Facing up to charges

James Morton looks at plans to stop hopeless cases coming to court by giving the crown prosecution service an interviewing role - if the police can catch the crooks at all, that is

The news that there has been an improvement in the conviction rate in pilot schemes since the Crown Prosecution Service took over the task of framing charges is no great surprise.

Indeed, it would be pretty dreadful if there had not been an improvement.

There really is a serious argument that all charging should be in the hands of the CPS.

When, admittedly a few years ago, I did a certain amount of agency work for the CPS, charges had frequently been laid which had, on the evidence available, no possible chance of success.

Given the time which now elapses between arrest and charge - weeks, months and sometimes in excess of a year - there really can be no reason why the proper charges cannot be laid immediately and amended only in exceptional circumstances.

However, if the scheme is extended, its success will depend on the relationship between different levels of seniority at both the CPS and the police, when decisions about charging are being made.

It will take a strong young person to stand up to the demands of an experienced detective sergeant - let alone a chief inspector - who is convinced of the force of his case.

The suggestion that the CPS should be interviewing witnesses and so ferreting out unreliable ones is a completely different game.

Would lawyers be any better at rooting out bad witnesses and spotting good ones - especially if the latter have not made convincing written statements to the police?

In theory, the lawyer's trained legal eye should help - but then so should that of a trained police officer.

One difficulty is that police officers tend to see things in black and white.

Too often they will stick by their witnesses and theories at all costs until the case goes belly-up.

It is to be hoped that CPS lawyers will take a more Olympian view of things but, in major cases, when the pressure is on, perhaps they will not.

Indeed who is actually going to interview these witnesses? Presumably, if the idea takes off then for the moment it will only be applicable in major trials, so there would not be much point in junior staff being involved.

Are the senior staff going to have the time? In any event, will they have ever interviewed a witness in a serious case before? They will have to be trained, probably by the police.

Will they have the time or the judgement to make decisions police officers cannot make?

Then there is the question of coaching.

Of course there is a certain amount of witness 'improvement' in any case.

Advice along the lines of modest attire rather than, 'Blair for Pres' sweatshirts.

'Speak up'.

'If you don't understand a question, say so'.

There is certainly little harm in that.

But it is to be feared that outright coaching might result in the witness saying: 'That's what the CPS told me to say'.

Over the years I have often suspected the police of doing a little informal coaching but I never had a case where that was the denouement and nor have I even heard of that happening.

It could be avoided if all interviews with the CPS were taped, but there is no certainty that witnesses would not object.

Will the lawyer really do better than the police officer? He is going to have to wear kid gloves.

The prosecution is not going to risk alienating its star witness by a full-scale cross-examination before giving evidence.

And what are the witnesses going to think about being hauled in for a second or third going over? There's enough problem in getting them to court in the first place.

They won't take kindly to what amounts to a beauty parade.

Again, as Lord Chesterfield said, in wholly different circumstances, the expense would be damnable.

But does all this matter if the useless cases are weeded out? The reality is that it would probably not happen.

It will still only be in court when the wheels come off.

There must be other and better ways of upping the conviction rate.

Here are a couple of stories that cast an anecdotal light on the modern attitude of the police towards crime in rural areas and in the cities.

I'm not quite sure how they should be interpreted.

A friend of mine, living a mile from the nearest country town where, incidentally, there is a police station, heard a crash one morning last week and, when he went to investigate, he found a man trying to break into the kitchen window with a spade.

Words were exchanged and the man made off.

My friend dialled 999.

Yes, there were two patrol cars in the area and one would be sent.

It turned up 45 minutes later.

Curiously, the same day another friend who disturbed a burglar at 3am at his inner London flat was still waiting for a visit from the police at midday.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist