In response to your article, 'Angry CPS lawyers threaten strike' (23 April) I wish to clarify the position of the FDA CPS Section, which represents the majority of lawyers within the CPS, and to correct a number of factual inaccuracies.
The original motion considered by the CPS Section Council had been circulated prior to publication of your previous article relating to a CPS management paper (16 April) and was not a response to that article.
In addition, the actual motion passed by the Section Council at its meeting on 18 April, set out a discretionary programme of possible options.
Of these, the Section Committee has already decided to conduct a poll of the membership and to arrange a debate on the future of the service. There has been no decision taken to implement any of the other options, including a day of national protest. It is not true, as you reported, that "the plan for a one-day strike was set in train" or that "the association's first step will be to seek a meeting with the Attorney General".
It is right that the motion reflects the depth of feeling among the lawyers in the CPS for the reasons set out in the article. However, my members are dedicated and committed to fulfilling their professional obligations and serving the public interest. I intend to see that the mandate given to the committee is carried out in a responsible manner while recognising both members deep concerns and integrity.
FDA CPS Section convener.