Performance criterion 1: Compliance in addressing the terms of the test for prosecution in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth

This performance measure has been in place since November 2015. The prosecution test under the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth the Prosecution Policy requires the prosecutor to determine whether there is a prima facie case and reasonable prospects of a conviction, and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, when deciding to commence or continue the prosecution. Compliance for this measure occurs via a Prosecution Policy Declaration (PPD), which must be completed by the decision maker, confirming the application of the prosecution test.

The PPD is directed at providing assurance that the prosecution test has been addressed and also references information on the file that supports the decision made (for example, summaries, file notes, Minutes, submissions). The test set out in the Prosecution Policy is integral to all cases considered and prosecuted by the CDPP. It is of fundamental importance to the manner in which we undertake our work, and its proper application reinforces the independence of the CDPP. Consequently, assurance that the policy is being applied at key junctures in the prosecution process is vital.

From shortly before the start of 2017–18, the CDPP moved from a paper file based internal audit and compliance framework to a more reliable wholly electronic one. During 2017–18, PPDs were generated at five decision points (one for each phase) within the CDPP’s Case Recording Information Management System (CRIMS) database and were utilised throughout the prosecution process. The move to electronic PPDs streamlined reporting and allowed us to measure the application of the Prosecution Policy at a greater number of points in the prosecution process than occurred in the previous financial year.

From August 2018, the CDPP launched a new electronic case and document management system known as caseHQ. CaseHQ replaced several legacy business systems, including CRIMS. All new legal files received by the CDPP from that date were opened in caseHQ with CRIMS maintaining files created prior to 29 August 2018. Up until July 2020 CDPP prosecution files were managed across two case management systems, and PPD reports were generated from both CRIMS and caseHQ. PPDs are generated within caseHQ at 18 decision points (increased to 19 during the reporting period) in the prosecution process. An electronic PPD is generated and required to be completed by the decision maker.

A data migration project commenced in late 2019 to progressively migrate open cases in CRIMS into caseHQ. That project was completed in July 2020 so all active cases now reside exclusively in one case management system, being caseHQ. The caseHQ system is designed so it is not possible to finalise key legal decision making tasks in caseHQ until a PPD is completed.

In addition, the CDPP has introduced an annual sampling and ‘deep dive’ of prosecution files from across all practice groups, to enable verification that supporting documents properly evidence the application of the prosecution test. This provides an additional level of assurance for this performance measure.

These various system and process changes have increased the overall reliability and completeness of the measure and enhanced the CDPP’s capacity to monitor and audit performance against this measure on an ongoing basis, and address any potential lack of timely compliance.

Throughout this period, there has been oversight by the Audit Committee and publication of results in the Annual Report.

Performance criterion 2: Partner agency satisfaction with CDPP service delivery

Understanding partner agency perceptions of the CDPP across a range of service areas provides valuable insights that help shape and improve processes, procedures and performance, thereby allowing us to be responsive to the priorities of our law enforcement and regulatory partners.

A CDPP partner agency satisfaction survey was first conducted in 2015–16 and since that time it has been conducted biennially in 2017–18 and 2019–20. This survey has established a methodology and baseline to track satisfaction on an ongoing basis. In refining the methodology for the 2020 survey, two key issues were considered, namely, the ability to compare the results with previous surveys and addressing ANAO recommendations from a recent performance audit of the CDPP’s Case Management.¹

To align with the introduction of the biennial satisfaction survey in 2015–16, the CDPP set a partner agency satisfaction target of 90 per cent². The CDPP uses an independent provider to conduct the biennial survey, and following analysis of results, ensuring areas for improvement are identified and actioned.

The CDPP is pleased that on each occasion it has conducted the survey, partner agency satisfaction has increased. The 2019–20 survey result revealed an 88 per cent overall satisfaction rate, up one percent from 87 per cent in 2017–18 and up from 83 per cent in 2015–16.

In our most recent survey, we achieved a statistically robust response rate of 38.9 per cent with a total of 219 individuals participating. The highest number of responses were from the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Human Services and state and territory police.

Following analysis of the feedback from the 2020 survey, the CDPP will explore ideas and strategies to ensure that our service delivery to partner agencies continues to improve.

Performance criterion 3: Prosecutions resulting in a finding of guilt

3A—Total matters: The finding of guilt rate is calculated by taking the total number of defendants found guilty as a percentage of the total number of defendants found guilty or acquitted. The calculation covers defended matters, matters where the defendant has pleaded guilty and findings of guilt that result in a non‑conviction sentencing outcome. The calculation does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution against them in its entirety³ or where a prosecution has commenced and the defendant failed to appear before the court.

The CDPP has consistently exceeded the target of 90 per cent set for this measure.

There can be a variety of reasons for why a matter might be discontinued after it has commenced, including evidence no longer being available (for example, the death of a witness) or factors changing that mean it is no longer in the public interest to prosecute.

‘Conviction’ includes any finding of guilt by jury or tribunal of fact including but not limited to where a conviction is recorded. As to the latter, a court may proceed to impose a ‘non‑conviction’ disposition. This most commonly occurs in less serious matters, where extenuating circumstances exist.

Defendants may be prosecuted for more than one offence; a defendant is counted as being ‘convicted’ if at least one offence is recorded with an outcome of ‘proven’.

Progress reports are provided monthly to the Executive Leadership Group. There is also oversight by the Audit Committee and results are published annually in the Annual Report.

This measure is inter‑related with Performance criterion 1, in that a proper application of the Prosecution Policy test should inevitably link to prosecution outcomes, including the level of convictions.

3B—Defended matters: The finding of guilt rate is calculated by taking the total number of defendants found guilty in defended matters as a percentage of the total number of defendants found guilty or acquitted in defended matters. A defended matter is a trial on indictment or a summary hearing/summary trial. The calculation covers findings of guilt that result in a non‑conviction sentencing outcome. It does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution against them in its entirety or where a prosecution has commenced and the defendant failed to appear before the court.

This is a new performance measure for the CDPP from the 2019–20 year, and it is a subset of 3A. Defended matters absorb significant resources within the CDPP and reporting on this aspect of the CDPP’s work represents a move towards more comprehensive reporting.