Your news item headlined ‘Pushing novice advocates into court "harming justice"’ reported a number of comments made by the chairman of the criminal bar, Peter Lodder QC, in evidence to the Justice Committee (see [2009] Gazette, 12 February, 3).

While we welcome Mr Lodder’s recognition of the invigorating benefits of promoting in-house advocacy, your article repeated a number of observations he had made about a target-driven approach for using in-house advocates, and his concern that inappropriate pleas were likely to be accepted.

Despite the personal views expressed by the witnesses before the Justice Committee, the Crown Prosecution Service is not aware of any substantiated evidence to suggest that there has been either a general fall in the quality of justice being administered as a result of increased in-house advocacy, or any widespread inappropriate acceptance of lesser pleas by our Crown Advocates. In fact the opposite is the case.

Our data show that the conviction rate in the Crown Court has improved year on year since the Advocacy Strategy was adopted, and our increasing deployment of associate prosecutors in the magistrates’ courts has released lawyer time to deal with other responsibilities, including case preparation. In addition, any decision by our advocates to accept a plea to a lesser offence is the subject of a number of controls which ensure that such decisions are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Angela Deal, Head of CPS Advocacy Strategy, London