James Parry

1 August 2014

Our Ref: IR.23.14

Dear Mr Parry

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST - Internal Review

Thank you for your request for an Internal Review of your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 31 May 2014.

The original request was handled under reference 4621 and requested the following:

1. What guidance or directives have been received from the Ministry of Justice and/or the Legal Aid Agency or its predecessor the Legal Services Commission about service of pages of prosecution evidence?

2. What guidance has been issued to case workers about the service of prosecution evidence and in particular restricting the volume of such evidence?

3. Have any reviews been undertaken as to the consequences of restricting the volume of evidence served and the effect that has had upon prosecutions?

4. If the answer to question 3 is "yes" what conclusion were drawn?

5. What judicial criticism, if any, has the CPS received as a result of its policy of restricting evidence to minimise page counts?

The FOIAct places a general duty on public authorities to allow access to official information that is held, subject to a number of statutory exemptions. The FOIA is a public disclosure regime, which means information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain and freely available to the public on request.

The CPS replied to your requestby email on30 May 2014 but you remain dissatisfied with the response to questions 2, 3, 4 and 5. I will look into the response to these questions in turn.

2. What guidance has been issued to case workers about the service of prosecution evidence and in particular restricting the volume of such evidence?
The response confirmed that no guidance has been issued for the purposes of restricting the volume of prosecution evidence.FOI entitles requesters to recorded information that is held by the public authority. We are not required to create new information or give an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded in order to respond. If no such information exists then we are only required to respond explaining this.

The response explained that guidance has been issued to prosecutors on how to resist defence requests for service on paper of evidential material served appropriately in digital format. It was also confirmed that the Prosecution Team Manual of Guidance (MoG) is used by prosecutors concerned with the consistent preparation, processing and submission of prosecution files.Both of these pieces of information were withheld under section 31(1)(c) of the Act.

The section 17 refusal notice laid out the public interest factors for and against disclosure and the balance fell in favour of non-disclosure.

I agree with the original response that disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice and that the balance of the public interest weighs in favour of non-disclosure. The CPS publishes a vast amount of legal guidance on the CPS website in order to be transparent and increase the public understanding of our practices and processes. However, some information needs to be withheld to protect the prosecuting process. The internal operational guidance is there to support those involved in the prosecution process. Disclosure to the world at large andthose working for the defence would impede the work of prosecutors and reduce their effectiveness in prosecuting. It is in the public interest that CPS is confident in its ability to prosecute fairly and without prejudice to their processes.

The response also directed you to the Director’s Guidance on Charging (5th edition) published on the CPS website which significantly reduces the public interest in the disclosure of the MoG. Annex C of the Director’s Guidance details the National File Standard, in addition I would advisereading the Casework Quality Standards and other available legal guidanceparticularly that on disclosure. I have included the relevant links below.

3. Have any reviews been undertaken as to the consequences of restricting the volume of evidence served and the effect that has had upon prosecutions?
4. If the answer to question 3 is "yes" what conclusion were drawn?
The CPS has not conducted any reviews into restricting the volume of evidence served upon prosecutions, there is therefore nothing held within the scope of your request.

5. What judicial criticism, if any, has the CPS received as a result of its policy of restricting evidence to minimise page counts?

The CPS does not have a policy on restricting evidence to minimise page counts,there is therefore nothing held within the scope of your request.

The original response to question 5 did not refer to the section on judicial criticism as confirmation was provided that no policy exists. In your request for an internal review you refer to judicial criticism that CPS has received. Please be advised this does not confirm a policy exists. To locate judicial criticism on non-specific cases would require a manual review of all cases prosecuted and this would engage the cost limit set out in the Act.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit is specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit And Fees) Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

The original FOI decision was communicated to you in clear terms and explained your right to review. I am satisfied that the handling of the request has also been correctly dealt with.

If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision, at the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wyecliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Mrs S Walsh

Information Management Unit

020 3357 0899

Crown Prosecution Service, Communications Directorate,

Floor 9 South, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS