KEN MACDONALD knows all about bringing terrorists to trial. In his previous life as a top QC he regularly defended IRA and Middle Eastern suspects against terrorism charges. Now, as Director of Public Prosecutions, he is working on the other side of the justice fence. In the coming months it will fall to him to prosecute proposed new offences: acts “preparatory” to terrorism and “glorifying” terrorism.

“It is foolish to underestimate the risk that terrorism poses for us and to public safety,” he says. “These offences are useful — you need to have charges that can catch people even at the fringes. If you only have charges that are too serious or exaggerates their role, you then don’t charge them at all.”

It will also be his responsibility, where terrorist suspects cannot be prosecuted through insufficient evidence, to decide whether they should instead be subject to the controversial “control order” regime, under which they will be held without charge or trial. “Obviously people would prefer that such people are brought to trial. But where they can’t we say so.”

To this end he is creating a new counter-terrorist unit within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to report directly to him and prosecute “terrorists, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other offences against the State”. He says that he will have a more “hands-on role” in such cases.

It seems a far cry from fighting in court to have his clients acquitted. But Macdonald denies that he has gone native. “It’s all part of the same business.” What it does mean, though, is that he is amply qualified to reinvent the prosecution service and its role within the criminal justice system.

Now mid-way through his three-year post, Macdonald can justifiably argue that the CPS has largely shed its “cinderella” image. It was the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, who first set out a blueprint for a modernised public prosecution service that takes centre stage in the justice system rather than being an incompetent player on the fringes. Now the strategy is paying off.

The CPS was underfunded and had poor status, he says, but not any more. There is a waiting list for lawyers who want to join. “The prosecutor’s job has become more interesting, better paid. We are recruiting lots of people from among defence lawyers, which is a very good thing and very useful: they come with their opponents’ perspective. We need more of that US-style interchange between prosecution and defence work.”

What has changed? It is a year since the CPS took over from the police the task of charging suspects. The idea was to ensure that only strong cases came to court, and to put an end to the friction between prosecutors and police over the CPS’s downgrading — after seeing the evidence — of charges laid by the police. Instead, police and prosecutors would work closely together again on investigating and building a case as in the pre-CPS days. “The key thing is that we have a partnership with the police but we must be independent, operationally and prosecutorially,” Macdonald says. The scheme, piloted in five areas over six months, was hailed as a great success. The discontinuance rate (cases halted because they are not strong enough) has fallen by 69 per cent; the guilty plea rate has risen by 30 per cent; and the attrition rate (cases that fall by the wayside before reaching trial) has dropped by 23 per cent.

Now the scheme is being extended nationally. Macdonald accepts that it does not work as well everywhere as in the pilot scheme, but says that much of the criticism is from defence lawyers whose work has reduced. “I am very sorry if some defence practitioners’ bad cases are less likely to come into the justice system, but we are not running a system for their businesses.”

But he does recognise the need to retain a balance. “You don’t want a system where either side is disadvantaged or seriously underspent so that people choose their work according to how much they will earn.”

The second part of the new CPS strategy is a bigger role with victims and witnesses. Macdonald is careful not to comment on plans for a new advocate in court to represent victims. “That’s a matter for the Government and for discussion. But we have a major role in upholding the needs of victims and witnesses — it’s clear they are not adequately catered for.”

About £27 million has been pumped into improving communication with victims and witnesses and ensuring that their voice is heard, he says.

He also wants prosecutors to do more court advocacy. “The CPS is the largest law firm in the country with nearly 3,000 lawyers but we don’t want simply to be a giant instructing solicitors’ department.”

He has begun a drive to train and recruit more advocates. “Producing more trial lawyers will improve everything we do. Their experience of arguing cases in court, if they know how cases play out, will improve our decision-making.” Crown prosecutors have higher court advocacy rights but few have yet exercised them. He has set up a national project to increase CPS advocacy in the Crown Court. “It’s not a terminal threat to the Bar — there’s a huge amount of publicly funded work.”

What has not happened was the much trumpeted name change to public prosecution service or office for public prosecutions. David Blunkett, when Home Secretary, jumped the gun on this. Macdonald is keen but it is still “under discussion”.

The CPS, he says, has to become “a sort of public prosecution authority — in charge of criminal cases from start to end. Our system has suffered from a fundamental imbalance because people have not had a properly empowered prosecution authority. And that’s what I’m trying to do.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers