Written evidence submitted by Max Hill QC, Director of Public Prosecutions (LEG0104)

I write in relation to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s appearance before the Justice Committee on Tuesday 18 January 2022 regarding the future of criminal legal aid, and specifically in respect of an exchange relating to defence remuneration based on pages of prosecution evidence. I apologise for the delay in formally writing to you on this matter.

The CPS has engaged with and supported the work and aims of the Independent Review of Criminal Legal Aid and have met with Sir Christopher on several occasions.  We recognise the wider importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Criminal Legal Aid and agree – as Sir Christopher sets out in his report – that “the CJS cannot function without the defence”.  The role they perform in the work we do is essential to delivering CPS and wider CJS aims.  

It was against this background that I noted with some surprise Sir Christopher’s evidence regarding “senior officials at the CPS” informing him that we (the CPS) “deliberately shrink the font of the pages served to reduce the page count.”  It has since been suggested that the reason for doing so is to limit to the amount claimable by defence solicitors under the Litigators Fee Scheme.  To be clear, this is neither CPS policy nor practice.    

Given the nature of the discussion and the public commentary that followed, I was keen clarify the CPS position with Sir Christopher and better understand the basis for his evidence to the Committee.  In correspondence with the CPS, Sir Christopher has now clarified that his comments were driven by anecdotal evidence picked up from his many engagements with the defence community during his review, as reflected in his report.  

Whilst we understand the concerns expressed by some defence practitioners, the approach they describe is inaccurate.  It is not, and has never been, CPS policy to reduce the font size on evidential material to minimise page counts.  Whilst remuneration to defence practitioners is based in part on the papers we serve, our approach seeks neither to affect nor influence the basis of those payments. 

The CPS does produce a range of documents in preparing cases for service, such as indexes, witness and exhibit lists etc.  We are not, however, responsible for the formatting of evidential material produced by investigative bodies, such as the police.  Nor are we resourced to reformat material already supplied to us.  Reducing font size in the way described would therefore generate additional and unnecessary work – of no benefit to either the CPS or our CJS stakeholders, particularly at a time when all parts of the CJS must work together to resolve issues, including the caseload which has built up during the pandemic. 

In terms of the financial element, it is, of course, the Legal Aid Agency who are responsible for the assessment and/or payment of legal aid fees to defence practitioners, not the CPS.  Our role is limited to providing page count information.  This includes the provision of notional page counts to enable defence practitioners to claim pages for electronic material, which fall outside the page count definition under the CPS scheme.  We introduced this provision in 2018 to assist both the LAA and defence practitioners.  

We firmly support the necessity of appropriate remuneration for the defence community, and we rely upon our good relationship with all external advocates – solicitors and barristers. In 2019 we comprehensively reviewed the CPS fee arrangements, significantly enhancing remuneration for external advocates appearing across all court venues.  We remain committed to the regular review of our fee schemes.  

I trust that what I have outlined clarifies matters for the Committee and provides an assurance regarding our position.  

March 2022