A row has broken out between criminal law barristers and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over new in-house arrangements for Crown Court work, with the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) accusing CPS lawyers of cherry-picking the best cases.

The dispute emerged in light of a CPS pilot that has seen Crown prosecutors in Hampshire and Hertfordshire take on both non-contentious and trial work in the Crown Courts. This is likely to be rolled out nationally if it proves successful, with Avon and Somerset next on the list.


But criminal law barristers said there were problems with some non-contentious cases being taken back by CPS lawyers to handle the plea and directions hearing, leaving barristers left in the lurch over fees for work already done when the files are not returned.


'We have received extremely worrying reports from the areas where this scheme is being piloted,' wrote Andrew Hall QC, chairman of the bar remuneration committee, and CBA chairman David Spens QC in a joint letter to all criminal barristers. 'There is strong evidence of the cherry-picking of work by CPS advocates.'


He insisted the bar offered sufficient flexibility and coverage, and could compete with both salaried prosecutors and employed defenders.


But the CPS refuted the allegations, and said it would continue in its drive to take on advocacy at all levels at the court process. CPS advocacy strategy programme manager Angela Deal argued that in-house prosecutors are more prepared and familiar with internal systems and processes to make key decisions on non-contentious work. 'This is not cherry-picking,' she insisted. 'This is making sensible and prudent use of limited resources with which we are entrusted to deliver an effective public prosecution service.'


Kris Venkatasami, convenor for prosecutors' union the First Division Association, also argued that the bar's claims were unfounded and based on a fear that prosecutors would step on their toes and steal their work.


'Tough luck,' he said. 'It's a free market and it seems that the bar wants to get involved - but if they want to compete against us, then they will have to do better.'


See Editorial