatever stage that is required, to ensure that only suitable cases are prosecuted and that those cases are prosecuted to a successful conclusion.


As long as the criminal justice system is managed by people with no respect for either the integrity of the criminal justice system or for the professions who work in the system things will continue to deteriorate.


John Gardiner, Rothera Dowson, Nottingham