The Scottish Government

Listen

ISBN 0 7559 2849 0 (Web only publication)
This document is also available in pdf format (188k)

Introduction

Thank you very much indeed for the honour you have done me by inviting me here tonight to give the James Smart Lecture. We meet here at a time of profound challenges for the police service but also, in the aftermath of the G8 conference, when the reputation of policing in Scotland has never been higher. I am sure that if James Smart were around today he would have looked on with justifiable pride at the present day achievements of policing in this country.

That I have been asked to give this lecture at this time is a particular pleasure for me. I can claim some connection with the police: my grandfather was an Inspector in the Stirlingshire Constabulary before the war. But I fancy that things have moved on since then. There is a family story, apocryphal I hope, that he never had his boots off during the nine days of the general strike in 1926. Such shift patterns would certainly have made a difference to the requirements for mutual aid during G8.

I want you to free your minds, close your eyes if you wish, and conjure up a scene. It's early spring in San Francisco. The sky is blue but there is still a chill in the air. Along from the Pier 39 in the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge looking across to Alcatraz there is a small sandy beach. Two people are walking on the beach deep in conversation. Are they star struck lovers pledging their troth? No it is Sir William Rae and Colin Boyd. But they are discussing future relationships.

We were in San Francisco shortly after the conclusion of the Lockerbie trial to talk to the relatives of some of the victims. The trial was a unique experience in the Scottish legal system. A trial in a foreign country conducted under Scots Law before Scottish judges sitting without a jury. It tested our system in the full glare of international publicity. And I believe that it produced a just result widely accepted both at home and in the international community.

But we achieved so much more than that. Working with our partners in the Scottish Court Service we pioneered the use of technology. We put in place unprecedented arrangements for the next-of-kin - giving them a level of information and contact through dedicated staff that has informed our subsequent approach to the way that COPFS now deals with victims in Scotland.

It also told me a great deal about our relationship with the police. We could not, of course, have ever reached the stage of a trial had it not been for the professionalism and thoroughness of the Scottish Police in securing evidence from a vast area of land and from witnesses throughout the United Kingdom and all over the world. Their persistence and dedication placed us in a position where we could develop that evidence further for the eventual trial. And it was in the lead up to and completion of that momentous event that we realised how strong and effective that partnership could be as the police team, under the overall leadership of Sir Willie Rae, committed themselves selflessly once more to the case. What occurred during that time was the development of a seamless, almost intuitive, approach to the case with the investigative skills of the police complementing the trial focused approach of the Crown team.

We were reflecting on that success but also looking to the future. Willie, as he then was, had just been appointed Chief Constable of Strathclyde but was still serving out his notice at Dumfries and Galloway. He had also, during his visit to Washington, spent some time with local police and seen a close working relationship with what were called community prosecutors. For my part, having been heavily involved for the past year in Lockerbie, I was turning my attention to the challenges that faced the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service at home. We both agreed that in the challenges that we both faced there was much to be learned from the Lockerbie experience.

In 1983 my illustrious predecessor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern gave the twelfth James Smart Lecture. As it happens his title was "The Relationship between the Police and the Prosecution." It was, as one would expect, an erudite essay on the subject and I would certainly commend it to anyone interested in the development of relations between police and the prosecution. He set out the history of the relationship, the legal basis for it and spoke too of the close working relationship between the Crown and the police.

Yet 22 years on the lecture undoubtedly has a dated feel to it. He describes for example, police reports being delivered in bundles to the Procurator Fiscal. Nowadays they are transmitted electronically. More importantly the close working relationship he speaks of is clearly one which naturally arises from the fact that the police are the major reporting agency to the Procurator Fiscal. It is not one where police and Fiscal work side-by-side, set common goals or share objectives.

So what is the nature of the relationship between the Crown and its key partner in the field of Criminal Justice, the Scottish Police Service? It is in fact wider than the public at large may understand it to be. It is not merely the police as investigator and the Crown as prosecutor.

