Jan Lamping gave evidence.

Jan, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?

Jan Lamping:

Good afternoon. I am Jan Lamping, the chief Crown prosecutor for CPS Service Yorkshire and Humberside and the chief Crown prosecutor with the thematic lead for victims.

Jan, could you start by telling the Committee what you think of the Bill and whether you think it includes all categories of victimsQ ?

Jan Lamping:

The CPS is very positive about the Bill and we support its aims of improving the service to victims. The aims align with our victim transformation programme. We think it is positive that, for the first time, principles of the code are included in legislation.

As far as whether any category of victim is missing, there has been discussion about victims of antisocial behaviour. It would be a matter for Parliament as to whether they were included, but from a CPS point of view, we only consider cases that are referred to us by the police, so if there were a case with a victim of antisocial behaviour, we would apply their code rights in the usual way.

Q What recourse would a victim have if their rights under the code were not met?

Jan Lamping:

Our staff are really committed to complying with the rights. As an organisation, that is really important to us, so our practices and policies are written with that in mind.

Obviously, there can be problems and it is important that victims are able to complain, should they feel their rights have not been met. We have a robust complaints procedure that has several stages. At the first and second stages, the complaint would be dealt with within the local CPS area—at the second stage, by a very senior manager. With a service complaint—non-compliance with code rights would be a service complaint—there is a right for victims to complain to the independent assessor of complaints. The independent assessor has the power to make recommendations about our practices and procedures; to recommend that we give an apology, if we haven’t already; and to make a payment. There is the parliamentary and health service ombudsman as well. That is not the only oversight; there is oversight by our inspectorate as well, and we are superintended by the Attorney General

Q The Bill has provision for rape victims and witnesses to be given the opportunity to meet the CPS service staff involved in their case ahead of trial. However, there is a CPS document, “Speaking to Witnesses at Court”, that already tells prosecutors to do that. What is the actual change here?

Jan Lamping:

They are two very different things. The “Speaking to Witnesses at Court” guidance says that when witnesses attend court, we would speak to them at that point. When they arrive on the day to give evidence, we introduce ourselves as prosecutors or paralegals, and explain what is going to happen on the day.

The new duty is different, in that it would apply to every rape and serious sexual offence victim after a not guilty plea. It would be a more detailed meeting, so we would make the offer following the not guilty plea. We hope that people would take us up on it. It is an opportunity for us to try to give witnesses confidence in the process, because we know that there is likely to be quite a long time before the trial, to reassure them and to make sure that support is in place, because speaking to witnesses at the court stage would be too late. It is just one part of the service that we are working to provide under the victim transformation programme.

Q On collaboration, last year there was a joint report by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. It found that lack of collaboration between the police and prosecutors led to huge delays and poor communication with victims of rape. What in the Bill will change anything for victims?

Jan Lamping:

The fact that the Bill places a spotlight on all agencies complying with the code will make a difference. Obviously, that is only one aspect, though; we need to work well together, including locally. In my area, we work really closely with our police and crime commissioners and other justice partners. That is not to say that we always agree with one another, but we are working together through our local criminal justice boards to address barriers to providing a better service. I think that collaboration is what is really required.

Q Would that, or the Bill, do anything to change the fact that on average, 706 days elapse from the date of reporting an offence to the police to the start of the trial?

Jan Lamping:

The Bill in itself will not make a big change to the length of time that takes. Other work that is ongoing will hopefully do that, such as Operation Soteria.

Q So nothing in the Bill will put an obligation on you to change any of that.

Jan Lamping:

Well, the Bill is really about compliance with victim code rights, and there are other pressures that lead to, for example, delays in the court process.

Q During those 706 days, what support will you offer the victim, and how will the Bill change that?

Jan Lamping:

Obviously, only a part of that—a significant part, I accept—is our responsibility. The meeting with the victim following a not guilty plea is important given that cases are ongoing for longer. As I mentioned, this will be one part of our enhanced service to the victims in greatest need under our transformation programme. It will offer a more tailored, more bespoke service to those people. We completely accept that as cases go on much longer, people will need more support.

Q Do you have examples? What kind of services are you talking about?

Jan Lamping:

From a CPS point of view, our part would be to make sure that the right special measures are in place. Obviously, we do not provide the support services; that is not our role. However, we make sure that people are signposted to local support, that the right special measures are in place, and that we have kept people updated. Victims told us that they wanted to be kept updated, even if nothing was happening.

Q Are you not doing that now? How does the Bill improve that?

Jan Lamping:

As the aims of our victim transformation programme align with the aims in the Bill—

Q So the Bill, in fact, will not do anything to improve things for victims.

Jan Lamping:

I think the Bill, as I said before, puts a spotlight on things. Our work is aligned with that, and the two things go together, along with collaboration across the system.

Q The report I mentioned raised significant concerns about the quality of communication between the CPS and victims. Should there be something in the Bill about what victims should expect from those communications? I have heard from victims that it is frequently disjointed and lacks detail. They are unaware of what is happening. That lack of communication is a real problem. What will the Bill do to improve that?

Jan Lamping:

Going back to our transformation programme, we have recognised the need to improve our communication with victims. I appreciate that you are talking not just about the CPS, but communication across a whole system. The principles in the Bill are aligned with what we are trying to do, and we fully accept that we need to improve our service to victims. That is why we commissioned independent research, and that is why we are now on our transformation programme.

I was actually referring specifically to the CPS, because that was raised in the report. Thank you.

Q Could I take you back to the provision in the proposed updated code to have a meeting at an earlier stage between the CPS with a victim of an alleged crime? You have suggested that that would be in a rape and serious sexual offence case after a not guilty plea. Who from the CPS would be having that meeting?

Jan Lamping:

We want to ensure that we are responding to what victims need from us. That is why we think it is really important to have some flexibility about who from the CPS meets. There will undoubtedly be times when the right person to meet with the victim is the prosecutor in the case—for example, when a legal concept is to be explained or when we know that a victim has a particular question about a legal aspect. On other occasions, perhaps the victim may have questions about the practicalities on the day, and in those circumstances, it might be more appropriate for the victim to meet with one of our trained paralegals who are at court on a day-to-day basis and are more involved with speaking to victims. I think it is more about what would be of genuine benefit to the to the victim on a case-by-case basis.

Q That would be great if it could be delivered, but can I just push you on the practicalities? Will it really be about what is in the best interests of the victim, or will it actually be about whether a lawyer is available? Quite often it can be difficult even to find a lawyer to go and present the case in court, let alone one with the time to review the case or the time to have a pre-trial meeting with the victim. Will they not inevitably end up at the bottom of the pile?

Jan Lamping:

No, we are absolutely committed to delivering this. The people who are presenting these cases in court would not be the people meeting with the victims, so—

Q Well, is that right or is that wrong? Does the victim not need to have confidence in the person who is going to stand up and ask some tough questions on their behalf?

Jan Lamping:

That person will meet the victim under the “Speaking to Witnesses at Court” guidance, but the person making the decisions in the case is the reviewing prosecutor. I think it is really about what the victim needs from the meeting.

Q And you are confident that that meeting with, effectively, case progression or a reviewing lawyer is sufficient to build confidence and achieve the ultimate aim of giving a better service to the victim.

Jan Lamping:

From the information that we have had so far, from the testing that we have been doing under Operation Soteria, victims and support services are telling us locally that the victims find it really useful to meet with the prosecutor.

Q How much scope is there for the CPS to improve in other cases? We have talked about rape and serious sexual offences, where there is going to be this new pre-meeting to avoid the situation where a victim of a crime appears in court on the day that the alleged offender is being tried only to discover that the CPS lawyer has been given the case papers five minutes before. That does happen; I speak with 12 years’ experience of seeing it happen.

Jan Lamping:

Prosecutors in the magistrates court will deal with lists and have received them the day before, for example.

And sometimes it is much shorter notice than that.

Jan Lamping:

That is not my own experience. I accept what you say about that from yours.

Q How can you reassure this Committee and, indeed, Parliament and the general public that the CPS will follow through with the aims that are in the Bill to ensure that victims of crime, at whatever level, genuinely get a much better service from the CPS?

Jan Lamping:

We are committed to doing that. That is why the victim transformation programme that is aligned with the Bill will help us to work towards that.

Q Are you confident that you have the skills available and the resources to do so?

Jan Lamping:

In terms of resources, obviously the Ministry of Justice accepts that we will need to have the right resources in place—for example, for the meetings. As far as skills are concerned, we will need to train our people in, for example, how to speak to vulnerable victims, and we will need to use the expertise of those around us—not necessarily within our own organisation —to help us with that.

Thank you very much.

You said that victims find it useful to meet with prosecutors. I accept that and understand why, but do you support measures to offer free legal advice to rape victims?Q

Jan Lamping:

It is important that where victims feel that they need to have legal representation, they are able to obtain it. We would certainly engage on any proposals in that respect. We understand that issues relating to disclosure of personal information in particular cause anxiety for victims, and while we apply the law as it stands, we would engage on any proposals regarding independent legal advice.

Thank you.

Q I want to pick you up on something you said about Operation Soteria—that victims had found the process of meeting prior helpful. Were those victims supported by another service? You mentioned victims and their support services. Victims were not coming to you solely on their own; they were coming with an ISVA or support of some kind.

Jan Lamping:

I was explaining about my personal experience in the areas I had worked.

Yes, that was my understanding.

Jan Lamping:

We have offered the meetings, and they have tended to take place with an ISVA there as well.

Q I have been to lots of rape cases and supported lots of people through the rape courts—I was in one last week. The idea that a victim—in this case a 13-year-old girl—would have the wherewithal to know what legal questions she would want answered, without her having her own advocate alongside her, is, I have to say, for the birds. As for the idea that just having a meeting with the CPS will enable them to get their legal questions answered, I suggest that the average person in this country will not know what legal questions they need answering, so it might be better for them potentially to have a legal advocate alongside.

Jan Lamping:

I accept that not everybody knows what questions to ask. That is why I said we would engage on any such proposals.

Great.

Q We know, and we have heard evidence today, that for rape victims the potential that their personal medical records or therapy records will be disclosed through this process is a real deterrent. What is your view on the proposals that a judicial declaration should be required for disclosure? I am interested, because among the arguments against that I have heard is that it would slow the court process even more, and we have court backlogs as it is. Where are you on that?

Jan Lamping:

As I said, we apply the law as it is now, and our guidance that is in place now should provide adequate safeguards, in that we should request such material only if it is relevant and necessary, and only in pursuance of a reasonable line of inquiry. That should provide safeguards. As for it being a judicial decision, there is a danger that that would introduce further delays. It is important that we follow our guidance and the police follow their guidance, so that victims are protected from unreasonable intrusion into their private lives.

Q Is it the experience of the CPS that, even with the guidelines as they are now and the need to give good reason effectively, it is still providing a deterrent to victims pursuing their cases?

Jan Lamping:

It is difficult to know from a CPS point of view, because we deal with the cases that are referred to us by the police. We do not know what has been a deterrent before that in terms of what the police have asked for, so I do not think that that is something I can comment on. It could be a deterrent, yes.

Q How would you view your role as working with an independent public advocate? Have you given that any thought?

Jan Lamping:

It is obviously a new concept, and we are interested in what the detail will be. We can certainly see the benefit from the point of view of the people affected by these terrible incidents. There are some things that we would like to work through. Prosecutors would have responsibilities for speaking to, for example, bereaved families in any event, and there are some concerns about whether there might be duplication.

I know there is mention that it could be a community representative who is the independent advocate. That may be fine, but it may be that a community representative does not represent everybody in that community. There are things to be worked through, but we understand why that is being suggested and are certainly happy to work on the detail.

Q When you are prosecuting a case, clearly you have to have the conduct of it. To what extent does that limit what might be possible?

Jan Lamping:

In what sense?

Obviously, you have a duty to the court. The judge is in charge of the procedure and the law. Does that create any limitations for the role of an independent advocate working for a witness?

Jan Lamping:

In terms of the independent advocate, for the prosecutor?

Well, the prosecutor clearly would want to be in charge of the prosecution, because that is your duty. Is there a limit to what the role of the independent advocate can be, and if so, what would it be?

Jan Lamping:

I think there is. From what I have read about it, the independent advocate is more about the link between the people affected by a major incident and the agencies either investigating or prosecuting; it is more that kind of role, as opposed to in court.

Q Yes, but in individual cases—some of the most sensitive cases there can be—you would not expect the role of an adviser to impinge on the role of the court, because there is a legal basis to this.

Jan Lamping:

No, not at all.

Q Do you want to say a word about special measures, which is one of the ways in which a witness can be made to feel more comfortable?

Jan Lamping:

When the police refer a case to us, they provide information to us about the conversations they have had with victims about what kind of support would help them to give their best evidence. There are numerous special measures available that we then consider, from live links to giving evidence remotely, giving evidence in private in certain circumstances and pre-recorded evidence.

Q When would the discussion about that occur? Would it be at the meeting after the not-guilty plea?

Jan Lamping:

It happens at different points. There are initial conversations between the investigating officer and the victim and then conversations between ourselves and the police once we get the information from them, but certainly one point would be at that meeting. It may well be that we have already had the information and special measures are in place, so the meeting might be more of a check of whether those are still the appropriate measures and whether any changes need to be made.

There are no more questions, so I thank the witness, Jan Lamping, for coming and giving evidence this afternoon. We will end that session and move on to the next session a few minutes early. I warn people that we are expecting a vote fairly soon, so we will have to interrupt proceedings when that happens.