Get documents about "RCPO FOLLOW UP
Document Sample
RCPO FOLLOW-UP
AN OVERVIEW INSPECTION OF THE REVENUE AND
CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS OFFICE (RCPO)
MANCHESTER AND LONDON OFFICES
NOVEMBER 2006
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
London Office
26 – 28 Old Queen Street
London SW1H 9HP
York Office
United House
Piccadilly
York
North Yorkshire
YO1 9PQ
Email: info@hmcpsi.gov.uk
http://www.hmcpsi.gov.uk
INTRODUCTION
1 This report details the findings of Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
(HMCPSI) arising from the visits to the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Offices in London
and Manchester between 25 July and 3 August 2006. For reasons set out in paragraph seven
below, the scope of the scrutiny was more limited than either HMCPSI or RCPO would
have wished.
2 The Inspectorate had previously carried out two non-statutory inspections in respect of the
former HM Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office (CEPO). At the time, CEPO was part of
HM Customs and Excise and was accountable on casework matters to the Attorney General:
• inspection of the Manchester Prosecution Unit of the Solicitor to HM Customs and Excise
– November 2002 (the Manchester report); and
• inspection of the London Casework Units of the Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office
– December 2004 (the London report).
3 Since those inspections were undertaken, significant changes have occurred to the
structure and governance of the investigation and prosecution of custom and excise cases.
The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (the Act) abolished the previous
Departments of HM Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, creating in their place one
Department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
4 Under the provisions of Sections 34 – 42 of the Act, the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions
Office (RCPO) came into existence on 18 April 2005.This brought together the previous
HM Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office (CEPO) and the Inland Revenue Crime Group
as one independent prosecution authority.
5 The functions of the RCPO are set out in Section 35 of the Act, and allow the Director of
RCPO to advise on investigations and to institute and conduct criminal proceedings (including
those instituted by HMRC) relating to criminal investigations by Revenue and Customs, or in
some instances, by the newly established Serious and Organised Crime Agency. Prosecutors
must apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors to their advice and decision-making (Section 36).
6 HMCPSI is given a statutory power of inspection of RCPO by virtue of Section 42 of the Act.
The previous inspections of Manchester and London, undertaken by HMCPSI in 2002 and
2004, related only to the HM Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office.The Inspectorate had
not undertaken any inspection activity in relation to the prosecution functions of the Inland
Revenue. In these circumstances, it was initially envisaged that the visits would have taken the
form of a full scrutiny of the work of RCPO, including the extent to which it had given effect
to the findings of the two non-statutory inspections referred to above, insofar as they
remained relevant. In fact, the defect in the legislation detailed below confined the scope
substantially to an assessment of the changes made, even though the organisation itself wished
to be viewed as a new one, rather than simply a merging and re-naming of its predecessors.
1
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
7 Throughout this inspection the team were precluded from any form of file examination.
This is because Section 40(1) of the Act prohibits disclosure of any information held by
RCPO in connection with any of its functions and which relates to any person whose identity
is specified in the disclosure or whose identity can be deduced from it.The case files and
related IT systems and processes fall within this prohibition.This bar will be overcome when
the provisions of the Police and Criminal Justice Bill are enacted. We have not therefore been
able to reality check our findings using file and systems examination, as would normally be the
case in any form of inspection undertaken by HMCPSI.
8 The Manchester report made nine recommendations and the London report made ten.
These recommendations set out the steps necessary in order to address significant
weaknesses relevant to important aspects of performance.They are set out in full in the tables
below. Both reports also contained a number of suggestions for improvement; progress
towards meeting these is detailed in the table at Annex A.
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE MANCHESTER REPORT
R1 Lawyers include in advice notes an analysis of the evidential issues and public
interest factors they have taken into account when reaching their decision
(paragraph 2.8).
R2 In complex cases, lawyers agree an appropriate timetable for the submission of
papers and the provision of advice, and the Unit Head develops and implements
a system to ensure timeliness of advice (paragraph 2.14).
R3 Guidance be provided to lawyers on roles and responsibilities in relation to
decision-making on proceedings orders, cases to be dropped on public interest
grounds and stays (paragraph 3.29).
R4 Lawyers make a full record of review decisions on the case decision record
(paragraph 3.33).
R5 In order to enable the Unit Head to measure performance, and improve the
timeliness of case preparation, there should be monitoring of:
• compliance with time scales for the submission by Law Enforcement of
committal, ‘sent’ case and summary trial papers, and unused material
schedules; and
• timeliness of service of committal and ‘sent’ case papers and unused
material schedules on the defence, and the delivery of instructions to
counsel (paragraph 4.36).
2
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
R6 In order to enable the Unit Head to measure performance, and improve the
standard of review and case preparation, the quality of review and disclosure
decisions, committal preparation (including drafting of indictments), and
instructions to counsel are monitored (paragraph 4.42).
R7 The Unit Head ensures that effective custody time limit (CTL) monitoring
systems are in place (paragraph 4.55).
R8 Compliance with the Case Management System is monitored (paragraph 4.58).
R9 The Unit extends participation in the business planning process to staff at Bands
2 and 3, in order to achieve better cross-grade representation (paragraph 6.15).
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE LONDON REPORT
R1 Unit Heads develop and implement a system to ensure timeliness of advice, which
should include provision for re-allocation where necessary (paragraph 3.11).
R2 Lawyers should keep cases under continuous review to take account of changes
in the evidential position (or circumstances affecting the public interest test)
(paragraph 4.15).
R3 Lawyers ensure that there is a clear record of all the decisions made during the
life of a case, including review and disclosure decisions (paragraph 5.34).
R4 Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office (CEPO) managers provide guidance on
the handling of disclosure, in particular how to apply the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act framework, and the respective roles of lawyers and counsel
(paragraph 5.37).
R5 CEPO managers extend the monitoring of timeliness of committal and ‘sent’ case
papers submitted by Law Enforcement to include the quality of papers, and that
operational meetings to discuss the results be held on a regular basis (paragraph 5.44).
R6 CEPO managers:
• make available full guidance on custody time limits within the Case
Management System, which should be re-enforced with training
where necessary;
• introduce a manual back-up system on all units; and
• introduce checks to ensure that all Case Managers are consistently using
SOLAR to alert themselves and the case lawyer to custody time limit review
dates at least ten working days before the expiry date (paragraph 5.76).
3
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
R7 CEPO managers consider replacing SOLAR with a database that reduces
duplication of effort, provides information and records in an easily accessible
format, and enables production of performance indicators (paragraph 5.99).
R8 CEPO managers develop performance measures linked to the Business Plan, to
ensure consistent and effective assessment of unit performance (paragraph 5.102).
R9 Unit Heads ensure that all magistrates’ courts’ hearings in cases for which their
unit is responsible are covered by CEPO (in-house advocates or agents); and that
CEPO senior managers work towards the undertaking of advocacy in all
Customs and Excise prosecutions (paragraph 6.8).
R10 CEPO managers commission an external ‘bottom-up’ review of casework, to
determine the resources and accommodation required in order to deliver an
effective and efficient prosecution service (paragraph 8.7).
METHODOLOGY
9 The purpose of this report is to look at the changes made in RCPO and what has been done
in CEPO and RCPO to implement the recommendations and suggestions identified in the
Manchester and London reports. We also look to see whether strengths identified have been
maintained. As this Overview Inspection related to both offices of RCPO, the systems and
processes implemented in response to the reports are generally similar. For ease of reading
and to reduce duplication, we have therefore combined our assessment of implementation
wherever possible. In addition this report also looks at the efforts made to integrate the two
prosecution Departments into one independent organisation. We also consider how successful
the new organisation has been in demonstrating the independence of its decision-making.
10 Before visiting the offices of RCPO, we requested a number of documents relating to file
quality assurance, management information and performance data that would provide
evidence of the progress that had been made.This also included the London and Manchester
Action Plans to implement the reports’ recommendations and suggestions. We analysed all the
information that was received.
11 During our visit we interviewed a number of RCPO Managers and Divisional Heads. We also
arranged meetings with groups of lawyers and caseworkers from both the London and
Manchester offices. We interviewed a number of members of the Judiciary and spoke to
senior investigators from both HMRC and the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).
4
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
OVERVIEW OF THE NEW ORGANISATION
12 RCPO are the specialist prosecution authority for HMRC, and for drugs and firearms
importations and associated money laundering cases investigated by SOCA. Cases are
reviewed, advice given, and prosecutions instituted in accordance with the principles contained
in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.The cases RCPO prosecute are often complex and high
profile, involving lengthy criminal investigations which generate voluminous paperwork and
exhibits. In the year to March 2006, RCPO prosecuted some 2,269 defendants and collected
£21.5 million in criminal assets.
Staffing and accommodation
13 RCPO has a capable and dedicated staff supported by committed leadership. Since its
inception staffing numbers have increased from 210 to 266.The induction and training of new
staff has been dealt with promptly and effectively. A full breakdown of the current staffing
figures is included at Annex B.
14 The increase in lawyer numbers and the London office move to spacious and good quality
accommodation has had a significant positive impact both on the ability to undertake
continuous review of cases and on staff morale generally. However, the Manchester Office,
which was refurbished in 2003, is now somewhat cramped. In addition, the signing and décor
of the Manchester Office has not been updated to the new corporate logos and colours,
which gives it an outdated appearance, although this was being addressed at the time of our
visit and some of the signage is now in position. A refurbishment is in the early planning stage.
Senior managers acknowledge that the present situation does not assist in building a cohesive,
corporate organisation. A video link between the two offices is about to be installed; this will
also be of significant assistance in bringing the two offices together.
Casework handling
15 Initial restructuring took place at the time of the merger with five Divisions being created to
cover different aspects of the workload. Details of the structure are set out in the
organisational chart at Annex C. Divisions A to D are multifunctional, although each has the
lead on a particular subject. Division A leads on direct tax fraud and therefore handles much
of the work of the former Inland Revenue Crime Group. Division B leads on commercial
fraud including large scale VAT fraud and missing trader intra-community fraud (MTIC).
Division C leads on border detections and Division D on duty and excise cases. Division E is
the Serious Organised Crime Division, which covers large scale drug importation and money
laundering.The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) is responsible for conducting restraint,
receivership, confiscation and enforcement proceedings including responding to requests from
overseas jurisdictions to preserve assets.The International, Policy and Advisory Division (IPAD)
provides advice and guidance on legal and policy matters and handles extradition and
outgoing overseas requests, and also represents RCPO in the wider criminal justice system.
16 At the time of this report (September 2006), the predicted increase in caseload envisaged in
the 2006-07 Business Plan has yet to materialise. However, the size and complexity of cases
has continued to increase.This is as a result of the ever-growing sophistication and global
nature of the criminal activity prosecuted, coupled with the continual development and
advancement of detection and investigation methods. In the Manchester office there has been
5
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
a marked decline in the number of complex cases received, with the work at the moment
being predominantly fast track cases. As a result tax credit fraud cases from the Northern
catchment area are now going to be dealt with by the Manchester office.This also widens the
experience of the Manchester lawyers and further promotes integration of the tax work
within RCPO.
17 A table of current caseload is attached at Annex D. Managers accept that there is inaccuracy
in the caseload figures. Attempts have been made to address this by a complete file audit,
which was ongoing at the time of our visit, although there is still some concern about the
validity of some of the information obtained.The collation of accurate caseload and
performance data is also still hampered by the current IT system, although a new system was
being piloted in two Divisions.
18 The Sensitive Cases List, which provides information to the Law Officers (Attorney General
and Solicitor General) on topical and problematic cases, has been subject to extensive review
and rationalisation. A focussed report has been prepared which provides a concise, regular
and relevant update of all required information.
19 Prior to the establishment of RCPO, a number of high profile failed cases caused widespread
criticism from the judiciary and led to specific enquiries into the way the cases had been
investigated and prosecuted.The new organisation has worked hard to address the concerns
raised. A specialist team of lawyers, including counsel on secondment, is still considering the
impact and ramifications of those decisions on other convictions which may be affected.
Revenue work
20 Division A leads on direct tax fraud and therefore handles much of the work of the former
Inland Revenue Crime Group, which was transferred over from Somerset House (the Inland
Revenue’s previous office). Initial problems due to accommodation difficulties and some
feelings of isolation were resolved by relocating all RCPO prosecution divisions to one floor. In
the fullness of time clearer links between customs and revenue work will be established, but
so far the progress towards integration of staff and casework has been slow. Different working
practices and interpretation of policy guidance have caused some difficulty. Since January, the
ongoing movement of lawyers and case managers across Divisions has started to see some
improvement and there is now some cross-fertilisation of systems and workloads. It will take
some time before the organisation becomes fully integrated.
Asset Recovery
21 The recovery of assets is an integral part of the work of RCPO. All lawyers are required to
consider confiscation, and to record their decisions on the Case Decision Record in every
case. We were advised that confiscation is considered to be an essential part of the process
throughout the lifetime of the case. 2006-07 is the first year of the asset recovery incentive
scheme. Under this scheme RCPO are allowed to keep approximately 17% of all assets
recovered. Stretching targets have been set for the recovery of assets; the target for 2006-07
being £22.7 million. Despite demonstrating continual increases in the amounts recovered
RCPO are not currently meeting this target. All lawyers interviewed were aware of the
importance of asset recovery; at present however, there are no individual Divisional targets set.
6
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
22 The Asset Forfeiture Unit is a specialist unit which handles all cases where the minimum
benefits figure is greater than £1 million. In addition the AFU will take over cases where a
restraint order is already in force, cases involving recovery of assets of professionals who
abuse their positions or where the case is complex or likely to attract media attention.
They also have a policy and advisory role within RCPO and provide specific guidance to
HMRC and SOCA on the conduct of investigations involving asset recovery and advise on
practice and procedure.The AFU compiles data on confiscation receipts for performance
measurement purposes by legislation, type of case, number of restraint orders made,
value of assets restrained, number of receivers appointed, value of assets subject to
receivership, number of confiscation orders made by legislation and by type of case and
value of confiscation orders made.
23 The AFU is responsible for enforcing all confiscation orders obtained by RCPO under the
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, while the Enforcement Task Force (ETF) deals with RCPO
confiscation orders obtained under the legislation that preceded the Act. ETF are a team of
legal staff from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and RCPO, with financial investigators
from HMRC and SOCA (who fund them). The ETF team deal exclusively with RCPO
confiscation orders.
Serious Crime Division
24 Division E is the Serious Crime Division, a dedicated unit set up to handle the cases dealt with
by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency relating to drug importation, associated money
laundering and the importation of firearms.The Division has appropriately security-cleared
lawyers in both the Manchester and London offices.There is early consultation and focussed
case building and management between lawyers and investigators on all SOCA cases,
with advice being provided by RCPO on a 24/7 basis and the first SOCA cases due for trial
shortly.The Division also works closely with the SOCA division of the CPS.
Independence of decision-making
25 The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RCPO and HMRC was signed on
18 April 2005 by the Paymaster General on behalf of HM Treasury, the Attorney General,
the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs and the Director of the Revenue and
Customs Prosecutions Office. It is a framework document, setting out the principles of how
the two Departments should work together. It also provided for the development of joint
casework standards for the discharge of their functions in relation to criminal investigations
and prosecutions.These were agreed in September 2005 and form three annexes to the
MOU; the Policy and Strategy Agreement, the Casework Standards Agreement (with an
attached schedule for the timeliness of case handling) and the Disclosure Agreement. Each
annex has an HMRC and RCPO single point of contact to ensure speed and consistency
when dealing with issues or new developments in casework handling. Underpinning all three
annexes is the Gower Hammond Matrix, which sets out the roles and responsibilities of each
Department in detail. Work is ongoing on the agreement of an updated version of the Matrix;
the first draft of the Mutual Understanding on roles and responsibilities between Criminal
Investigation and RCPO in relation to criminal casework was circulated on 28 July 2006.
At present there is only limited monitoring of compliance with the current standards,
which has made it difficult for both Departments to deal with issues relating to the quality
and timeliness of case handling with any accuracy.
7
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
26 The separation of RCPO from the investigation body of HMRC is therefore now
clearly defined. Senior managers have taken steps to ensure that the close working
relationships between prosecutors and investigators have been maintained. At the same time,
they have sent out a clear message that the final decision-making is in the hands of RCPO.
An illustration of this is the process for dealing with disagreements over decisions to
prosecute. Clear messages have been sent out that cases will be reviewed in accordance with
the Code for Crown Prosecutors and there is acknowledgement that financial or complexity
reasons will not be accepted as a basis for not continuing with a prosecution.There is effective
liaison between HMRC and RCPO at all levels and some involvement with joint training.
Advocacy
27 RCPO has an in-house Advocacy Unit comprising five experienced Higher Court Advocates
(HCAs). At present they conduct preliminary and plea and case management hearings, as well
as mentions and sentencing hearings, at the Isleworth and Croydon Crown Court centres.
Positive feedback was received from the judiciary on the standards of advocacy and
preparation of all the HCAs who appear before them. A further expansion report is due to
be submitted to the Director in November 2006 setting out proposals for HCAs to progress
to trial work; this has the full support and backing of the Director.
28 In the magistrates’ courts, in-house coverage is provided for all the main courts which deal
with border crime work at Dover, Haywards Heath (Gatwick) and Uxbridge (Heathrow).
All other court centres are covered by counsel.
29 Counsel covering hearings in both the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts are nominated
by the Counsel’s Fees and Nominations Team (CFNT).The lists of counsel who are approved
to undertake RCPO work have recently been overhauled and at the time of our inspection
were about to be published, which we understand has since occurred. Generally favourable
comments were received about the quality of advocacy and standard of preparation by
counsel instructed.
30 The management of counsel’s fees has recently undergone a complete re-structuring exercise
with significantly more responsibility being given to the lawyers to manage and account for
expenditure on counsel’s fees.This was implemented with effect from 1 September 2006.
Until the merger, the payment of counsel’s fees had been undertaken by HMCE, based on
information provided by CEPO. When responsibility for fee payment was passed over to
RCPO, the amount of outstanding fees was severely underestimated. RCPO have
acknowledged that their system for accounting for accruals – the amount of work already
undertaken by counsel but not yet paid for – was in complete disarray and it was not possible
to state with any accuracy the amount of payment that was outstanding. As a result a
complete review of all current and concluded cases was undertaken. It is still not possible to
state that the figures produced as a result of this audit are accurate. Although there has been
significant progress to address this concern, there is a risk that the National Audit Office
(NAO) audit, which will take place later in the year, will only be able to provide qualified
assurance on the issue of payment of counsel’s fees.
8
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
Performance management
31 RCPO is committed to developing a culture of effective case building, case management and
accountability for decision-making.The recently revised RCPO Prosecution Manual details the
procedures, obligations and standards that are to be applied by all staff throughout the life of
the case. It is provided to all staff in both electronic and hard copy format and is also available
on the Intranet. Updates are circulated regularly. Repeated messages about the importance of
using the Manual have been delivered. Compliance with it is monitored through checks
undertaken by managers and during adverse outcome analysis.There were examples of action
being taken when instances of non-compliance had been observed.
32 There is, however, a need to develop an effective and consistent performance monitoring
system based on accurate performance indicators.This will ensure both individual ‘buy in’ to the
aims and objectives of the organisation and also develop a corporate approach by all Divisions.
STRENGTHS
33 A number of aspects of performance were commended or commented favourably upon in
both the Manchester and London reports. In particular both locations were praised for the
quality of advice and decision-making. In the light of the lack of file examination we are not
able to comment on whether these standards have been maintained.The Manchester report
also commended the unit for the efforts that had been made to learn from experience.
Both locations have clear systems in place for the analysis of adverse outcomes.The procedures
are followed in all relevant cases, with ‘wash up’ meetings and follow-up work being undertaken
where required. Lessons learnt are disseminated and we found some evidence of sharing of
learning points between the Divisions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Providing advice
• Lawyers include in advice notes an analysis of the evidential issues and public interest
factors they have taken into account when reaching their decision (Manchester Report,
paragraph 2.8) Achieved.
• In complex cases, lawyers agree an appropriate timetable for the submission of papers and
the provision of advice, and the Unit Head develops and implements a system to ensure
timeliness of advice (Manchester Report, paragraph 2.14) Achieved.
• Unit Heads develop and implement a system to ensure timeliness of advice, which should
include provision for re-allocation where necessary (London Report, paragraph 3.11)
Achieved.
34 Each Division has implemented systems, albeit different ones, to ensure that advice files are
allocated in accordance with staff ’s capacity and ability.This information is generally recorded
on a spreadsheet.The systems to monitor timeliness and accuracy also vary. At least one
Division saves a copy of the advices provided for training purposes, which helps to ensure
consistency and assists in the dissemination of good practice.
9
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
35 The use of different styles of spreadsheet makes it difficult for senior management to tell at a
glance how the Divisions are performing in relation to each other. A standard spreadsheet
should be introduced across all Divisions.
36 Managers are aware that there is a discrepancy between the numbers of advice cases shown
as live on the IT Case Management System (SOLAR) and those shown as live within the
Divisions. Some Divisions have undertaken audits to establish the extent of this discrepancy.
37 Judicial comment indicated that there had been some occasions when defendants raised
potential defences in interviews and these had not been investigated until after Defence
Statements were received. In a small number of instances this had led to applications for custody
time limit extensions being refused on the basis that the prosecution had not acted with all due
diligence. Lawyers need to be alert to the possibility of real defences when providing advice and
ensure that guidance is provided on following-up lines of enquiry where appropriate.
38 The lawyers in Manchester use a standardised layout for all initial advices.The advice template is
divided into sections with headings which ensure that the lawyers cover all the relevant issues
in the advice.This practice also ensures the advices are easy to comprehend for the HMRC
investigators receiving them, as they are familiar with the format of the advice they will receive.
We consider that it may benefit RCPO to introduce this for use in the London office also.
CASEWORK HANDLING SYSTEMS AND REVIEW
Legal and policy guidance
• Guidance be provided to lawyers on roles and responsibilities in relation to decision-
making on proceedings orders, cases to be dropped on public interest grounds and stays
(Manchester Report, paragraph 3.29) Achieved.
39 Following the Manchester Report, clear guidance was issued to all staff about the roles and
responsibilities between CEPO (as it then was) and HMCE. Since then Proceedings Orders
and Stays of Proceedings have been abolished. Under the Commissioners for Revenue and
Customs Act 2005, RCPO now has the same power to discontinue cases as those provided
in sections 23 and 23A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 for proceedings conducted
by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
40 The RCPO Prosecution Manual has recently been revised and re-issued to all staff.This sets
out in clear terms the expectations of staff with regard to review and case management, and
discontinuance and other methods of terminating cases. All staff interviewed were aware of
the Manual and had found it helpful. Updates, inaccuracies and changes to the Manual are
dealt with by the Best Practice Group and the Editorial Board, which are made up of
representational staff from all Divisions. Any agreed changes are disseminated promptly via
email bulletins and through postings on the Intranet.
10
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
41 We were also provided with examples of reviews of unsuccessful cases and procedural
problems which had been used to highlight the importance of regular referral to, and
compliance, with the Manual.These are discussed at the Director’s weekly casework meetings
with Divisional Heads with a view to advices and judgments being disseminated. Whilst there
was evidence of this being discussed at divisional team meetings, it was unclear if these had
been shared between the Divisions so that all could learn from the experience. A combined
circular dealing with these matters might remedy any gaps and also reduce the risk of
duplicated effort.
42 A thorough system of adverse case analysis is completed and learning points are disseminated.
In large cases formal wash up meetings are held with counsel and HMRC investigators.
File endorsements
• Lawyers make a full record of all review decisions on the Case Decision Record
(Manchester Report, paragraph 3.33) Achieved.
• Lawyers ensure that there is a clear record of all the decisions made during the life of a
case, including review and disclosure decisions (London Report, paragraph 5.34) Limited
progress.
43 In September 2005, Case Decision Record (CDR) compliance checks were undertaken
by the International, Policy and Advisory Division (IPAD).This concluded that there was little
evidence of improvement since the London Inspection.They recommended that the
importance of the CDR be re-inforced in team meetings and that an enhanced level of
casework assurance checks should be carried out.The revised RCPO Prosecution Manual sets
out the expectations for all staff with regard to the accurate and timely endorsements of files.
All staff have been made aware of the importance of completing the CDR and the related
time sheets. In interviews, lawyers confirmed that they use the CDR and the practice in
Manchester is to print out copies to attach to the relevant file. Some were aware that regular
compliance checks took place. In Manchester the Divisional Head’s quality assurance check of
files specifically assesses the completion and accuracy of the CDR. In London there is some
acknowledgement that checks could be more robust and that there were still concerns at the
level of compliance.
Continuous review
• Lawyers should keep cases under continuous review to take account of changes in the
evidential position (or circumstances affecting the public interest test) (London Report,
paragraph 4.15) Substantial progress.
44 The increase in lawyer numbers has had a significant positive effect on the individual
management of workloads within RCPO; all lawyers interviewed felt that they now had more
time to keep cases under continuous review. All Divisional Heads have quality assurance
checks in place which assess the standard and timeliness of casework handling and review;
these checks form part of the monthly situation reports which are prepared by each Division
for consideration by the Director. We were informed that the checks were also used for
11
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
individual performance appraisal.There is, however, a lack of consistency in the systems and
monitoring criteria used by each Division, which makes it difficult to assess the full level of
checks undertaken, and the use that is made of them.There is a close level of support and
guidance offered to all lawyers and most, although not all, were aware of the monitoring
undertaken by managers.The training and supervision of new lawyers has been undertaken
promptly and effectively.
45 A ‘Developing a Different Approach to Cases’ training course has recently been delivered
to all lawyers.This course is designed to encourage a more pro-active and probing approach
to case management and review, with clear case ownership and less reliance on counsel.
It is important to ensure that the benefits of this training are assessed.
46 The progress of complex cases is actively tracked by the Director through the weekly
meetings described above. He also receives regular updates from individual lawyers and
Divisional Heads.
47 The overarching quality assurance checks undertaken by IPAD ceased towards the end of last
year due to other commitments of the Division.The work they undertook was valuable and
provided an overview of the performance of the Department. However a standard and
comprehensive programme of management checks, undertaken by all Divisional Heads,
remains important: indeed, it would be inappropriate to encourage managers to rely solely on
IPAD.These checks would give clear accountability and also allow IPAD to focus additionally
on wider policy issues and liaison.
Disclosure of unused material
• CEPO managers provide guidance on the handling of disclosure, in particular how to apply
the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act framework, and the respective roles of
lawyers and counsel (London Report, paragraph 5.37) Guidance issued.
48 The Prosecution Manual contains guidance on RCPO’s approach to disclosure.The Intranet
also contains a copy of the policy and legal guidelines on disclosure and updated case analysis,
together with links to other helpful material. Staff have access to the HMRC Enforcement
Handbook, an interactive Disclosure Guide which was developed by RCPO, and other
guidance such as the Attorney General’s Guidance on Disclosure, the Disclosure Protocol and
the CPS guidance on disclosure. Lawyers also have access to practitioners’ texts which they
consult regularly on disclosure issues.
49 A rolling programme of compulsory disclosure training for all lawyers and caseworkers has
recently been concluded. In addition, disclosure workgroups have recently been initiated in
London to enable lawyers to seek guidance on difficult disclosure.This is a practice that is to
be welcomed as it allows lawyers to seek help and guidance on difficult issues relating to
disclosure. In Manchester, there is regular discussion between lawyers on an informal basis
with all lawyers being prepared to discuss any problems others are having with disclosure.
12
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
50 Some concern was raised by HMRC about different approaches between Divisions on the
interpretation of the information to be included by investigators on the disclosure schedules.
This was investigated promptly and as a result new guidance was given to all lawyers (which
was also included in the disclosure training).
51 There is regular liaison between IPAD and HMRC to discuss issues regarding disclosure and
to improve joint working. RCPO have offered to assist in providing training to senior
investigating officers at HMRC, for them to then cascade down to other officers. RCPO also
take a pro-active approach in disclosure issues and disclosure forums in the wider criminal
justice system.
52 Senior managers believe there is now a more considered and robust approach to disclosure
being taken by RCPO and that the practice of “giving the keys to the warehouse” to the
defence has ceased.This is supported by comments from the judiciary who consider that as a
result they can now take a firmer stance on defence applications for disclosure.
53 We are satisfied that progress has been made in respect of the discharge of the duties of
disclosure of unused material by RCPO. However, because we were precluded from any file
examination, we cannot in this report provide a definitive assessment of whether this high risk
aspect of casework is being undertaken to the standards required.
CUSTODY TIME LIMITS
• CEPO managers:
o make available full guidance on custody time limits within the Case Management
System, which should be re-inforced with training where necessary;
o introduce a manual back-up system on all units; and
o introduce checks to ensure that all Case Managers are consistently using SOLAR to
alert themselves and the case lawyer to custody time limit review dates at least ten
working days before the expiry date (London Report, paragraph 5.76) Substantial
progress.
• The Unit Head ensures that effective custody time limit (CTL) monitoring systems are in
place (Manchester Report, paragraph 4.55) Substantial progress.
54 RCPO have updated the chapter of their Prosecution Manual devoted to CTLs, after having
evaluated CPS policy guidance. A comprehensive guide is now available to all staff online via
the internal Intranet. All staff are provided with the CPS ‘ready reckoner’ for calculating CTL
expiry dates and training on CTL procedure is provided to all staff as part of their induction
process.
55 In addition to the system implemented by the Casework Managers, the lawyers themselves
keep electronic or paper diaries of the CTLs in their own cases.
13
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
56 Staff in the Manchester office said that they had good co-operation from the courts who
contact them if CTL expiry dates are approaching.
57 Compliance with the procedure laid out in the manual is to be checked by a rolling
programme of file reviews.This has not yet been implemented. As previously stated the
limitations on the inspection meant we were unable to check files ourselves to satisfy
ourselves that the system is working.
58 RCPO managers stated there had not been any CTL failures since they had come into
existence.This was confirmed by the Judges we saw, who stated that they were not aware of
any missed CTLs.They also indicated that applications to extend the custody time limits were
generally properly made and supported by the appropriate chronologies. As mentioned at
paragraph 37 a few applications for CTL extensions had failed due to a lack of effective case
building at an early stage, resulting in due expedition not being demonstrated.
Monitoring systems
• In order to enable the Unit Head to measure performance, and improve the timeliness of
case preparation, there be monitoring of:
o compliance with time scales for the submission by Law Enforcement of committal, ‘sent’
case and summary trial papers, and unused material schedules; and
o timeliness of service of committal and ‘sent’ case papers and unused material schedules
on the defence, and the delivery of instructions to counsel (Manchester report,
paragraph 4.36) Limited progress.
• In order to enable the Unit Head to measure performance, and improve the standard of
review and case preparation, the quality of review and disclosure decisions, committal
preparation (including drafting of indictments), and instructions to counsel are monitored
(Manchester report, paragraph 4.42) Limited progress.
• CEPO managers extend the monitoring of timeliness of committal and sent case papers
submitted by Law Enforcement to include the quality of papers, and that operational
meetings to discuss the results be held on a regular basis (London Report, paragraph 5.44)
Limited progress.
• Compliance with the Case Management System is monitored (Manchester Report,
paragraph 4.58) Substantial progress.
59 An effective system for monitoring the timeliness of receipt of committal papers from HMRC;
the review and service of these papers by the lawyers; and the subsequent service on the
defence, has been established in the Manchester Office. However, this monitoring does not
include, for instance, the compliance by HMRC with timescales for the submission of sent
cases, for which there is a proposed casework standard with HMRC. In addition, there is no
monitoring of the timeliness of delivery of instructions to counsel by RCPO.
14
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
60 The Manchester Divisional Head undertakes some monitoring of casework quality. However it
is acknowledged that time constraints have resulted in informal monitoring occurring on an
infrequent basis.The size and proximity of the team, and the Divisional Head’s direct
involvement with staff, does provide a level of management assurance.
61 In the London office, standard forms have been developed and are completed to monitor the
timeliness and quality of submission of committal papers and sent papers. Examples of these
forms seen were relevant and completed to a satisfactory quality. Some data is collated at a
divisional level; however the level of compliance with the completion of these forms
throughout the divisions is unclear.
62 All Divisions hold team meetings, although some are more frequent than others.There was
evidence of dissemination of learning points and the discussion of action points and best
practice.
63 We were encouraged that evidence of management checks were required in all the Divisional
Heads’ situation reports to the Director; however, it was apparent that there was no
consistency in the criteria examined or the number of casework checks required. We consider
that a standard scheme should be developed as a matter of priority and clear guidelines
issued to all Divisional Heads to effect the necessary management checks formally at an
individual, divisional and organisational level.
64 There have been some joint performance meetings between RCPO and HMRC.There are
individual case handling groups on missing trader intra-community fraud, Direct Tax, Borders
and Oils and other Excise. In addition, a Casework Standards Working Group has been
established and meets regularly. It was not possible, however, to establish the structure of
these meetings or the depth and consistency of performance information that was being
exchanged.
65 RCPO have recently undertaken a three month pilot which monitored the timeliness and
quality of the provision of papers.This was being evaluated at the time of our visit and was
expected to provide a base point for performance.There is an acknowledgement by RCPO
managers that further work on joint performance management between HMRC and RCPO
needs to be undertaken, which should include further development of casework standards
agreements relating to timeliness.The HMRC and RCPO Casework Standards Group are
currently re-drafting the roles and responsibilities of each organisation. Clear guidance is
required on the expected standard for file submissions to ensure consistency.
Information technology
• CEPO managers consider replacing SOLAR with a database that reduces duplication
of effort, provides information and records in an easily accessible format, and enables
production of performance indicators (London Report, paragraph 5.99) Not Achieved.
15
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
66 RCPO has an Internet and an Intranet site. Both were established before it came into
existence as an organisation and continue to be serviced by HMRC.The Internet site is
available to members of the public.The Intranet site is an internal site, although HMRC have
the ability to access it.This information is apparently not known by all RCPO staff. Although
some safeguards are in place this could lead to information being disseminated on the
Intranet, which ought not to be shared even with HMRC.The ability of HMRC to access the
RCPO Intranet site should be reviewed, and all staff notified if HMRC or any other external
groups have access to the site.
67 The IT support for RCPO is provided via HMRC.The effectiveness of the service provided
needs to be examined. Elsewhere in this report we have commented on the detrimental
effect the IT system is having on the ability of RCPO to monitor its core business and account
for caseload and performance data. It is unclear how much of the problem relates to poor
staff usage and how much is down to system inefficiency. A consultant has recently been
recruited to look into all IT issues and a recent report on the provision of IT service has been
agreed as a way forward for RCPO to address these concerns.The recommendations in that
report should be taken forward as soon as possible.
68 The hardware used by individual staff has been upgraded with provision of new computers
and monitors and this has generally received a favourable reaction from staff. However, there
are a number of staff concerns such as that fact that the new equipment does not have
floppy drives and this has caused some problems in transferring and storing data.
69 Staff have reported finding they do not have sufficient email archiving capacity.There is a lack
of clarity regarding methods of resolving this. One person stated he had been able to get his
email inbox increased by the IT department, whereas others say they were denied this.
Some people said they were told to store emails on shared drives or their own PC hard drive
whereas others were told not to adopt this method.The storage of emails is important, as
these can be very relevant to issues - especially relating to disclosure - many months or years
later. It is important that there is a consistent method of storing these emails, or ensuring that
a hard copy is always placed on the file, so that they are accessible to any new lawyer taking
over conduct of a case and provide a clear record for the future.
70 The email system is part of the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) and is approved for
documents classified up to ‘restricted’.This limits the amount of information that can be
sent electronically.
71 A number of staff commented that the server is slow and they have difficulties in logging-on
to the system. Other comments were that they experienced the system crashing, especially in
the afternoon.The HMRC-driven STRIDE programme will be replacing various infrastructure
components, which should address some of the current problems.This is due for implementation
in mid-November 2006.
16
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
72 There was a general consensus amongst managers and staff that SOLAR was a system which
was no longer suitable for the purposes of RCPO. A number of staff, especially those from the
former Revenue solicitor’s office, had not received training on the use of SOLAR.They were
aware that, following the recommendation in the London Report, there were plans to replace
SOLAR at some stage in the future. A number also indicated they had not received any IT
training and did not feel confident using basic IT programmes.
Advocacy
• Unit Heads ensure that all magistrates’ courts’ hearings in cases for which their unit is
responsible are covered by CEPO (in-house advocates or agents); and that CEPO senior
managers work towards the undertaking of advocacy in all Customs and Excise
prosecutions (London Report, paragraph 6.8) Achieved.
73 The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 did not continue the rights of
audience previously enjoyed by staff of HMCE and the Inland Revenue to the successor body.
All magistrates’ courts’ advocacy is now conducted by in-house lawyers or counsel instructed
by RCPO. In-house coverage is provided for all the main courts which deal with border work,
at Dover, Haywards Heath (Gatwick) and Uxbridge (Heathrow). All other court centres are
covered by counsel.The ‘Link Lawyer’ system was re-introduced in March 2006, for each of
the main magistrates’ courts and Crown Court centres of work.The Link Lawyers are the
contact point for, and provide advice to, the Investigation and Prosecution Units and also
attend the Court User Groups for the courts they cover.The Director has the power to
employ designated caseworkers and a ‘Small Casework Pilot’ is due to commence from 1
September 2006 looking at the use of Band 9 lawyers and designated caseworkers to deal
with straightforward cases.
74 Some concern was expressed that, on occasion, counsel instructed were unfamiliar with the
procedures in the magistrates’ courts, which had a detrimental impact on the way the cases
were presented. Consideration needs to be given to the appropriate level of counsel used in
magistrates’ courts’ cases.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND BUSINESS PLANNING
• The Unit extends participation in the business planning process to staff at Bands 2 and 3 in
order to achieve better cross-grade representation (Manchester Report, paragraph 6.15)
Not achieved.
• CEPO managers develop performance measures linked to the Business Plan, to ensure
consistent and effective assessment of unit performance (London Report, paragraph 5.102)
Limited progress.
75 RCPO is in the early stages of developing a performance-related culture.The second Business
Plan was only recently published and describes the future work to be undertaken at a relevant
and reasonably comprehensive level. Although it is acknowledged that the Plan does not
provide in detail how business will be delivered, it was perceived to be a satisfactory first step.
17
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
Business Plans
76 There are no individual plans for any of the Divisions and generally staff did not have the
opportunity to participate in the development of the overall Business Plan for 2006-07 as
any input was mainly at Divisional Head level. RCPO do need to encourage staff involvement
with the Business Plan and also its communication to staff in order to drive the strategic vision
and aims, and encourage a more performance-orientated culture. Staff focus was mainly
concerned with the importance of the quality of their individual work. Inspectors found a high
level of dedication, but this alone will not drive overall performance improvements.The newly
developed performance appraisal system establishes links with RCPO business objectives; this
is a positive development.
77 Staff at all grades and Divisions have participated in the Best Practice Group and the
Prosecutions Manual Editorial Board, which were formed to implement and develop the
Prosecution Manual. Staff views can be expressed through team meetings, although the
frequency and regularity of meetings was different across the Divisions. Some hold them
at set intervals and others on an ad hoc basis.
Performance measures and reports
78 There are four key performance indicators within the 2006-07 Business Plan.These relate to
improving on the performance achieved by RCPO in 2005-06 in relation to the rate of
convictions, guilty pleas and asset recovery, and reducing the number of judge ordered
acquittals. However, underpinning objectives and deliverables or targets are not clear; neither
are there any specific milestones in place.This Plan will be used to drive the strategic and
operational goals of the ‘new’ organisation, but it will be difficult to measure the overall and
divisional performance, or to demonstrate improvement.
79 Historically, monthly situation reports have been produced by the Divisional Heads for the
Director and used to hold the Heads accountable for performance; these reports include
some caseload information and results. Whilst there is some linkage with the limited measures
within the Business Plan, this is not fully comprehensive and information provided is for the
month only, with no trending of previous months’ data.The reports are generally not in a
user-friendly format, and the depth and comprehensiveness of the reports vary across the
Divisions. From the reports it is difficult to assess divisional performance. In addition,
inconsistencies are evident in the range of performance information and manager assurance
checks undertaken within the Divisions.
80 Monthly Management Information System (MIS) reports have recently been developed.
They were piloted from January to March 2006, and mainly include relevant performance
indicators; this is a positive development. It is acknowledged that this is an ongoing process,
and further thought should be given to the comprehensiveness and relevancy of the
performance indicators used which are exclusively focused on case loads and outcomes.
There should be consideration of case progression indicators and casework quality, and some
softer measures dependent on the purpose of the reports. In addition, performance should be
monitored against relevant targets and a more consistent and user-friendly format achieved,
including trending with previous months as well as the year as a whole to establish any
relevant patterns.The reports are produced at a divisional and organisational level; at the
organisational level there is a format to compare and evaluate performance across the Divisions.
18
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
Accuracy of management information
81 Of concern was the accuracy of the caseload information used within the MIS reports.
IT software limitations mean that the performance information requires manual manipulation,
which can result in error and delay. Despite the recent extensive work undertaken, managers
considered accuracy to be at only 80%. Managers are aware of the importance of the validity
of this data and work continues to be progressed.
82 Managers need to consider the cohesiveness of the situation reports, the MIS reports and
monthly management board reports to ensure they provide a clear and accurate assessment
of the performance of the organisation. In addition, the establishment of comprehensive and
consistently applied management checks by Divisional Heads would facilitate an effective way
of measuring individual, divisional and overall casework quality.
RESOURCES
• CEPO managers commission an external ‘bottom-up’ review of casework, to determine
the resources and accommodation required in order to deliver an effective and efficient
prosecution service (London Report, paragraph 8.7) Limited progress.
83 CEPO managers commissioned a review that was undertaken by the Resource Assurance
Unit of HM Customs and Excise. RCPO has since reviewed caseload according to the
different staffing grades, and significant improvements have been made to the accommodation
and facilities available at the London office. Staff in post figures have also increased by from
210 to 266.
84 Managers consider that further work needs to be undertaken to ensure that the correct
numbers of staff at each grade are in place, and to improve governance. However, work will
be based on caseload figures and as previously stated there are currently concerns around
the accuracy of these figures.
CONCLUSION
85 The recommendations are all of importance, as they address issues and weaknesses of
substance. We recognise nevertheless that not all could be prioritised.The recommendation
on disclosure was a particular concern because of some particular case failures and ensuing
public and judicial concern. Action has been taken in relation to this, but without examining
some files we were not able to assess how secure the undertaking of the prosecutions duties
of disclosure now is. In relation to the other 18 recommendations, we have made the
following assessments:
Achieved – 6
Substantial progress – 4
Limited progress – 6
Not achieved – 2
19
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
Of the suggestions made in the two reports progress has been assessed as follows:
Achieved - 3
Substantial progress – 5
Limited progress – 5
86 Since 2002, the structure and governance of customs and excise and revenue prosecutions
has undergone considerable change. Out of these changes RCPO has developed into a
prosecution authority which is now starting to demonstrate real accountability, to learn from
experience and to play an active part in the aims and objectives of the criminal justice system.
The dedication and professionalism of the staff is supported by committed leadership, and
there is a clear drive to improve performance. Within the limits of this Overview Report we
have found clear evidence of improvement in a number of key aspects of performance.
However, the lack of performance management structures and clearly understood and shared
performance indicators, coupled with the relatively primitive IT systems and processes,
hampers future progress.These aspects need to be addressed as a matter of priority.
20
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
ANNEX A: PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SUGGESTIONS
London Report, paragraph 5.42
Suggestion: Casework review and systems
Managers ensure that after committal, where there is a need to serve further evidence, papers are
reviewed and any necessary composite bundles served and, if appropriate, jury bundles prepared.
Position as at July 2006: Substantial progress
Procedures for ongoing review are set out in the Prosecution Manual and compliance is maintained
through the quality assurance checks. In Manchester a system has been set up that Case Managers
will attend the Crown Court to personally re-paginate and re-order Judges’ bundles in cases where
there have been a number of notices of additional evidence.The judiciary has received this practice
favourably.
A number of the judiciary interviewed consider that a short summary of the prosecution case should
be completed to assist in preliminary review of the papers.This needs to be considered by RCPO.
Manchester Report, paragraph 4.65
Suggestion: Casework review and systems
In order to continue to develop Case Managers and free lawyers to concentrate on complex
casework, the Unit Head ensures that Case Managers:
• prepare committals in straightforward cases under the supervision of lawyers;
• prepare all instructions to counsel, subject to input and appropriate instruction from lawyers;
• attend conferences with counsel where issues solely relating to the presentation of cases at court,
including jury bundles, are to be discussed;
• take responsibility for file management; and
• check work delegated to case support officers including, where appropriate, for clerical errors
before it leaves the unit.
Position as at July 2006: Achieved
Since the inspection the Divisional Head has addressed the Case Manager role by developing
responsibilities as suggested. In addition, the extended role of the Case Manager is clearly outlined
within the Prosecution Manual.
21
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
Manchester Report, paragraph 4.75
Suggestion: Casework review and systems
Systems be developed to ensure work is covered in the absence of lawyers and case managers and
their operation monitored.
Position as at July 2006: Substantial progress
The Manchester Divisional Head holds individuals responsible for ensuring that work is covered in
respect of planned absences. Clear instructions have been given that staff are expected to ensure
work is brought up-to-date, and any urgent work, or work to be dealt with whilst staff are absent, is
handed over to colleagues to progress. Application of this system is not formally monitored.
London Report, paragraph 5.88
Suggestion: Casework review and systems
Managers ensure that separate files of correspondence are kept for each defendant in big
multi-handed cases.
Position as at July 2006: Achieved
Guidance on file handling and housekeeping is contained within the Prosecution Manual. We were
advised that in fast-track cases the practice remained of having only one correspondence file. In the
more complex multi-defendant cases it is now agreed practice that separate correspondence files
will be maintained.
Manchester Report, paragraph 6.9
Suggestion: Staff structure
The unit reviews and clarifies staff roles and responsibilities between lawyers, Case Managers and
administration staff, to avoid some duplication in work.
Position as at July 2006: Achieved
Staff responsibilities are now clearly defined in the Prosecution Manual.
London Report, paragraph 6.39
Suggestion: Counsel’s fees
CEPO managers ensure that all out-of-court work undertaken by counsel is checked, and that case
management planning is undertaken with counsel over reading and preparation time
Position as at July 2006: Limited progress
The detail in respect of this suggestion is set out in full at paragraph 30.
22
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
London Report, paragraph 6.12
Suggestion: Delivery of briefs
Managers introduce a system whereby either files are delivered to agents - or relevant parts are
faxed - the day before the court hearing, in order to ensure that agents are given the opportunity to
prepare fully.
Position as at July 2006: Substantial progress
Systems for monitoring the delivery of papers to agents are in place. However, there was little
evidence that monitoring of the systems was taking place.
Manchester Report, paragraph 5.6
Suggestion: Rationalisation of cases - magistrates’ courts
The Unit Head liaises with Manchester City Magistrates’ Court to try and establish either:
• a weekly dedicated court for Customs and Excise prosecution cases; or
• a reasonable listing process
Position as at July 2006: Limited progress
Some work has been commenced on the brigading of court lists, but this is very limited at present.
There is limited liaison between the magistrates’ courts’ listing and RCPO. It is acknowledged that
this work will be progressed once the work in the Crown Court has been completed.
London Report, paragraph 6.10
Suggestion: Rationalisation of cases - magistrates’ courts
CEPO managers undertake work towards the reduction of resources used in the magistrates’
courts, including taking steps to negotiate rationalisation of court lists.
Position as at July 2006: Limited progress
(Significant progress has been made on the brigading of Crown Court listing.The work done at
Southwark Crown Court in working to set up a specialist fraud court with dedicated RCPO facilities
is to be particularly commended).
London Report, paragraph 7.7
Suggestion: Liaison with the courts
CEPO managers extend the designation of individuals as contact points for court centres.
Position as at July 2006: Substantial progress
This has been addressed by the use of Link lawyers at designated court centres. RCPO is also well
represented at local Court User Group Meetings
23
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
London Report, paragraph 6.33
Suggestion: Court endorsements
Managers ensure that a clear, central record of the results of court hearings, including the bail status
of each defendant and court directions, should be kept in or on the file.
Position as at July 2006: Substantial progress
The requirement for clear and concise court endorsements is set out in the RCPO Prosecution
Manual. Managers undertake compliance checks.
London Report, paragraph 5.82
Suggestion: IT
Managers perform periodic dip-checks to ensure that SOLAR alerts are being properly used and
actioned.
Position as at July 2006: Limited progress
Some checks are being carried out by managers. However, there is a general consensus amongst
managers and staff that SOLAR was a system that was no longer suitable for the purposes of RCPO.
A number of staff, especially those from the former Revenue solicitor’s office had not received
training on the use of SOLAR.The staff were aware that following the recommendation in the
London Report, there were plans to replace SOLAR at some stage in the future. A number of staff
indicated they had not received any IT training and did not feel confident using basic IT programmes.
Manchester Report, paragraph 6.34
Suggestion: Management and staff
Formal terms of reference (including structure and purpose) for staff meetings are set, in order to
improve effectiveness.
Position as at July 2006: Limited progress
Formal terms of reference are not in place, although regular meetings for lawyers and managers
have been held. Managers meetings include specific agenda items. Lawyer meetings have recently
become less frequent and there is an acknowledgment that more regular meetings now need to be
held. Meetings for case managers and support staff are held on an ad-hoc basis.
24
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
ANNEX B
STAFFING AS AT 3 JULY 2006 (PERMANENT STAFF ONLY)
Staff Grades Div A Div B Div C Div D Div E IPA AFU COO
SCS 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1
Grade 6 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 2
Grade 7/SEO 8 8 9 8 5 2 - 7
HEO 4 3 2 2 3 1 1 11
EO 15 15 16 13 15 5 6 11
Clerical Staff 9 12 12 4 4 - 3 12
Total 41 44 45 32 32 13 15 44 266
25
ANNEX C: SENIOR MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR REVENUE AND
DIRECTOR
DAVID GREEN QC
CHIEF
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
PRIVATE OFFICE OPERATING
and OFFICER
Non-Executive Director Non-Executive Director
COMMUNICATIONS
Sarah Brown Paul White DAVE PARTRIDGE
CUSTOMS PROSECUTIONS OFFICE (RCPO)
International, Division A Division B Division C Business Finance
Policy, & (Direct Tax) (Commercial) (Border Management
Advisory Detections)
SCS x1 SCS x1 SCS – 1
Band 12 x4 SCS x1 Band 12 x6 Band 12 x4
Band 11 x2 Band 12 x5 Band 11 x8 Band 11 x6 Band 11 x1 Band 12 x1
Band 9 x1 Band 11 x9 Band 9 x1 Band 9 x2 Band 9 x1 Band 9 x1
Band 7 x2 Band 7 x4 Band 7 x2 Band 7 x2 Band 7 x2 Band 7 x1
Band 5 x4 Band 5 x17 Band 5 x16 Band 5 x16 Band 5 x5 Band 5 x2
Band 2 & 3 x2 Band 2 & 3 x8 Band 2 & 3 x7 Band 2 & 3 x10 Band 2 & 3 x8 Band 2 & 3 x5
Division D Division E Asset Human Corporate
Manchester (SOCA) Forfeiture Resources Services
(Duty/Excise) Unit
SCS x1 SCS x1
Band 12 x5 Band 12 x4 Band 12 x6 Band 12 x1
Band 11 x8 Band 11 x4 Band 11 x5 Band 9 x1 Band 11 x1
Band 7 x4 Band 7 x3 Band 7 x1 Band 7 x2 Band 7 x3
Band 5 x9 Band 5 x15 Band 5 x9 Band 5 x2 Band 5 x1
Band 2 & 3 x3 Band 2 & 3 x4 Band 2 & 3 x5 Band 2 & 3 x2 Band 2 & 3 x1
26
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
ANNEX D
Caseload
Division Received Finalised Live Cases
June Year to June Year to As at
2006 Date 2006 Date 30/06/2006
A 33 123 36 73 239
B 26 98 52 124 160
C 33 101 41 90 132
D 27 79 37 78 155
E 6 25 13 30 91
Total Cases 125 426 179 395 777
Case Types and Complexity year to date (June 2006)
Case Type Case Case Case Live Cases
Complexity Complexity Complexity
rating 1-3 rating 4-7 rating 8-10
Drugs 228 8 1 346
Customs 4 0 0 7
Excise 75 3 0 137
Money laundering 2 8 0 40
VAT (non-complex/s72) 9 4 0 25
VAT (complex/MTIC) 1 2 0 20
Direct Tax 12 2 0 29
(non-complex/Grabiner)
Direct Tax (complex) 0 1 0 40
Tax Credits (non-complex) 54 1 0 105
Tax Credits 0 0 0 6
(complex/organised)
National Minimum wage 0 1 0 8
Other 9 1 0 14
Total Cases 394 31 1 777
27
Follow-up inspections of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Manchester and London Offices
28
