Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, was quoted on these pages earlier this month observing: “I think we get it right more often than we used to.”

His comment refers to decisions on prosecuting cases and therefore may give cause for cautious optimism. Equally important, though, is what happens to those cases when they reach court and the standards of the prosecutors entrusted with the task of conducting them.

Clearly the quality of our prosecutors needs to be transparently of the highest standard if we are not to see miscarriages of justice, wasted costs orders, retrials and unnecessary adjournments to name but a few of the potential consequences if those standards are not maintained. Yet the current policy of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is putting these standards at risk.

As the DPP made clear, the CPS policy is to encourage its in-house advocates to prosecute their own cases — rather than instruct the outside Bar. That is an understandable and laudable objective. And, of course, there still remain many cases on which the CPS employs outside barristers.

The problem is that this objective is being put at risk because of the way the CPS is implementing its new policy. It is being achieved by requiring CPS areas nationwide to meet arbitrary numerical and financial targets for cases to be prosecuted in-house. The figure cited is 20 to 25 per cent by 2008-09. Some areas are seemingly intent on achieving a much higher percentage.

In an effort to ensure that the process does not affect standards, the Bar and the CPS have signed a joint framework of principles for prosecuting advocates in the Crown Court to identify the objectives and key principles common to both. They are clear, helpful and constructive and a key factor underlying them is the importance of ensuring the highest possible standards of advocacy and case preparation in criminal courts in England and Wales.

But a lawyer’s ability to prosecute is not achieved by changing the job description from “instructing solicitor” to “prosecuting advocates”. The targets that have been imposed and are being ruthlessly pursued means that there is an ever-increasing number of Crown advocates who simply do not and cannot yet have the experience that is essential if such cases are to be prosecuted effectively and expeditiously.

They are not advocates by choice; they do not have the advocacy training, the court experience or the years of prosecuting and defending that all form an essential part of becoming an effective advocate.

To describe the Bar as competing with the CPS for prosecution work is misleading. The CPS is a monopoly provider of prosecution work and can instruct whom it wishes. Its employees are not subject to the same market forces as those in independent practice who will be instructed only if they continue to provide the excellence that instructing solicitors are entitled to expect.

The importance of a transparent system of quality control is obvious. The independent Bar is subject to an exacting and rigorous grading system devised by the CPS to ensure that a transparent system is in place so that only those who are of sufficient experience prosecute particular cases. But there is no such transparent grading system for Crown advocates — and Crown advocates cannot see any justification for such a distinction being made.

There is an inevitable perception that its absence is deliberate. Why? Because many Crown advocates would simply not yet have the experience required to fulfil the demanding criteria of the grading system. The interests of the public are unlikely to be met by a policy of instructing less experienced advocates to prosecute, simply because they are in-house and there are targets to meet.

This policy has also had an effect on the increasing use of non-lawyers, “designated case workers”, to prosecute cases in the magistrates’ courts. The rise in their use has been slightly constrained as a result of widespread concern about its impact on the very large number of defendants whose cases are heard in the magistrates’ courts.

The determination of the CPS to proceed with it is clearly motivated by the need to keep legally qualified prosecutors for use in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates’ courts. The interests of justice and the public interest seem to come a poor second in this exercise.

The Criminal Bar is not afraid of competition and we are well aware that any criticisms by us are likely to be seen as pure self-interest. What we are entitled to insist upon, however, is a level playing field. The same high quality, level of experience and expertise that the CPS rightly insists upon from the independent Bar must be required from its own in-house advocates. The CPS must not use its position as a monopoly employer to pursue targets at the expense of quality of prosecution.

The author, a QC, is chairman of the Criminal Bar Association and is at Furnival Chambers

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• UK legal industry faces loss of 10,000 lawyers
• Curious case of chocolate bunny trademark
• Divorce settlement granted after 22 years