BIJ Story: Crown Prosecution Service criticised for ‘wilful, calculated and prolonged disobedience’ in trial

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that cuts in staffing and funding at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is resulting in prosecutions being thrown out of court.

January 14, 2014 by Maeve McClenaghan (Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

The Crown Prosecution Service has once again come under fire by a top judge for failing to prepare properly for a serious trial, and for citing financial constraints as the reason for that failure.

The judge told the court that the case ‘raises serious issues about the practice of the CPS in cases where complex evidence is involved,’ and called the CPS’s actions ‘completely unacceptable’.

Recently published court records reveal that judge Peter Murphy was forced to throw out a trial for conspiracy to supply class A drugs just two days in to proceedings, after the CPS failed to prepare properly, claiming that submitting certain evidence would have a negative financial impact.

The judge’s comments are part of growing criticism of the CPS, as uncovered by the Bureau last year.

A six month investigation by the Bureau found that budget cuts had led to the CPS losing 23% of its barristers (202), 22% of its solicitors (518) and 27% (296) of its higher court advocates.

That loss in staff correlated with an increase in the rate at which homicide trials failed because the CPS provided insufficient or no evidence after a not guilty plea. This was equivalent to one in twenty homicide cases and represented a rise of 50% compared with 2010. The rate at which the CPS offers ‘no evidence’ had also risen for burglary, robbery, fraud and forgery, and criminal damage trials.

Related article: New figures reveal the CPS has lost more than 20% of its legal teams


The Bureau’s research found one senior judge describing the CPS’s performance as a ‘disgrace’, another as ‘a lamentable state of affairs’ and a third told the CPS that the court would ‘not put up with this kind of disdain’.

Now it seems the problems continue, as last November, in Blackfriars crown court, the serious drugs trial collapsed after the prosecution failed to serve the court with the evidence it intended to rely on, and then decided to give up its attempts to prosecute.

Without hearing all the evidence the judge acquitted the three defendants and they were released.

All evidence to be used in a trial must be served to the court so that both sides have a chance to review it before it is called on. In this instance the CPS wanted to introduce, what it described as a summarised version of complex raw data which had already been handed over to the defence. The judge called this ‘completely unacceptable’.

The CPS had been instructed to provide all the evidence it planned to argue on, two months before the start of the trial date. It failed to do this and applied to provide a summarised version. Murphy said this showed ‘wilful, calculated and prolonged disobedience’ on the part of the CPS.

Judge Murphy told the court: ‘What is disturbing about this is that I was told very candidly that the application by the Crown was being made primarily on financial grounds. If I am understanding that correctly, I think it means that there are financial implications in serving a large number of pages of evidence that then have to be reviewed by defence counsel.’

He went on to comment that ‘it is in my view quite wrong for [financial] considerations to stand in the way of the Crown properly complying with its disclosure obligations.’

After being told it could not submit any new evidence the CPS’s barrister Mr E. Connell told the court he would therefore offer no evidence against the defendants, effectively giving up the Crown’s attempt to prosecute.
A CPS spokesperson told the Bureau, ‘The CPS does not make a decision to discontinue or proceed with a case based on cost considerations alone. The Code for Crown Prosecutors, which lays out the principles according to which every decision to bring a prosecution must be made, states that factors relevant to the public interest of any prosecution include consideration of the cost to the CPS and the wider criminal justice system where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. This however is never a deciding factor on its own.

‘The CPS takes the Judge Peter Murphy’s comments extremely seriously and it is evident that there were problems in the way disclosure was handled in this case. Accordingly, we are reviewing the case to see what lessons can be learned from it for the future.’

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Whose afraid of affordable housing in London? London councils take money from developers in lieu of affordable houses.

George Osborne’s championing a rise in the minimum wage is like the Big Bad Wolf championing better straw for little pigs' houses. Will his earnest “little pig, little pig, we’re all in it together!” convince us he is not a heartless cad after all? Or will we suspect the motivation for his sudden change of mind on this minimum pay increase? On the 10^thJanuary Osborne said it would be self defeating and job destroying, then on 16^thJanuary he said with a purr

"I want to make sure we are all in it together, as part of the recovery, which is why I want to see above-inflation increases in the minimum wage, precisely because the British economy can now afford that."

Did a Special Adviser remind him about elections? This appeal from Osborne for a higher minimum wage is of course not aimed at winning over people on minimum wages. George has already huffed and puffed and blown all their housing benefits down. This is aimed at those of us who are beginning to feel a little C-sick over cuts to pensions, pay, benefits, jobs and public services squarely aimed at the less well off. As Mervyn King said when he was Governor of the Bank of England

"The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it…..Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I'm surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has."

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, in evidence to the UK Parliament’s Treasury Select Committee, March 2011.

Of course, it is unfair of us to compare Osborne to the big bad wolf. Let me say that now before the complaints come tweeting in from wolf lovers across the globe. All the wolf wanted was a meal, while Conservative Party policy is after much more than that.

Tory policies on benefits caps and bedroom tax seem designed to drive unsuitable people from suitable areas. According to Shelter, the housing charity, the way people are kept below the overall benefits cap is cutting housing benefit.

“Housing benefit will be reduced to prevent the total benefits received going above these limits.”

The effect of which is to push them out of their homes.

However, it is not enough to drive away all the unsuitable people from the suitable places. What about getting rid of the unsuitable properties? A report by Westminster Council shows the difference in expectations is between the well-heeled and the down-at-heel when it comes to the size of their gaffs. 

The Westminster report states a ‘Social’ 2 bedroom flat is 750 square feet, while a private ‘Society’ 2 bedroom flat is 1,200 square feet. A ‘Social’ five bedroom house, at 1,760 square feet, is smaller than a ‘Society’ three bedroom flat. And you can fit twenty one ‘Social’ one bedroom flats into a single ‘Society’ five bedroom house.

Now this is not just a question of ghastly neighbours. Think of the ghastly voters! Imagine the effect on 50 years of uninterrupted Tory held councils in Westminster of having 21 poor families voting from their one bedroom flats when you could have one wealthy family’s votes from their 5 bedroomed residence. The thought alone would jangle any numerate Tory's boodle.

The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that local planning authorities should include 'affordable housing' in their developments. The Framework states that they must

"use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area.."

So, apparently affordable housing should be included in the planning process. However, read on and you will find the get-out “unless” clause

"unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified"

A Freedom of Information request by the Bureau of Investigation found that three London councils have been making extensive use of this pay-off option: Tory Westminster, the City of London and pretty solidly Labour Southwark council.

Perhaps we are being unfair, and it is the nature of big cities that their centres aren't appropriate for the poor for some complex reason. And the poor would actually be better off in a more far away location. However, the Bureau of Investigation's investigation reveals that other big cities in the UK do not find this an issue. Payoffs in these other cities barely register.

 

Read More

Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals scale of UK housing crisis

By The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

The UK has spent almost £2bn housing vulnerable homeless families in short-term temporary accommodation, according to new research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which demonstrates the dramatic scale of Britain’s housing crisis.

Rising private rents, a shortage of affordable housing and benefit cuts have forced local authorities, particularly in London, to place increasing numbers of households into bed and breakfast accommodation, hostels and shelters.

With the number of houses built in Britain falling to new lows, according to figures released last week, a four-month study by the Bureau drawing on local authority disclosures, has revealed that £1.88bn – enough to build 72,000 homes in London – has gone on renting temporary accommodation in 12 of Britain’s biggest cities over the past four years.

Campaigners have said welfare changes will exacerbate the problem. Official figures show that in London alone 7,000 families dependent on benefits stand to lose more than £100 a week under the ­benefit cap, and many are expected to become homeless as a result.

Leslie Morphy, chief executive of the homelessness charity Crisis, said: ‘For the sake of cutting just a few pounds a week from their benefits, families and individuals are being forced out of their homes, to be put up in B&Bs or temporary accommodation that costs us all far more.’

A separate investigation by the Bureau has uncovered fresh evidence that London councils are rapidly accelerating the rehousing of homeless households outside their home boroughs. Some 32,643 homeless households have been rehoused out of their borough since 2009. In the year to April, 10,832 households were rehoused in this way – a 15.86% rise on the previous 12 months.

Most left the more affluent districts of inner London for the cheaper outer suburbs, although an increasing number of London’s homeless are being moved to towns outside the capital, such as Dartford in Kent, Slough in Berkshire and Spelthorne in Surrey. 

Related story: Get the data – Britain’s housing turmoil in numbers

Officials at the ‘destination’ boroughs have said that the influx of new households has put a significant strain on local services. Councillors in Enfield in outer London, where more properties and B&B rooms are secured by London authorities than anywhere else, have said the demand from inner London authorities is pushing up private rents and placing untenable pressure on school places.

‘The pressure will not abate,’ said Edward Smith, a Conservative councillor in Enfield. ‘Before long we will have to build more secondary schools.’

The Labour leader of Slough council, Robert Anderson said: ‘If authorities put people in our area with complex needs, or even just families; they need to inform us. If we know where they have come from we can make sure that the borough does not shirk (its) responsibilities and just pass on their more difficult clients.

‘You can’t just pitch up half way through a year and expect to get a school place. It’s not McDonalds.’

Related story: Britain’s housing crisis – The impact on children

The housing minister, Mark Prisk, insisted last night that councils should be careful about placing families in B&Bs far from their home borough.

"There is absolutely no excuse for families to be sent miles away without proper regard for their circumstances."

Mark Prisk, housing minister

‘There is absolutely no excuse for families to be sent miles away without proper regard for their circumstances, or to be placed in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for long periods of time,’ he said. ‘The law is clear: councils have a responsibility to take into account people’s jobs and schools when securing homes for those in need.’

But Prisk also defended the policy of removing families on benefit from central London. ‘Nor is it right that those living on benefits should be able to live in parts of the capital that those who aren’t reliant on this support couldn’t afford to,’ he said.

Related story: Case study – Stranded in Southwark

Jeremy Kite, Dartford council’s Conservative leader, called on London councils to use savings they make ‘outsourcing’ their homeless outside the capital to create a ‘new homes fund’.

‘London councils receive all the benefits of high levels of council tax which arise from their property values and this means there’s a strong moral case for them solving their own housing problems,’ said Kite.

Households accepted as homeless by their local council will often be placed in temporary accommodation until a more permanent home can be found for them.

There are 53,130 households living in temporary accommodation at the end of 2012  – 9% higher than the previous year. 

As latest government figures show there are 53,130 households living in temporary accommodation at the end of 2012  – 9% higher than the previous year – a leading law firm is preparing a class action against councils who keep families in B&B for longer than the statutory maximum six week limit.

Official guidance says B&B accommodation should be avoided ‘wherever possible’. Lack of privacy, and amenities such as cooking and laundry means it is ‘not suitable’ for families with children or pregnant women “unless there is no alternative accommodation available and then only for a maximum of six weeks.’

Related story: Sharp rise in B&B spending as homelessness crisis intensifies

But Bureau data shows that in the past year alone, spending by 12 of Britain’s biggest cities on B&B rooms increased by 25.34% to £91.1m.

Jack Dromey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister, said: ‘Ministers’ failure to get a grip on this crisis is causing misery for tens of thousands of families who are being uprooted from their local communities, friends, schools and places of work.

‘Local councils are being forced into making impossible decisions, placing families in completely inappropriate bed and breakfasts. And taxpayers are footing the bill to the tune of millions of pounds every week.’

The Bureau’s data shows the amount spent on all temporary accommodation across 12 of Britain’s biggest cities was up 5.7% to £464m last year. And London councils have budgeted for further significant overall rises this financial year.

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, London Councils’ executive member for housing, said: ‘London is in the grip of a housing crisis. Homelessness is on the rise, private sector rents continue to rise and there is a drastic shortage of affordable housing in the capital.’

Since 2009, London councils have secured 5,827 properties and B&B rooms in the three outer London boroughs of Enfield, Waltham Forest and Haringey alone.

The borough suffering the worst homeless crisis in the country appears to be Newham, in east London, which has spent £185.2m placing people in temporary accommodation since 2009.

A spokesperson for Mayor of London, Boris Johnson said: ‘Reform of the housing benefit system is needed but the Mayor has made clear the need for transitional arrangements. He has already managed to secure mitigation funding for boroughs, incentives for landlords to reduce their rents and more time for some existing claimants. London needs more affordable homes and boosting the supply, to rent or buy, is one of the Mayor’s top priorities.’

The Bureau established the gross cost of placing people in temporary accommodation. Councils do claw back a significant amount of the gross figure from the Department of Work and Pensions in the form of housing benefit. The gross figure indicates the true cost to the taxpayer of Britain’s housing crisis.

Related story: Infographic – Price of UK’s escalating housing crisis

Additional Reporting: Miranda Atty and Jude McArdle.

Sign up for email alerts from the Bureau here.

Read More

How lobbying (probably) works: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

By The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Following four months of research the BIJ's financial lobby team gained a rare insight into lobbying's inner workings. But what does lobbying look like? The video shows the wheeling and dealing as it happens. Is it fair? Is it democratic? You decide.

With a £93m lobbying war chest and cosy relationships with regulators and members of parliament this is a powerful force. 

See the data, read the methodology, and pore over the evidence the Bureau has amassed of the size and scale of the financial services lobbying machine...

• Revealed: The £93m City lobby machine 
• Streets paved with gold: The council (City of London) that works for banks 
• Analysis: Political donations by companies hit shareholder returns 
• Government’s new lobbying proposals slated by MPs
• How the Bureau calculated the size of the finance lobby
• 
  
• 
  

Read More

Opinion: Bailed-out banks facilitate $21tn offshore cash hoard

By Nick Mathiason, Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Investigative economist James Henry exhaustively trawled through financial information held by the IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, central banks and national treasuries to come up with the most definitive report ever written on the super-rich and offshore wealth.

Henry’s Price of Offshore Revisited report, commissioned by Tax Justice Network (TJN), shows:

• between $21 trillion and $32 trillion of financial assets is owned by High Net Worth Individuals in tax havens. This does not include real estate, art or jewels.
• a conservative 3% return on that $21tn taxed at 30% would generate $189bn – a figure easily eclipsing what OECD industrialised nations spend on overseas development aid.
• the top 50 private banks collectively managed more than $12.1tn in cross-border invested assets for private clients, including their trusts. This is up from $5.4tn in 2005.
• fewer than 10 million members of the global super-rich have amassed a $21tn offshore fortune. Of these, less than 100,000 people worldwide own $9.8tn of wealth held offshore.

Accompanying the Price of Offshore Revisited is a separate paper [co-written by this author]. It reveals that data used by individual countries to assess the gap between rich and poor is inaccurate. And as a result, inequality is far more extreme than policymakers realise.

This is because economists calculating inequality fail to include the vast majority of offshore cash in their findings. So the wealthy are far better off than the studies suggest.

In Inequality: you don’t know the half of it, eight of the world’s leading economists were asked whether offshore wealth was largely excluded from inequality studies. Ranging from the World Bank’s acting chief economist to academics at the Paris School of Economics and the Brookings Institute in the US, they all confirmed this was the case.

This is because the wealthy do not disclose their true incomes. They also rarely participate in surveys. Academics do compensate for non-participation but they admit, official data vastly underestimates the true picture.

Trickle up
Combined, the two papers published by Tax Justice Network end any notion that trickle down economics – the Thatcher/Reagan doctrine that suggests tax breaks for the rich benefits all society – works.

We already know that in the US between 1980 and 2010, incomes of the top 1% doubled and the top 0.1% tripled while the bottom 90% saw their incomes fall 5%. But the TJN studies show this wealth disparity would be statistically even worse if offshore cash is included in official studies.