The Police Scotland Act 1967 provides that

in relation to the investigation of offences the chief constable shall comply with such lawful instructions as he may receive from the appropriate prosecutor.

And the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 also provides that

The Lord Advocate may issue instructions to a chief constable with regard to the reporting of offences

These statutory provisions provide a recognised framework that sees the police as investigators working under the direction of the fiscal. Their terms are rarely referred to. But they are universally understood and accepted by those to whom they apply.

But one has to ask the question, has the very clarity of those respective roles produced inflexibility in the relationship and thwarted the potential for closer working relationships? Is there evidence that it can indeed be developed?

COPFS' current strategic plan confirms that its main aim is to provide an independent, modern prosecution service for the 21st century - committed to professional excellence, pursuing cases fairly and consistently in the public interest, and being responsive to public needs. The critical adjective is independent.

The position of the Lord Advocate is enshrined in the Scotland Act,

"Any decision of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person." - section 48(5)"

We aim to investigate, prepare and present ( note the 3 distinct stages) our cases thoroughly, critically and accurately. Thoroughness and accuracy are implicit in the discharge of any professional's duty, but note the added emphasis on a critical approach to the Crown's work. How does that sit with a partnership with the police? In my view it rests at the heart of the relationship, and is possibly its most essential, defining, and ultimately rewarding element.

It ensures that the work that the police carry out is validated and checked externally as it evolves before it is tested in court; it protects their position by assisting them to working within the complexities of the law, and it contributes to the wider delivery of a system of justice that recognises the rights of all of those involved be it the victim, the accused, witnesses or the wider community. Every prosecutorial decision that is taken by the Crown in Scotland incorporates that approach, as each decision is a decision that is taken in the public interest.

It is critical that the role of the Crown and the Court is recognised and respected. Comments about criminal responsibility are often made by those who are unfamiliar with the all of the facts, the complexity of the law (particularly the law of evidence and the unique Scottish safeguard of corroboration) and the nature of the judicial process. The Crown's experience and understanding of such matters, and its duty to take decisions in the wider public interest, are vital factors that help to secure fair trials, the delivery of justice and uphold the rule of law.

In 2002 I set in motion what would become the most radical overhaul of COPFS in its history. I did so for a number of reasons. I recognised that there were weaknesses in its structure, and that it would not be possible to realise the full potential of the organisation unless staff were freed up to do their job.

I recognised at that time that the pressures that the department was subject to, were raising issues of confidence. I wanted to ensure that we had a prosecution system that was able to deliver the highest standard for the people of Scotland and at the same time secure their confidence and also that of COPFS partners. And much of the focus of what has followed has been with a view to ensuring that there was a structure and an environment in which those partnerships would be free to flourish.

So, with the recently appointed Solicitor General for Scotland, Elish Angiolini QC, we set out on a radical programme of reform, bringing in a Chief Executive and increasing the number of business managers throughout the department. We brought in an innovative electronic, case marking system that reduced paper handling and we embarked upon an ambitious programme of refurbishment of our offices. I make no apologies for bringing a more business like approach to our work. That side had been neglected for too long. The new approach has not changed the nature of our work, it has only served to improve it.

I wanted there to be greater external engagement and I wanted COPFS to be at the heart of change and driving change. This could only be achieved if we could build on our existing relationships. We created an Area structure which matched that of the Scottish Police forces, a move that I regard as critical in realising the potential of the relationship. I tasked Area Fiscals with prioritising the establishment of effective relationships with our partners. The key partnership was that of the police as they are intimately involved in almost all of our work.

On the part of the police too, there have been significant changes in recent years with the establishment of the Scottish Drugs Enforcement Agency ( SDEA), plans for Common Police Services and the new Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice Bill which is now before Parliament and which will put the SDEA on a statutory footing. Wider UK police initiatives such as the establishment of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency will also impact on the work of the police in the criminal justice system in Scotland.

And, of course, the nature of modern international terrorism has brought previously unimagined and long term changes to the nature of modern policing.

Its fair to say that we have also seen many changes at ACPOS level. There is a more collegiate approach to common problems and G8 showed that operationally the Scottish Police Service could act as one. And I warmly welcome the establishment of the new ACPOS Criminal Justice Business Area under the leadership of David Strang, Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. I believe that this is an important initiative on the part of the police which will provide a focus for the continuing work which we need to do to deliver further improvements.

Against the background of these changes to the prosecution service and to the police service we have been able to forge a new type of relationship - a partnership for progress and change. At senior level we have regular meetings between the Crown and ACPOS. We have entered into a number of protocols covering such matters as police reporting, forensic science, warrants and witness citations. And we have ongoing dialogue over a whole range of issues.

But its not just a senior level that these changes have taken place.

In my visits to Procurator Fiscal Offices and meetings with police officers, I have been impressed with the effectiveness of local action to target persistent offenders. It is a common fact throughout the country that very small numbers of persistent offenders are responsible for the majority of our business. By identifying those responsible and co-ordinating our work to ensure that it complements each other we have been able to work together to apprehend and remand in custody and bring to justice the most persistent offenders.

Let me give you some specific examples.

In November and December 2004 there were a series of incidents in a Stirlingshire village which focused on a local shopkeeper. He was subjected to a concerted campaign of racist abuse as well as vandalism and disorder in the shop premises - all carried out by a small group of youths. The incidents were carried out at different times by different members of the group on an individual basis over a period of some weeks. Had they been dealt with in the traditional manner then they would have resulted in a series of disconnected reports to the PF and cases in court which were individually not serious.

Stirling Procurator Fiscal's office worked with the local police inspector to agree a process whereby the cases against each of the 6 individuals would be rolled up as they happened and bail would be opposed. Where bail was granted there was an agreed set of conditions sought by the Crown for each accused and these were communicated immediately to local officers and the victim. Additional guidance was also given to the police on how best to handle individual breaches of bail (such as curfew breaches) which allowed a full picture to come before the court instead of isolated incidents. The local police also kept the victim fully informed of the latest position with each accused.

Over a short period of time, each accused's cases were successively rolled up, bail conditions were sought and the bail position was then reviewed to the point where the accused were remanded in custody. The original trial diets were preserved but the full set of charges facing the accused at the time of the trial diet (by which time all of them were in custody) showed a much fuller and accurate picture. From the victim's point of view, he had one citation for each trial instead of 20 to 30 different citations for different trials which continually changed. In addition, throughout this process, there were regular case conferences between the police and Procurator Fiscal to which the local Race Equality group were invited.

The result of the initiative was that the conduct came to an end, the accused were all sentenced (not all of them to custody) and the conduct has not started again.

The key aspects of the initiative in terms of joint working were: early discussion between police and the Fiscal's Office to identify the nature of the problem, a clear approach on both sides, cases reported from custody and bail opposed or conditions of curfew sought and strong policing of bail conditions in the knowledge that it would make a difference to the liberty of the accused.

Another example from Fife; there was a problem in Fife with serial housebreakers and this was targeted by local police and the Procurator Fiscal's Office in Kirkcaldy with Operation Violate in 2002 which has since been repeated in 2003 and 2004. The local police and PF identified list of suspects and cases were rolled up by Procurator Fiscal's office on a continuing basis until bail was no longer possible. The Fiscal targeted these cases by contacting local agents to encourage early please of guilty. The result of the operation in 2004 was that over Christmas approximately 18 prolific housebreakers were remanded in custody and none went to trial, all having pled guilty at an early opportunity.

The number of housebreakings in Kirkcaldy fell from 1295 in 2003-04 to 923 in 2004-05. The downward trend continues. The number of incidents of theft by opening a lock fast place relating to vehicles fell from 1597 in 2003-04 to 836 in 2004-05. Only 14 individuals were responsible for 53% of these offences and these were targeted by the police and Fiscal. The essence of the operation was to report from custody, roll up cases, oppose bail and to seek early disposal. The key to success was regular meetings between police and Fiscal to review progress and exchange information.

Another example, this time involving more serious crime and involving Customs and the SDEA. In 2003, four Scots were given lengthy jail sentences after being convicted of smuggling the largest ever consignment of cocaine into Scotland. The customs investigation, Operation Thyme, followed on the importation of three suspect containers at Felixstowe. 500 kilogrammes of cocaine, worth an estimated £30m at street value, had been concealed in one of the container load of bales of raw rubber. Customs officers followed the cargo from Felixstowe to Scotland. After a surveillance operation the gang were arrested at industrial estates in Glasgow and Ayrshire.

Customs officers in that case, together with colleagues from the SDEA, had sought and obtained early guidance on the case from the Procurator Fiscal's office in Airdrie, prior even to the consignment arriving in the UK. This recognised the unique role that the Crown can play in such investigations, not simply in providing legal advice and authorising procedures where necessary, but in shaping the case for that future stage when the Crown must be able to present the best possible case to the court.

These examples show that effective partnership working between the police and the Procurator Fiscal can deliver real and tangible results. But what is the nature of the partnership we are seeking to establish?

It is often said, of some partnership arrangements, that it's "only a business arrangement". A sort of loveless marriage, there to fulfil a purpose, to achieve a limited end but without much enjoyment or satisfaction and usually a degree of sufferance. Failure to nurture such a relationship can lead to the partners becoming permanently estranged. I recognised that our relationship with the Scottish Police Service was cordial but not necessarily as close as it ought to have been.

In most successful partnerships there is a recognition that you sometimes have to give something up, or do something extra, so that your partner, or partners may benefit. That's in the nature of partnership. But for too long we've worried about the effect on one element of the partnership, without recognising the benefits there may be for others. But if there is benefit to the partnership as a whole, then that partial loss should result in a share of an overall increased profit. (And we've seen examples of that)

The most productive partnerships are based on a closer understanding of each other's character and interests. As such understanding increases, so it becomes more instinctive.

But the development of strong partnerships is not simply driven by the internal relationship. One only has to look at the accountancy and legal professions in the modern era to see how ephemeral the nature of partnerships can be. Major firms merge and split as they evolve to the meet the challenges of the day and particularly the challenge of change itself - the need to be flexible, adaptable and responsive. Those organisations that succeed will inevitably have a dynamic, not static, character.

And that must be the nature of any partnership that we have in any modern Criminal Justice system, because the environment in which it exists will never be less than dynamic. Prospective partners must adapt to changes in human behaviour, developments in knowledge, particularly in technology, and the way that society functions in general. And from our own Scottish perspective, we see that - in our devolved era - in increased legislative change, greater accountability, and intense ongoing public scrutiny of all that we do. And we have our own changing social conditions and trends. If you add in the specific features of our own area of work - the unpredictability of such work, the challenges of new and complex crime, and the globalisation of relationships, criminal and otherwise, one can see why dynamic partnerships are essential.

Partnerships are defined by having a common purpose. So what is our common purpose? What is to be our guiding philosophy?

First it must be characterised by a strong commitment to justice and the rule of law. The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy and in many ways we are the guardians of the liberties and freedoms we enjoy.

But I suggest that is not enough. If it were, our role would be merely to catch wrongdoers and bring them to justice. So what is that extra element? I believe that we see it within ourselves. I have always been struck by the strong sense of vocation that police officers and prosecutors share. And the reason I believe is not hard to find. It is because we share a strong commitment to the public good and to our communities.

Justice for us is not just about locking people up. It is about standing up for the weak and the disadvantaged: the abused child, the battered wife, the racially abused shopkeeper. It is because we dream of a society free from the scourge of drugs, impossible as it might seem at times. It is because we want a society where our young people can go out without us fretting as to whether they might end up knifed or worse. And where our old folk can walk to the corner shop without fear of being mugged, whether that fear is real or illusory.

So we combine our commitment to justice and the rule of law with a desire to serve our communities, to stand up for the weak and disadvantaged and to promote a peaceful and tolerant society in which people can go about their lawful business.

So these I believe are our values which should guide us. And in doing so we must listen to the communities and the people who represent them and reflect their concerns in the policies we adopt.

But a common purpose is not enough. We need to set out our objectives.

The first of these is public safety. We want, wherever possible, to prevent crimes happening. So we have a raft of measures from community planning, neighbourhood watch through to extended sentences, risk assessment and the new Order for Lifelong Restrictions which will come in to effect early next year.

Some say that public safety should be our number one priority. But while I agree it is a key objective I think we should be wary of sending out a message that it is overriding priority. We all know that there are individuals within our communities who potentially pose a threat to public safety. What happens if one is accused of a criminal offence but there is insufficient evidence? Might there be a temptation, if public safety is the overriding objective, to "find" that evidence in order to remove the threat? Police and prosecutors should never act as judge and jury or give the impression that bending the rules is acceptable to achieve the goal of public safety.

So public safety is a key objective. But there are others.

Another key objective I suggest is efficiency. It is not simply a question of ensuring best value in the expenditure of resources, important as that is. It is also about effectiveness and building public confidence in the justice system. All the studies show that bringing people, particularly young people, to justice swiftly is important to ensure the effectiveness of any disposal. But inefficiencies also frustrate victims and the public. Witnesses cited only to see the case adjourned. Jurors left hanging around courts. And police officers too complain of being called to court to give evidence only rarely.

There is I believe much that can be done to improve the system. The Bonomy reforms in the High Court demonstrate this but we do need to act together and not against each other in realising these efficiencies and building a more effective system.

A third objective I believe is to recognise and serve the needs of victims in the criminal justice system. For too long the victims of crime in Scotland were seen as nothing other than witnesses with no special arrangements made for them either in the court process or elsewhere. The last 10 years have seen an increasing recognition of this issue and a determination to place secure for victims their proper place in the criminal justice system.

So the police now have trained Family Liaison Officers. We now have the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal's Victim Information and Advice Service, borne out of our experience of dealing with the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and the creation of the Witness Service to carry out pre-trial visits to court and support witnesses at court. In legislative terms, the recent Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 introduced radical changes to the support measures for vulnerable witnesses such as children. It is I believe vital for public confidence in the criminal justice system that we become more victim orientated in our approach while fully recognising the needs of justice and the rights of the accused.

Finally I suggest that another objective has to be to reduce re-offending. In the Criminal Justice Plan published last year Cathy Jamieson set out the Executive's proposals to tackle Scotland's high rate of re-conviction. This is not the place to rehearse the detail of these proposals: merely to note that both police and prosecutors have their role to play. Increasingly as the initiatives such as the Youth Court in Hamilton, the Drugs Court in Glasgow and Fife and the Domestic Abuse Court in Glasgow have shown, this will involve police, prosecutors and others working together.

There will inevitably be tension in any relationship. That is a natural result of organisations that have different roles and functions. It is particularly true where the Crown has to take the decision independently. Occasionally we will disagree about prosecution decisions but police officers recognise that this is the independent preserve of the Crown. However I recognise it can be hard for police officers who have worked diligently on a case for some time to be told that Crown do not intend to prosecute.

These tensions can from time to time surface in the press and be exploited by those who would seek to drive a wedge between us. But we should be careful not to imply that we are shifting the blame from one agency to the other. In his APEX lecture in September 2003 the First Minister admonished us from trying to blame others for the failings of the system. And as I watch the coverage of some high profile cases on both sides of the border I wonder about the wisdom of some of the briefing both on and off the record which is sometimes uninformed, speculative and unhelpful.

There will be times where we have to take decisions on the basis of information which is highly sensitive and confidential and which cannot be publicly disclosed. In doing so we may find ourselves being criticised in the press for the decision which we cannot fully explain. But we have to accept that our wider duty to victims, to families and to witnesses preclude us from revealing that information. And while the reaction might be uncomfortable I believe the way in which we conduct ourselves through these difficult periods will help give confidence that we are acting properly in the wider public interest.

So far I have talked about the relationship with the police. But the court and court service are also key partners. And the effectiveness of working with them can be seen from the Bonomy reforms in the High Court and the work of the National and Criminal Justice Board.

On 1st April 2005, the way that business is carried out in the High Court was changed in a fundamental way. The framework for change was set by Lord Bonomy's report which led to the legislative change. But the legislative change was only one part of the changes required. We needed to completely alter the culture of the High Court by breaking the cycle of constant adjournments or churning as we called it. So we worked hard with the police, court and profession to help put in place the detailed arrangements which would enable the change in culture.

At this point I should also acknowledge the role of the judiciary in this process. For the first time they were being asked to effectively manage the business of the court. The Act of Adjournal and the Practice Statement from the Lord Justice General gave guidance to the judges. But it is they who embraced the change and are a key factor in its success.

Another key driver that Lord Bonomy identified was the need for parties to be better prepared. There was a general recognition that handing over material at an early stage would greatly assist defence preparation. So my officials, working with representatives of all the Scottish Police Forces, set about making improvements to the way that statements are taken and material is ingathered, so that I was able to approve a comprehensive regime for disclosure of material in High Court cases. And there has been widespread recognition, not least from High Court judges, that the Crown's Practice Statement on disclosure has been one of the critical components in the delivery of real change in the High Court.

We can already see improvement in the system. There has been a significant increase in the number of accused who are pleading guilty at the earliest possible opportunity or immediately after the case has been indicted but before the witnesses are cited. For those cases which go to trial, both the prosecution and defence must agree on the essential witnesses who are then only cited once to a fixed trial date. Early estimates suggest that in the first 6 months approximately 4,300 witnesses have been spared the need for citation to give evidence and that in those cases which go ahead to trial 25% less witnesses are actually being cited. And, of course, they are only cited once to a fixed and definite date.

Over and above the improved efficiency in the system, these reforms have delivered a service which minimises the inconvenience to witnesses and jurors and the anguish which repeated adjournments often caused victims and their families.

What have the Bonomy reforms told us? They have told us that if the key partners are determined to work together and invest time and resources to deliver change it can happen. There is a lesson for the future.

The new National Criminal Justice Board, and the associated Local Criminal Justice Boards, are also an important signs of change in the criminal justice system. For the first time, the key people in the system, including Sheriffs in the Local Criminal Justice Boards, come together on a regular basis to identify the problems and seek solutions. It is early days but implicit in the work of the Boards is a recognition that one part of the criminal justice system may need to change in order to bring benefits to the other parts of the system. There are, I believe, the first encouraging signs that this new approach to change is taking root.

One of the long standing issues for the police has been the amount of time which is spent waiting at court to give evidence. All too often, the wait is in vain because the trial does not go ahead. I am aware of different local initiatives to find answers to this problem. In Edinburgh, for example, there is now a scheme in operation to allow officers to be on stand-by at their local station instead of waiting at court. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that an officer can be brought to court within 30 minutes. This obviously brings benefits to the police but presents challenges to the prosecution and the courts in managing the day's business in such a way as to allow it to happen. However, these challenges have been met and I have been told of one example of an officer who in 2004 was cited to give evidence more than 40 times but only gave evidence on one occasion. So far this year, he has been cited twice and given evidence twice.

So what of the future. The big challenge I believe is the reform of summary criminal justice. I hope that that can be as successful as High Court reform has been. If it is then I believe it will go a long way to realising the objectives that I set out earlier. But it will only work if, on the back of the legislative change there is a real and sustained change of culture in the Sheriff courts towards early disposal. That will require all the criminal justice partners, police, Procurator Fiscal, courts and indeed the wider legal profession to work constructively together.

One of the key elements in the High Court has been the willingness of the judges to manage the cases to ensure the most efficient use of court time, early identification of the issues in the case and a determination to ensure that parties come to any trial diet ready to go to trial. The challenge will now be there for Sheriffs. The issues are different but the objectives will be the same.

COPFS is currently working closely with criminal justice partners in Grampian, under the leadership of the Grampian Criminal Justice Board, to test innovative ways of working for the local criminal justice system through the "Clean Stream" project. It has been a good example of constructive problem solving at a local level which offers an insight into some of the features of the broader Summary Justice Reform programme and I await the outcome of the thorough evaluation of the project at the end of this year with interest.

But on serious crime too we see new developments.

From 1 April 2006 the Serious and Organised Crime Agency will become operational and will work in Scotland in a close strategic alliance with the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency ( SCADEA). The legislation setting up this new organisation has made specific provision for SOCA officers to operate in Scotland along the traditional lines.

22 Activities in Scotland in relation to crime

(1) SOCA may only carry out activities in Scotland in relation to an offence which it suspects has been committed (or is being committed) if it does so with the agreement of the Lord Advocate.

(2) In carrying out any such activities in Scotland SOCA must comply with such directions (whether general or special) as it may receive from the Lord Advocate or from the procurator fiscal.

(3) If it suspects that an offence has been committed (or is being committed) in Scotland, SOCA must report the matter to the procurator fiscal as soon as is practicable.

I am sure that these provisions will work well and will form a firm foundation for a new and effective partnership with SOCA.

We already have a good working relationship with Graeme Pearson and the SDEA. But as it grows and is transformed into the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency, I want to ensure that we maximise the benefit of close working relationships. So I will shortly be announcing changes in the way in which we deal with serious crime which reflects the priority that the Crown attaches to this area of work.

Much of the co-operation which exists at present with SDEA centres on the financial aspects of crime, money laundering and the recovery of assets. The Financial Crime Unit and the Civil Recovery Unit are good examples of multi-disciplinary teams working within Crown Office. They include police and customs officers as well as drawing on the expertise of forensic accountants. This is another area of potential growth in business.

Another reform which I instituted was to the structure and recruitment of Crown Counsel. In the past, with one exception, Advocate Deputes had always been appointed from the bar and served for a period of 3 years before returning to private practice. While this had served Scotland well in the past it was clear that we needed to ensure that we had a cadre of experienced Crown Counsel to deal with the serious and complex cases. And we needed to broaden the potential pool from which Advocate Deputes could be drawn.

Accordingly we created a new team of Senior Advocate Deputes who would prosecute the serious and complex cases, opened up the appointments to competition and allowed solicitor advocates, including Fiscals with rights of audience in the High Court to apply.

Under the leadership of Alan Turnbull QC and together with changes in working practices these developments have brought about a more professional and effective approach to the most serious cases we prosecute in Scotland. There is no change in the ethos of independent prosecution in the public interest but I make no apology for claiming more effective prosecution in the High Court.

There is now a culture of early co-operation between Crown Counsel, procurators fiscal and police officers in cases which are very clearly complex or high-profile. The prosecutions of William Beggs, Nat Fraser and Luke Mitchell are three excellent examples of the benefits of early co-operation on specific cases. It increases the understanding of Crown Counsel of the detail of the case and helps the police and procurators fiscal to investigate the case in a way which is most suitable for the presentation of the case by Crown Counsel.

All of these examples of co-ordinated working are to be welcomed and give us a useful sign-post to the increasing need for such work in the future. It is my firm view that prosecutors and police officers must work to build a greater knowledge of each other's business and this will involve greater joint training, business planning and operational co-ordination. Without such an approach, we will be overwhelmed by the rate of external change forced upon us and unable to develop solutions which meet our individual requirements but build public confidence in the quality of the whole system.

I want COPFS to be at the heart of change in the criminal justice system. It is difficult to conceive of any other place that we can be given our central role in all its casework. But our capacity to drive and influence change will be largely determined by the quality of our relationships with all our criminal justice partners, especially with our key partners in the police and Scottish Courts Service.

And the vision that I have is of a close, dynamic, instinctive partnership between COPFS, the Scottish Police Forces and the Scottish Courts Service each retaining their distinctive function and constitutional place but committed to delivering continuous improvement for the people of Scotland. We must be prepared to lead and we must be prepared to change when necessary.