Criticism of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) during the reign of director of public prosecutions Barbara Mills QC has been relentless.

Its effect has arguably been to give the impression of an organisation ill at ease with itself, struggling to rescue some of the sense of purpose with which it was formed a decade ago.This year has the makings of yet another annus horribilis.

So far, the main lawyers' union has issued a strike threat over loss of confidence in the management; former prosecutors have regularly condemned the service in the national and trade press; and criminal lawyers have continued to worry over the future of private agents.Few parts of the service have been left untouched by its detractors.

They claim that the management is dictatorial and dogmatic.

An ethos of corporate loyalty prevails, sapping the independence of mind that the lawyers believe is so essential.

One former senior prosecutor said: 'People are petrified of talking against the changes to the CPS because of the repercussions to them if they step out of line.'The detractors also charge that the CPS has become over-centralised and has a hidden agenda of gradually replacing lawyers with obedient, non-qualified case workers.

The only newly qualified lawyers it recruits are those who worked for the CPS before becoming trainees, they claim.CPS members of the legal section of the First Division Association (FDA) of civil servants, which represents some 1300 of the more than 2000 lawyers, passed a motion in April to reflect 'the overwhelming view of the membership that they are no longer able properly to serve the interests of justice'.

In October they will hold a national forum on the state of the CPS and have commissioned a poll of their members.DPP Barbara Mills is unrepentant.

In an interview with the Gazette last week, she strenuously defended her record of structural reforms and the reputation of the CPS.

To her, the critics are an unrepresentative clique of doomsayers who unaccountably deny the benefits that her changes have brought to the working of the criminal justice system and to the public.Her regular visits to the 99 CPS branches around the country provide proof that all is well, Mrs Mills says.

She agrees that in an organisation with some 7000 staff there will be the occasional person who is unhappy with the way things are going.

But the idea that people are afraid to speak out is 'absolute nonsense'.Some complaints disappear once reforms bed in, she says.

For example, views she has received on 'team working' -- the new practice of placing lawyers, case workers and administrative staff in units -- have changed since the policy has been implemented.

'I've met many people who initially were very anxious about it but are now happy with it and think it's a much better method of working,' she says.Mrs Mills dismisses on both counts the critics' suspicions that she is trying to 'de-lawyer' the service in order to achieve a more dependent, compliant body of staff.

'I can immediately stamp on that idea,' she says.

'I want independence of mind.

I've been brought up all my life with independence of mind and that's what we encourage.'As for there being a hidden agenda of 'de-lawyering', which newspaper articles claimed recently, citing leaked documents, Mrs Mills believes a misunderst anding has arisen.At its heart is the case officers training scheme (COTS), which the critics have portrayed as a backdoor attempt to train case officers to replace CPS lawyers.Mrs Mills insists that this is an entirely benign attempt to provide back-up for the lawyers and to improve their efficiency, rather than to reduce their status or their role.

For example, solicitors' firms use paralegals for exactly this work, she says.

'But the advocacy, the review, all that sort of thing, must be done by lawyers.

And there's no way that I am trying to diminish their numbers.' She also dismisses the charge that only 'home-grown' CPS trainees are taken on as staff as 'simply not true'.On the FDA's no-confidence motion, Mrs Mills is conciliatory, yet quick to point out that the union is just one of three representing CPS staff.

She admits there have been 'some difficulties', but claims 'excellent relationships' with all the unions.

Against tight budgetary constraints, she maintains she has 'put in a lot of effort' to improve working conditions, premises and equal opportunities.Criminal lawyers have complained that the use of agents by the CPS has declined and in some areas is in danger of falling below the 5% to 10% threshold which they believe was assured during parliamentary debates when the CPS was being set up.Mrs Mills will not commit to this minimum being maintained in individual areas, but says: 'If you ask are we ever going to manage without agents, the answer is no.' She would be surprised if the national annual average of agents used varies more than a couple of points either side of the current 10% figure.She is frustrated that one of her first reforms, to reduce the number of CPS areas from 31 to 13, is viewed as a centralising move.

This is a 'complete misunderstanding', she says.

Key powers have been devolved to the branches and these have become 'local delivery points'.

She believes the policy has brought the service closer to the police, not taken it further away, as critics -- including the Labour Party -- claim.'The local contact points are the branches, so in a sense it is a better unit.

The police usually break down into divisions, which now align with the branches.

It really is working incredibly well,' she says.Mrs Mills finds it hard to understand why others cannot see what is self-evident to her.

What they see as centralisation, she is convinced is actually devolution.

While others read 'de-lawyering' into a scheme to train case workers, she sees only a method of improving the working lives of overburdened lawyers.

The great gap between these and other perceptions is an indication of how far the two sides remain from achieving consensus.1996