Perhaps most tellingly, the reports bring into sharp focus how global banks – so-called ‘pirate banks’ – have enabled the super-rich to avoid unimaginable sums of tax while at the same time enjoying taxpayers cash through government bank bailouts. A true double whammy of dark proportions.

Some of these banks have been labelled ‘too big to fail’ following the financial crisis. But after the Libor scandal, HSBC’s key role in laundering Mexican drug cash and the subprime bank disaster, there is compelling evidence to suggest they are also ‘too big to be true’.

Which brings us to an issue that is fast troubling global financial regulators: the so-called ‘London disease’. It has not gone unnoticed that many of the financial scandals in recent years have a Square Mile connection. Never mind Libor, it was the London offices of AIG, Lehman Brothers and Bernie Madoff that helped destroy them. The JP Morgan and UBS rogue traders who lost billions were both London based.

The UK is also arguably the centre of the offshore world. It is one of the biggest private bank centres and Britain’s non-domicile tax rules allow the global super-rich to legally avoid taxes on their overseas income while residing here. In addition, many of the UK’s overseas territories and crown dependencies such as Jersey, Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are major offshore centres. This perhaps explains why the British government, for all its rhetoric, has failed to clamp down on the shadow financial system.

It has taken the painstaking work of TJN’s Henry to bring to light the true price of offshore. That the IMF, World Bank or OECD has not done this work is troubling especially as their lack of effective oversight contributed to the economic crisis that has caused significant hardship for hundreds of millions of people.

A good way to atone is to start deploying their thousands of economists to implement measures that will introduce transparency to the financial system instead of policies that facilitate secret offshore hoarding by a tiny elite.

Read More

Tax havens boost their lobbying efforts in the UK and Brussels

by Melanie Newman, Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Britain’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies have been boosting their lobbying strength in the UK and Brussels in recent years amidst growing criticism of tax havens.

NGOs such as Christian Aid have argued that the Territories’ image as tax havens puts them at ‘serious reputational risk’ and if they continue with their current policies ‘then their international profile as facilitators of corruptions and tax evasion will increase’.

Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have also come under fire, most recently from Labour leader Ed Miliband, who said the Dependencies must reveal the identities of tax evaders with money hidden on the islands.

‘I wouldn’t describe Bermuda as a tax haven. I’d describe Bermuda as being a very well run country that is able to have low taxes because it’s got a very strong economy.’ 
Henry Bellingham, Conservative Minister for Overseas Territories

In an attempt to counter such attacks, these offshore jurisdictions have been ramping up their PR and lobbying endeavours. They have also been lobbying in Brussels on European financial regulation.

Cayman Islands 
One recent example of this stepping up of ‘reputation management’, as revealed by the Bureau this week, was the hire of Lord Blencathra by the Cayman Islands as its UK representative.  Appointed in November 2011, his remit was to lobby in Westminster and Brussels and to fight off attacks on ‘tax neutral jurisdictions’. He told a press conference the financial services industry had to ‘justify its existence’ and that European financial regulation posed a threat to the Islands.

The Islands’ financial services industry lobbyist, Cayman Finance, has been represented separately by PR firm Media House International since April 2009. Chairman Jack Irvine is regularly quoted in the island press attacking critics of tax havens such as the Tax Justice Network and Labour MP John Cryer.

Media House has also employed Lord Blencathra as a public affairs consultant since 2008, though the peer told the Bureau his work for the firm did not involve the Caymans.

Bermuda
Business Bermuda, an organisation working with Bermuda-resident companies and the government, has also made moves to deflect criticism.  It hired financial PR and lobby firm Pelham Bell Pottinger in February 2011 with a remit to ‘develop and promote Bermuda internationally as the jurisdiction of choice’.

It has been touting the Territory as a safe haven for hedge funds under threat of European regulation; its annual financial services conference is due to be held in London next week, on April 24.

Henry Bellingham, the Tory Minister responsible for Overseas Territories, was quoted in the island press saying the Territory was not a tax haven.

‘I wouldn’t describe Bermuda as a tax haven,’ he said. ‘I’d describe Bermuda as being a very well run country that is able to have low taxes because it’s got a very strong economy.’ He added: ‘The UK could do well to observe very closely the successes of the Bermuda fiscal system.’

Guernsey
Closer to the UK, Guernsey and Jersey set up a joint PR office in Brussels last year. In September they also tendered jointly for a public affairs firm to ‘support the promotion and protection of the Channel Islands’ interests with influencers and decision-makers in the UK.’  The procurement was never completed, which a Guernsey government spokesman said was due to ‘internal factors.’

Separately, the Government of Guernsey has recently hired a director from PR firm Grayling, part of Lord Chadlington’s Huntsworth Group, which has been advising Guernsey for several years.

Steve Wakelin, the state’s new head of international relations, was formerly head of Grayling’s public affairs team. The appointment followed a visit to the UK by the Chief Minister Lyndon Trott during which he met, amongst others, Conservative peer Lord Sheikh. Will Wallace, a senior Grayling staffer who carried out ‘reputational management around sensitive economic issues of tax’ for Guernsey was a former speechwriter for Lord Sheikh.

Jersey 
The Jersey financial services’ sector has its own lobbyist, Jersey Finance, which is part-funded by the Government.

‘Massive liquidity [that] is pumped into London as a result of Jersey’s offshore status… Not enough is known in the UK about the hugely important financial benefits that we get from Jersey.’
Daniel Kawczynski Conservative MP for Shrewsbury 

In August last year Conservative MP for Shrewsbury Daniel Kawczynski visited Jersey at the expense of its government. He declared the trip on the Commons register of members’ interests and said it was ‘to meet officials to hear about the current political and economic situation faced with mainland Britain.’

While on the island he also met Islamic finance specialists, Jersey Finance and ‘representatives of the general financial services sector’, according to a Jersey government press release.

The Jersey Evening Post quoted him as saying: ‘I am staggered by the amount of support that the City of London has had from Jersey, the massive liquidity that is pumped into London as a result of Jersey’s offshore status and the work that you do here. Not enough is known in the UK about the hugely important financial benefits that we get from Jersey.’

The MP, who is parliamentary private secretary to two agriculture ministers might seem an odd choice for the invitation. But he is also chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Saudi Arabia and of the Conservative Arab Network. Jersey holds more than £20bn in deposits from the Middle East.

Kawczynski’s visit to Jersey was followed by a meeting in London with Jersey’s then assistant chief minister, UK and international relations, Senator Freddie Cohen. The press release announcing the meeting said it would ‘focus on building relations between Jersey and Saudi Arabia’. It added: ‘During Mr Kawczynski’s recent visit to Jersey he extended an invitation to the Island to include a representative on a forthcoming official visit to Saudi Arabia.’

A Jersey Finance official accompanied the Lord Mayor of London on a trip to the Gulf the following February.

Isle of Man
Finally, the Isle of Man appointed its first director of European affairs in April 2011, with the remit of ‘lobbying on behalf of the government, strengthening relations with key decision-makers, promoting the Island’s economic and cultural interests, and gathering intelligence on relevant issues.’

Patrick Rourke was recruited from the UK Ministry of Justice where he was ‘the principal conduit for the Crown Dependencies’ relationship with the UK government.’

The Isle’s Department of Economic Development and Chief Secretary’s Office are represented by five consultants from public affairs firm Lansons, a contract recently revealed to be worth £450,000. The firm’s contract with the island was renewed in 2012 after an independent poll of the Manx public found 60% backed the use of a ‘well-connected lobbying company to put forward the Island’s perspective at UK Cabinet level and [to] senior civil servants’.

The island also has a long-standing supporter in Conservative MP Mark Field.  Field has increasingly made his voice heard, recently arguing that tax havens benefit the economy. He has also attacked Ed Miliband over his criticism of the Crown Dependencies.

Field, who is Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, was appointed adviser to Manx law firm Cains Advocates in 2011. The role, for which he earns up to £40,000 per year, involves ‘assisting the firm with its international strategy, ambassadorial work and advising on government and parliamentary aspects of financial services’.

Read More