This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8169812.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
CPS accused over lawyer savings CPS accused over lawyer savings
(about 7 hours later)
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been accused of "Alice in Wonderland accounting" for claiming it saved millions by using its own lawyers.The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has been accused of "Alice in Wonderland accounting" for claiming it saved millions by using its own lawyers.
The CPS had said using its in-house lawyers for prosecutions, rather than hiring outside barristers, saved taxpayers £11.5m last financial year.The CPS had said using its in-house lawyers for prosecutions, rather than hiring outside barristers, saved taxpayers £11.5m last financial year.
But a study commissioned by the Bar Council said the CPS figures were flawed and unreliable.But a study commissioned by the Bar Council said the CPS figures were flawed and unreliable.
The CPS has defended its policy and disputes the findings in the report.The CPS has defended its policy and disputes the findings in the report.
'Profoundly flawed''Profoundly flawed'
Crown Court hearings in England and Wales used to be advocated by members of the independent Bar - self-employed barristers specially-trained to defend and prosecute.Crown Court hearings in England and Wales used to be advocated by members of the independent Bar - self-employed barristers specially-trained to defend and prosecute.
But over the past five years an increasing number of prosecutions have been conducted by lawyers working at the CPS.But over the past five years an increasing number of prosecutions have been conducted by lawyers working at the CPS.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME More from Today programme
And according to the CPS in the last financial year this saved taxpayers £11.5m, while in 2007-8 it saved £17.1m.And according to the CPS in the last financial year this saved taxpayers £11.5m, while in 2007-8 it saved £17.1m.
The CPS... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong Europe Economics, consultancy firm
But a damning report by the consultancy firm Europe Economics says the CPS figures not only do not conform to government accounting standards, they are "so profoundly flawed" they "should not be relied on".But a damning report by the consultancy firm Europe Economics says the CPS figures not only do not conform to government accounting standards, they are "so profoundly flawed" they "should not be relied on".
The report says the CPS calculations exclude many of the true costs of their in-house legal teams. Bar Council chairman Desmond Browne QC told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the CPS had ignored the fixed overheads of employing in-house barristers - particularly accommodation and administration costs.
He said: "This leads to a skewed comparison - what they call loading the dice - in that the cost comparison will always favour the in-house advocate over the self-employed."
Keir Starmer, director of public prosecutions and head of the CPS, disputed the claims, saying its figures had been verified by the independent Inspectorate of Prosecution which found its methods "robust".
The CPS... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers - this is plainly wrong Europe Economics, consultancy firm
He also said using in-house lawyers enhanced their skills, allowed the very best to be recruited and offered value for money.
But the report said the CPS calculations excluded many of the true costs of its in-house legal teams.
"The CPS... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong."The CPS... compare the short-run marginal costs of deploying in-house advocates with the fees of self-employed barristers. This is plainly wrong.
"Barristers' fees necessarily include an allowance for long-run costs and fixed overheads; the CPS incur such costs too but ignore them. Such skewed comparisons will always favour CPS advocates over the self-employed Bar.""Barristers' fees necessarily include an allowance for long-run costs and fixed overheads; the CPS incur such costs too but ignore them. Such skewed comparisons will always favour CPS advocates over the self-employed Bar."
The Bar Council said the CPS figures smacked of "Alice in Wonderland accounting" and called for the practice of using in-house CPS lawyers to be reviewed.The Bar Council said the CPS figures smacked of "Alice in Wonderland accounting" and called for the practice of using in-house CPS lawyers to be reviewed.
The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have sent the report to the cross-party Commons Justice Select Committee, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, and Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC.The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have sent the report to the cross-party Commons Justice Select Committee, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, and Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC.