Bar Council raps CPS as leaked email shows lucrative cases kept in-house
The Bar Council has accused the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of deliberately acting against the public interest by trying to keep lucrative cases in-house irrespective of whether they could be better handled externally. The body has today (25 February) published a leaked CPS email which it argues shows how the CPS has adopted deliberate practices not to instruct the best advocate for a given case if it is in the best financial interests of the CPS to keep the work in-house.
February 25, 2013 at 07:06 AM
4 minute read
The Bar Council has accused the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of deliberately acting against the public interest by trying to keep lucrative cases in-house, irrespective of whether they could be better handled externally.
The body has today (25 February) published a leaked CPS email which it argues shows how the CPS has adopted deliberate practices not to instruct the best advocate for a given case if it is in the best financial interests of the CPS to keep the work in-house.
The email highlights two particular faults in how the CPS instructs advocates according to the Bar: firstly that "messy troublesome cases with lots of complications" are to be sent to the independent Bar, especially if they are likely to be poorly remunerated; and, secondly, that cases which are weak or likely to be particularly profitable should be kept in-house.
The Bar Council argues this could result in misleading figures as to how cost effective in-house CPS advocates are.
The email was circulated to 43 recipients dealing with cases in North London Crown Courts between 15 January and 19 February this year.
Maura McGowan QC (pictured), chairman of the Bar Council, has written to Dominic Grieve QC, the Attorney-General, and Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor about the practice, while the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer QC has promised a full investigation.
McGowan said: "The public interest demands that the correct advocate is instructed to prosecute a case based on skill and the complexity of the case. Today, we are able to show, with incontrovertible evidence that the CPS is deliberately acting against the public interest and the best people are not being used to prosecute serious crimes.
"The focus on cost and budget rather than quality of advocacy is a serious blow to the criminal justice system. We would never have known for certain that this practice was going on, without the evidence that we are publishing today."
In response. Starmer said in a statement: "The email in question should not have been sent. I have had assurances from all Chief Crown Prosecutors across England and Wales that no such or similar scheme has been operated elsewhere in the CPS.
"I am disappointed that the email was sent and I have assured the Attorney General, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association that I will ascertain how it came to be sent and revert to them on the matter."
John Cooper QC, a criminal and human rights barrister at 25 Bedford Row said: "This is something that the Bar has suspected for a long time. The CPS seem to have a culture based upon two things: enhancing their own standing as advocates and maintaining their balance sheet.
"The rank and file of the criminal bar expect the DPP to get a grip with CPS areas throughout the country and, in a more long term strategy, deal with a culture at the CPS which is damaging to the public just as it is to the Bar. The issue has been at the CPS for a long time, in that it has wanted to keep the best cases for themselves."
"It is appalling," said Michael Turner QC, of the Criminal Bar Association. "We don't know how widespread this culture might be but if the culture is not embedded in the CPS, why was that email forwarded to the Bar Council and not Keir Starmer?"
"Other people had to know about it; it is a demonstration of when cost comes at any price. Justice isn't being delivered for a whole variety of reasons."
Click here to view the email.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
- 1The Fearless Forecaster’s Employment Law Predictions for 2025
- 2Judicial Conference Declines Democratic Request to Refer Justice Thomas to DOJ
- 3People in the News—Jan. 2, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Klehr Harrison
- 4Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 5Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250