The Suspension of Senior prosecutor and Bar Council member, Neil Addison, from his post with the Crown Prosecution Service has sparked high-level outrage.

One senior government lawyer has written to the director of public prosecutions and the Attorney-General in protest at Mr Addison's treatment.Although the service refused to comment on the reasons for the suspension, it is believed Mr Addison had fallen foul of the civil service code of practice which lays down strict guidelines on speaking to, or writing in, the press.

Last week Mr Addison wrote an article in The Times on the prospect of privatising the CPS.A CPS spokesman confirmed this week that Mr Addison, 41, had been suspended from his post in Newcastle by the head of personnel in London, Barry Hancock.

Mr Addison is on full pay while awaiting disciplinary proceedings.No date has been fixed for what could be either a written or, if requested, oral hearing.

This week, Mr Addison said he would fight strongly any charges brought under a disciplinary proceeding.

'I have not breached the civil service code.

I have done nothing wrong,' he said.The incident has thrown a harsh light on the internal workings of the CPS.

One former member of the service, who wished not to be identified, described a climate of fear pervading the CPS.

Mr Addison's suspension, said the lawyer, was just one manifestation of a far wider malaise that had reduced general morale to rock bottom level.After he had been suspended, it emerged that the CPS hierarchy in London had given Mr Addison an ultimatum regarding his contacts with the media.They instructed Mr Addison to refer all media queries to the CPS press office.

He was explicitly told to withdraw the Times article.

And it is also believed that Mr Addison was asked to try to quash an article which appeared in the Gazette three weeks ago (see [1994] Gazette, 26 October, 9) and a BBC interview.Indeed, the newspaper maintained that the CPS press office contacted its journalists before the article appeared, claiming that it contained 'material inaccuracies'.

But, said The Times, the service declined an offer to correct the article.Officially, commentators were reluctant to enter into a dispute between a government department and one of its civil servants.

A Bar Council spokesman, for example, described the situation as 'a matter for Mr Addison and his employer'.One high-ranking lawyer prepared to go on the record was Charles Blake, the First Division Association convenor for the Government Legal Services and head of litigation at the Department of Social Security.

In addition to writing to Barbara Mills QC and Attorney-General Sir Nicholas Lyell QC, Mr Blake issued a strong public condemnation of the CPS' action.'It shows very poor judgment on the part of the CPS leadership,' he said.

'You do not win people's trust by bullying them.' Mr Blake said he was convinced that Mr Addison's actions did not breach the civil service codes.Privately at the Bar, there was considerable sympathy for Mr Addison, despite his stormy relations with other council members.

One source close to the council said many of Mr Addison's colleagues believed he had been unfairly treated for simply voicing his opinions.The former CPS lawyer described a service now governed by a dictatorial style that cows staff into 'toeing the line'.

The CPS operates under an edict referred to as 'corporate loyalty', he said, which effectively means that 'if you speak to anyone you will be shot'.Mr Addison, he said, was simply expressing views that are widely held throughout the service.

'Corporate loyalty breeds nothing but a group of sycophants and yes-men at the top,' said the former prosecutor.Within the service, however, there was some support for Mr Addison's suspension.

Rod Chapman, the FDA section convenor for the CPS, said the code of conduct clearly states that civil servants should not comment on political matters and that anything they do write or say should be cleared by the appropriate press office.Mr Addison firmly believes that he did not breach the code of conduct because his Times article did not comment on the merits of CPS privatisation, but only on its possible professional implications for the Bar.

Likewise, he maintained, his comments to the Gazette and to the BBC were made in his capacity as a Bar Council member and similarly only related to professional issues.