« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OBJECTIVES REVIEW
PROPOSALS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS IN THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
PART IV : FINDINGS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
8 FINDINGS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
8.1 In the course of this Review, useful information has been obtained about developments in other jurisdictions, principally the other UK Criminal Justice Systems, which have in recent years undertaken their own cross-departmental Criminal Justice Reviews. In addition to consideration of relevant publications, information was derived from meetings held in London and Belfast with senior officials and representatives of relevant criminal justice agencies and departments.
8.2 While principally considering developments elsewhere in the UK, consideration had also been given to some material about the Swedish system, which was obtained on and following a study visit to the Swedish Prosecution Service made shortly before this Review was commissioned.
8.3 In conducting this Review, it has been valuable to consider the experiences and developments in other jurisdictions. Consideration of experiences elsewhere, both positive and less so, has helped to inform the proposals contained within this Report for improved integration in the Scottish system. In that regard, it is considered useful to highlight some of the main points of interest and findings from these other jurisdictions.
8.4 The observations about other jurisdictions that are contained in this chapter, and elsewhere in the Report, reflect my own interpretation of the information obtained from the documentation and meetings, as well as the comments of the officials who kindly provided their assistance. Any misinterpretations of information are my responsibility.
DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
8.5 The Cross-Departmental Review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, undertaken in 1997-1998, in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review, reported in March 1998. The remit of that Review was broader than the remit of the current Review, as it covered issues relating to re-offending and improving the effectiveness and quality of sentence disposal.
8.6 Following that Review, a framework of planning and performance management for the CJS was developed. A Public Service Agreement, published in July 2000, for the whole CJS, and supplemented by individual departmental Public Service Agreements, set out the overarching aims, objectives and targets for the system. Joint CJS Business Plans and Annual Reports that have followed similarly identify and report on the CJS priorities for improved service delivery.
8.7 Following criticisms of the operation of the new system by Lord Justice Auld, [ Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales , published in October 2001] further consideration has been given to developing and improving the operation of the CJS. A White Paper [ Justice for All , published in July 2002.] set out a number of measures aimed at addressing the identified weaknesses in the system and strengthening the management framework and consultative arrangements, centrally and locally.
NORTHERN IRELAND
8.8 The Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland, flowing from the Belfast Agreement, published its findings in March 2000, which included numerous recommendations for improving different aspects of the CJS. The Review Implementation Plan, published in November 2001, setting out the Government's decisions on the recommendations and the timescale for delivery, was followed in December 2001 by a Statement of Criminal Justice System Purpose and Aims.
8.9 Following on from the Belfast Agreement and Criminal Justice Review, all the organisations in the CJS are undergoing substantial change.
KEY POINTS OF INTEREST
8.10 Overarching aims and objectives for the CJS (which is quite widely defined) have been produced in each of these jurisdictions, albeit using different terminology. [ A note of these is contained in Annex C, together with (for comparison) a note of the current overarching goal for the CJS in Sweden.]
8.11 Supporting machinery for integrated system operation and joined-up working has been established. A common feature of both systems is a structure of inter-agency groups at different levels. At the top level in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland there is a Ministerial group, comprising the three relevant Ministers. The importance of Ministerial commitment to the success of a system of effective joined-up working was highlighted.
8.12 The most senior officials' group in each jurisdiction is a Board, composed of the heads of the component agencies of the Criminal Justice System and some other relevant bodies. This is supported by a variety of consultative and other groups, operating nationally and at local/area level. The importance of effective groups at that level was also emphasised. Auld was particularly critical of the proliferation of inter-agency bodies in England and Wales with overlapping and ill-defined functions and a lack of direction or accountability. [ Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales , Chapter 8, paragraph. 11.] Proposals to establish a new National Criminal Justice Board and to strengthen the management framework at local level and in relation to consultative mechanisms have been key features of the White Paper. [ Justice for All , paragraphs 9.5, 9.11 and 9.12.]
8.13 The principle of cross-system working within a framework of overarching aims and objectives is widely supported. However, some comments made by consultees suggested that it is not yet fully embedded in the relevant agencies as core business and that its impact on practitioners has varied. In England and Wales, the criticisms by Lord Justice Auld of the operation of the new system, including a lack of effective system management, planning and accountability, were confirmed in discussions with senior officials. In Northern Ireland, the framework is more recent and some of the main CJS agencies are currently focused on substantial internal organisational changes.
8.14 In England and Wales, the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit has been established as a central inter-agency unit to promote joined-up working. There was general support for the existence of such a body, although there was felt to be room for improvement in the effectiveness of the unit and a need to avoid excessive bureaucracy.
8.15 The Criminal Justice Reserve Fund in England and Wales, which is a special fund to be used on projects that will benefit the whole system, provided all three Ministers agree on allocation, is seen as a positive development in joint planning and working. However, this fund represents only a very small amount of the overall CJS budget and there are concerns about its use in place of consolidated baseline funding.
8.16 Reorganisation and restructuring in England and Wales has resulted in the creation of 42 Criminal Justice Areas. These Areas are coterminous with Police Forces, the Crown Prosecution Service, [ Following Sir Iain Glidewell's Review of the Crown Prosecution Service Cm 3972, June 1998.] the newly reorganised national Probation Service and the Magistrates' Courts. This is seen as a positive development in facilitating effective collaboration. The unitary nature of all the main Northern Ireland agencies and organisations is similarly regarded as a positive feature, although attention was drawn to traditions of strong departmental independence which could work against system integration.
8.17 Both jurisdictions suffer from serious weakness and lack of integration in the realm of information technology systems, with limited cross-system performance management information being available. Steps are being taken in each to make progress in this area, including the appointment of a Minister for Justice Systems Information Technology and the establishment of a new Criminal Justice IT organisation in England and Wales. [ Justice for All , paragraphs 9.59 and 9.60. ] Other technology proposals are set out in the White Paper. In Northern Ireland a major information systems integration project was getting under way at the time of my visit.
8.18 Inspection is seen as having an important role in both jurisdictions. South of the border, joint inspection is being developed across the system, generally on a thematic basis, assisted by the establishment of a Joint Inspectorates' Secretariat. The White Paper contains relevant proposals. In Northern Ireland, the proposed establishment of an independent CJS Inspectorate appears to be at an early planning stage.
SWEDEN
8.19 The overarching goal for the Swedish CJS is to reduce crime and increase the security of the people. All activities should be undertaken from a citizen perspective with the emphasis on reducing the time from report of crime to sentence. Specific objectives and targets are formulated and published in the periodical governmental Spending Authorisation, and are supplemented by agency-specific targets, tasks and assignments.
8.20 While maintaining their independence, agencies are expected to collaborate administratively to improve the speed of the legal process. According to a statement made in the Budget Bill of 1999, "The modernisation of the judicial system shall be based on a holistic view of operations, an exhaustive discussion on the division of responsibilities and requirements for far-reaching collaboration between the agencies." [ See Swedish National Audit Office, The Chain of Criminal Justice, 2001, page 25.]
8.21 A Swedish National Audit Office report [ ibid.] concluded, however, that the Government's pronouncements on a holistic approach were not matched by a policy for control and administrative collaboration between the participants in the chain of justice. The main criminal agencies were considered to work too independently of each other, with a lack of synthesis evident. The lack of geographical co-ordination was further regarded as having a negative effect on collaborative working, as was the lack of an integrated information technology system for the collection and production of statistics for the entire chain of criminal justice. New and improved forms of collaboration were deemed necessary for the rapid administration of criminal cases expected by citizens.
8.22 One senior official consulted commented that the co-ordination of the goals and objectives of the agencies has improved a lot in recent years, but there is probably still insufficient co-operation and co-ordination in the Ministry of Justice in setting the goals. The absence of any permanent senior officials' group working on CJS planning and monitoring was seen as a weakness and attention was also drawn to the independence of the courts as regards the achievement of overarching goals.
CONCLUSION
8.23 A number of useful lessons have been learned from examining the experiences of these other jurisdictions and these are summarised in the following paragraphs.
8.24 There is a demand, and wide support at a senior level in CJS agencies, for a more joined-up, holistic approach to the operation of the CJS. More effective collaboration and co-ordination are possible between the different participants in the system, while continuing to respect their independence, so far as that is necessary for the proper administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law. Institutional independence should not be an excuse for lack of inter-agency co-operation.
8.25 The principle of cross-system working within a framework of overarching aims and objectives is widely supported. However, the improvements delivered by the creation of such a framework and associated machinery have so far been quite limited. In both England and Wales and Northern Ireland the joined-up approach does not yet seem to be fully embedded in the relevant agencies as core business and its impact on practitioners has varied. Northern Ireland experience suggests concentration on major internal organisational change may distract from and affect progress on joined-up working.
8.26 So far as related machinery is concerned, Ministerial commitment is important for the success of a system of effective joined-up working, together with involvement of key senior people and those with real authority as regards service delivery. Effective groups at the local/area level are also essential. There is value in a central inter-agency unit (such as the Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit in England and Wales) to promote joined-up working, support cross-system planning and provide assistance to a national CJS board, but excessive bureaucracy needs to be avoided.
8.27 Effective collaboration is facilitated by geographical co-ordination/co-terminous agency boundaries.
8.28 A special reserve fund may be useful to support projects that will benefit the whole system.
8.29 There is a pressing need for integrated information technology systems, and adequate cross-system performance management information.
8.30 Joint/cross-system inspection has an important role in monitoring and promoting joined-up working.
« Previous | Contents | Next »