Think harder, CPS told

Prosecutors must urgently improve handling of rape cases, inspector finds

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must “urgently improve” its initial handling of rape cases, its inspectorate says in a report published today.

Inspectors found that the quality of prosecutors’ case analysis was often weak and that the intended “suspect-centric approach” had not been embedded into case considerations. There was also significant variation between prosecutors working in different areas of England and Wales.

Anthony Rogers

Anthony Rogers, chief inspector of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, explained that his inspectors wanted to find out whether implementation of a national operational model for investigating rape cases in 2023 had made a difference at the pre-charge stage.

They asked three questions:

• Did prosecutors analyse a suspect’s behaviour and actions before, during and after the alleged assault — the “suspect-centric” approach?

• Was early collaboration with the police effective — did it make a difference?

• Had the quality of early advice and pre-charge decision casework in rape cases improved — did the changes brought about by the national operating model result in an improvement in quality?

“Given the considerable work and focus that the CPS has put in to develop the national operating model,” Rogers wrote in a foreword, “our findings from the inspection are generally disappointing.”

Although there was greater collaboration between police and prosecutors in the early stages of cases, this did not lead to improved decision-making.

Rogers said that three-quarters of the cases submitted by the police for early advice did not comply with CPS guidance or with police service standards:

These standards are in place to ensure prosecutors have the necessary information to be able to make good quality prosecutorial decisions at the earliest stage. The inevitable impact of cases not meeting this standard is re-work and delay. This is something that the CPS and police will want to address urgently.

Given the real focus and investment in improving rape cases, it is disappointing that our findings found that the quality of prosecutors’ case analysis and strategy still needs significant improvement…

In fewer than two in ten cases where it was relevant did the prosecutor address how bad character relating to the suspect could have strengthened the case. This must be addressed immediately.

The most concerning of our findings is that prosecutors were not proactively addressing aspects to support victims at the earliest stage in the case…

There was poor consideration of bail, prosecutors did not ensure they requested victim personal statements and did not consider sexual harm prevention orders.

Given that rape cases are being prosecuted in specialist units, this is not acceptable and requires urgent improvement.

Inspectors had selected 90 pre-charge decisions for detailed assessment. Analysis of the available evidence against a suspect and consideration of likely defences is seen as crucial to a prosecutor’s decision on what charges, if any, should be brought.

The inspectors assessed

• 14 of the 90 cases (15.6%) as fully meeting the standard for a proper case analysis and strategy;

• 43 cases (47.8%) as partially meeting the standard; and

• 33 cases (36.7%) as not meeting the standard.

A prosecutor’s review should demonstrate a “thinking approach”, the report stressed. But in the weaker cases, assessed as partially or not meeting the required standard, a number of problems were identified. These included:

• lengthy recitations of the facts that repeated the contents of the police summary or witness statements without any application of relevant law or analysis of what evidence was needed or available;

• over-reliance on templates and the copying and pasting of statute and caselaw which were not relevant to the facts of the allegation and got in the way of a proper “thinking approach” — for example, recitals of evidential presumptions about consent or intoxication when these were not in issue;

• lack of careful consideration of material leading to a failure to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry or items being requested that were not needed;

• a lack of critical scrutiny of the suspect’s actions and behaviour;

• failure to adapt case strategies as necessary: in some cases, opportunities were missed to address the impact of further enquiries; and

• failure to identify the need for an application to admit bad character or hearsay evidence.

“There is much the CPS can do to improve their thinking and proactive handling of cases to ensure that the right decisions and support for victims are in place at the pre-charge stage,” Rogers concluded.

Reaction

By statute, the head of the CPS — the director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson — operates under the “superintendence” of the attorney general, Lord Hermer KC, and the solicitor general, Lucy Rigby KC MP.

Lucy Rigby KC MP

Rigby said:

This stark report shows that, although the Crown Prosecution Service has made steps forward in relation to the prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences, there is much more to be done in relation to the quality of early advice and pre-charge decisions.

It is critical that these recommendations by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate are implemented by the CPS and I welcome the director of public prosecutions’s commitment to do that. I have written to the chief inspector to ask that he issues an update on the implementation of the recommendations in 12 months’ time such that progress is monitored.

This government is treating violence against women and girls as the national emergency that it is and we are committed both to cracking down on these vile crimes and ensuring that our criminal justice system delivers for victims.

Today’s report makes eight recommendations, some of which it says are needed by the autumn.