« 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 V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
11 A FRAMEWORK FOR CLOSER WORKING
11.1 Establishing a framework of overarching aim, objectives and targets for the Scottish Criminal Justice System - supported by appropriate agency objectives and targets - will not alone improve the efficiency, effectiveness and joined-up working of the system. It needs to be supported by an effective framework of cross-system mechanisms or 'machinery'. Better joined-up working requires, at the least, more effective, coherent and purposeful arrangements for co-ordination and liaison across the system than exist at present.
11.2 It is true, as has been seen, that there are liaison arrangements and bodies of various kinds across the country. However, the picture is patchy, with variations in the composition, business, and frequency of meeting of liaison groups, and no comprehensive or coherent framework within which the arrangements and bodies operate. Their effectiveness varies and appears limited, particularly so far as cross-system performance is concerned. However, in the absence of shared objectives and targets for the system, it is perhaps hardly surprising that there is little clear focus on how the system is performing and what it is delivering.
11.3 The need for effective cross-system arrangements has been recognised in the other UK jurisdictions and action taken on that recognition. As has been noted, though, the mechanisms in England and Wales to support the new, integrated approach under a framework of overarching aims and objectives, and the considerable efforts of the three main criminal justice departments to work better together to that end, have proved disappointing in terms of what has been achieved. The Auld Review found that "this 'working together', or 'joined-up government' as it is called, is not achieving results commensurate with all the enthusiasm and effort put into it". [ Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales , Chapter 8, paragraph 12.] Auld himself commented on the "multiplicity of inter-departmental and inter-agency bodies at national and local levels". [ ibid .] His findings and proposals are reflected to a large extent in the recent White Paper on Justice for All, and its proposals for new CJS management arrangements at national and local level. [ Justice for All , paragraphs 9.5 and 9.11.]
11.4 In Northern Ireland the setting up of a Criminal Justice Board has been noted, although the substantial efforts having to be devoted by individual agencies to major internal organisational changes in that jurisdiction have also been commented on.
11.5 There is no doubt that better arrangements are required in Scotland to ensure more successful joint working across the CJS, in support of more efficient and effective operation of the system. There is clear support for this conclusion across the various agencies at both senior and practitioner level, although views may vary as regards the nature and extent of the changes that are needed and the new arrangements that should be put in place.
11.6 In finding the joint planning and co-ordination arrangements in England and Wales to be ineffective, the Auld Review concluded that the problem lay "most of all…in the focus on co-ordination rather than direction and management". [ Lord Justice Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales , Chapter 8, paragraph 40.] The current arrangements in Scotland, in fact, fall short of the criticised co-ordination arrangements in our neighbouring jurisdiction. A key question therefore in making proposals for new mechanisms here is whether we should move directly to the English model of management, direction and accountability, set out in Justice for All. Would that, in fact fit the Scottish system? Would some other approach be better suited to Scottish circumstances? Would it be possible, for example, to set up effective local arrangements which avoided the "administrative complexities and muddle of responsibilities" and the "proliferation of inter-agency bodies with overlapping and, often, ill-defined functions" that Auld found in England and Wales, [ ibid ., paragraph 11.] without creating a formal structure of system management and accountability, such as is proposed in Justice for All?
11.7 Consultations at senior level and the practitioner Focus Groups have certainly demonstrated support for better co-ordination, communication and planning to improve joined-up working. However, there is no obvious demand for a formal framework of centralised direction, management and accountability for the system in Scotland, nor any enthusiasm for complex new arrangements or the creation of a resource-demanding bureaucratic structure.
11.8 It is also important to take into account both the uncertainties about change to the CJS in Scotland in the relatively near future, dependent on the outcome of other major contemporary Reviews, and the existence at present of major internal organisational change within one of the main agencies in the CJS - the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service. The latter may assist joined-up working in some respects, but is currently the main focus of organisational attention, energy and resource and likely to remain so for some time.
11.9 The other current CJS Reviews also have a relevance to the question of creating any new structure of CJS management or co-ordination machinery. For example, possible changes to the summary courts system could affect joint arrangements. Any move to a single national court administration service would cause major internal organisational change in that part of the system.
11.10 In addressing the clear need for change in the arrangements for joint working here, it is appropriate to consider the feasibility and desirability of adopting or adapting the proposed England and Wales arrangements as a model. It is also, of course, important to recognise that those new arrangements have yet to prove their efficacy.
11.11 Taking account of the factors just mentioned, there may be an argument for waiting to see how the changes in the south turn out in practice. However, that should not prevent or delay change here. It is necessary, at least, to learn from recent experience in England and Wales. It is also appropriate to consider whether it is possible to adapt or build on the existing machinery within the Scottish system, in order to establish clarity, consistency and coherence as to composition, remit and relationships of inter-agency bodies, to remove or reduce overlap and to avoid the creation of excessive complexity or a substantial new bureaucracy. That is not to say, though, that there may not be a need for at least some new bodies.
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
11.12 As had been seen, there is no tidy or consistent organisational structure of the CJS in Scotland. This area of public service is delivered by a mixture of national and local organisations, central government and local government bodies, non-departmental public bodies and voluntary organisations.
11.13 Policing is provided by regional forces linked to local government and central government (that is, the Scottish Executive), prosecution is undertaken by a national prosecution department of central government, court administration in the Supreme and Sheriff Courts is provided by an Executive Agency of central government, while court administration in the District Courts is provided by local authorities. CJSW is provided by local authority services, often operating jointly, within a framework set by central government and wholly funded by central government. Legal aid is provided by a non-departmental public body. Victim services are provided largely by a voluntary organisation, but also by a division of the national prosecution service.
11.14 There is a continuing issue about the lack of co-terminosity of organisations working within the system. Although this exercise has been concentrating on the operation of the CJS from offence to point of disposal, there are boundary issues even between the relevant principal agencies. Police Forces maintain the boundaries of now-defunct regional local government. Until recently the national prosecution service structure reflected the boundaries of the main courts, but the map of the Sheriffdoms of Scotland does not match the Police Force map or local government map of Scotland. Looking to the wider CJS, reorganisation of local government has resulted in such a disparity of size of local authorities that delivery of CJSW Services has required the creation of yet another structure, involving combinations of authorities.
11.15 The structural and geographical reorganisation of the PFS, as part of the recent major management reforms in the COPFS, offers a somewhat closer match between the structure of the national prosecution service and local government and Police Forces. These changes have attracted generally favourable comment from consultees in this Review. However, there will be some anomalies in relation to court boundaries and the structure of the national prosecution service will continue to differ from the structure of the national court administration service for the Sheriff Courts. The SCS has recently completed a review of its own management structure and will be introducing changes over the next six months. These are designed in part to strengthen its capacity to engage in more meaningful dialogue with partner organisations in the CJS.
11.16 In England and Wales, as has been noted, action has been taken to align Police Force, prosecution, court and probation services' boundaries across the country in CJS Areas, in order to stimulate closer working. Northern Ireland also already has or is moving to a useful match of organisational boundaries in the CJS. The issue of CJS boundaries in Scotland is relevant to the question of effective planning, co-ordination or management of the CJS. At present, Scotland lacks the geographical matching of agencies that exists or is being achieved in the other UK jurisdictions and is to that extent less well placed to achieve improved joint working.
11.17 In this context of structural issues, reference has already been made to the consideration by the McInnes Review of the possible creation of a unified national court system or administration. There is also a structural or organisational point about High Court business and this has been addressed in recent COPFS Reviews and may be further covered in the Bonomy Report.
11.18 Finally, under structure, there is the existence of separate systems for child offenders and adult offenders in Scotland. Although the system for dealing with the great majority of child offenders in Scotland does not form part of the Criminal Justice System, as such, a need "for a more integrated approach between the youth justice and adult criminal justice systems" has been recognised. [ Scottish Executive Education and Young People's Department, Scotland's Action Programme to Reduce Youth Crime 2002 , page 4.]
CROSS-SYSTEM CO-ORDINATION BODIES
11.19 In the other UK jurisdictions joint Ministerial oversight of the system is regarded as an important element of the framework for effective joined-up working. As has been noted, 'Tripartite' Ministerial groups have been set up in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. The allocation of relevant Ministerial responsibilities in Scotland does not exactly match that in the other jurisdictions, as there is no Lord Chancellor or equivalent here. Ministerial responsibility for the different parts of the system rests principally with the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate. However, the Minister for Education and Young People has important responsibilities in the area of youth crime. If the criminal justice system in Scotland is to be encouraged to work more effectively in a joined-up way there is a need for enhanced joint Ministerial oversight of the system, but whether in our particular circumstances this would be best achieved by following the English or Northern Irish model of a Ministerial group would be a matter for further consideration. The new national body proposed in the next paragraph would require to report to Ministers, in any case.
11.20 The most senior inter-agency group of officials that exists at present for the CJS in Scotland is the Criminal Justice Liaison Group, chaired by the Head of the Justice Department. Its composition and work have been described above. While this group has performed a useful, if limited, function in the past and has increasingly taken a role in collecting and monitoring business management information for the CJS (or parts of it) it needs to be reconstituted or replaced by an alternative high level group. There is unquestionably a need for a top-level national group, but its composition must be sufficiently representative of the wider CJS and involve those with service delivery responsibility and authority at the highest level. It must therefore include operational police representation and representation of CJSW service delivery. It would be for consideration whether the Principal Reporter should also be a member.
11.21 The body should be chaired by the Head of the Justice Department as the principal policy department and parent department for key agencies and the police, but its composition should otherwise essentially consist of heads of the service delivery organisations or equivalent.
11.22 This group should report to Ministers and should be responsible for overseeing the operation of the CJS in Scotland and its performance in terms of the overarching aim, objectives and targets, and for review of those, particularly the targets. It should ensure co-ordination and consistency of planning across the system. It should be responsible for a national CJS plan, to be approved by Ministers.
11.23 Having regard to the role or responsibility of senior judiciary in Scotland in relation to the speedy and efficient processing of court business, and taking account of the widely-held view about the key influence of judicial attitudes and practices on the efficient and effective operation of the system, it is highly desirable that there should be involvement of a senior judge in this group. It would be for further consideration whether this should be one of Scotland's most senior judges - the Lord Justice General or the Lord Justice Clerk - or whether the predominantly summary level business of the group would make it more appropriate for, say, the Convenor of the Sheriffs Principal to participate.
11.24 It would probably be useful to support this body with some dedicated resource, in the form of a small joint unit responsible for servicing the officials' group, collecting and analysing system-wide performance information, assisting with the planning process, working with local bodies to promote more effective working across the system. It would be responsible for drafting a national CJS plan and any relevant reports, such as an annual report of performance of the CJS against the plan. It could also usefully take a lead role in creating and maintaining a website for the CJS in Scotland.
11.25 There may be value in the national level body setting up sub-groups to look at specific areas of sufficient importance to merit special attention. This could allow additional expertise to be brought into the process. For example, an important objective relates to dealing with cases through the court process with appropriate speed and it might be useful to set up a group to deal with that (as in Northern Ireland). Another possible candidate might be a group for the High Court, as that part of the system would not fit comfortably into any 'local' cross-system arrangements.
11.26 The Criminal Justice Forum is a body whose membership consists of broad representation across the CJS, including both the main agencies and smaller associated organisations. There is a place for some such body in the future structure to ensure the government hears the views of those with an interest in the system or parts of it. It is also desirable for the government to be able to have access to relevant experience and expertise in developing policy and in seeking to ensure effective operation of the system. There should, therefore, be a consultative and advisory body which would provides the voice for a wide range of relevant interests, building on the existing Criminal Justice Forum.
LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
11.27 There is a clear need for a much more effective, coherent, systematic and focused approach to co-ordination and liaison at local as well as national level.
11.28 The proposals for England and Wales outlined in Justice for All offer a replacement for piecemeal, confused, overlapping and ineffective arrangements in that jurisdiction. However, they involve one key element that would prevent simple adoption here, and that is standard CJS alignments across the agencies, through the creation of CJS Areas. They also include an accountability element that may be problematic here. There are other elements that accord with the conclusions of this exercise. One is that to be effective local arrangements must involve senior officers with responsibility for service delivery. However, another point of difference is the existence in the current Scottish system of a senior judicial officer with statutory responsibility for the speedy and effective operation of the court part of the system - the Sheriff Principal.
11.29 What, then, should be the local level unit for inter-agency system co-ordination or management? For effective joint working and oversight of the performance of the CJS around the country there is a need for a body above the level of local court user groups. (However, such groups are likely to remain useful at the practical, more operational local level and will benefit from active participation by local Sheriffs.) The options appear to be the existing Sheriffdoms or new Areas that essentially reflect Police Force Areas and the new PFS map. There are arguments for (and against) both. An important issue is the role of the Sheriff Principal.
11.30 As regards new areas, based say on the new PFS Areas, these provide the best (although not perfect) match of the police, prosecution and local government parts of the system. They might also be thought to be about the right size to cover geographical parts of the system. They will presumably be the unit for future management information for the police and PFS. However, although the PFS Areas are linked to Sheriff Courts only two match a Sheriffdom as such.
11.31 To the extent that the operation of the main court system in the CJS is managed and measured by reference to the structure of that court system at present, there is a case for the Sheriffdoms being taken as the basic local CJS co-ordination unit - particularly having regard to the statutory responsibility of the Sheriff Principal for the timely and efficient disposal of business in the Sheriff Courts of the Sheriffdom.
11.32 It is not the business of this Review to propose the re-drawing of the court structure map of Scotland, but it is relevant at least to raise the issue in the context of the possible outcome of the McInnes Review that could produce proposals for the creation of a unified court system. Such a change would justify, if not require, revisiting the geographical structure of the court system.
11.33 Even without a change in the Sheriffdoms it would be possible for the Sheriffs Principal to play a part in new cross-system bodies, based on the new Areas. That could be more onerous for some than others, as it would mean that some of them would have to chair or attend more than one group. The frequency of meetings would, of course, be relevant to the question of just how demanding this responsibility would be.
11.34 If the new Areas were taken as the basic local CJS unit, there would be a need for senior managers in the SCS to participate in more than one group. The recent changes in the management structure of the SCS make such an approach easier to contemplate.
11.35 It might be asked whether the Sheriffs Principal should in fact play a lead role in the co-ordination and oversight of the CJS at 'local' level. The point has been made by contributors to this Review that their experience and expertise do not lie in the area of system management and there have been criticisms of their effectiveness under present arrangements.
11.36 Yet they are the most senior figures in the CJS around the country, with status and authority. Arguably they may not themselves require to be expert managers, as the appropriate role for them in the proposed new arrangements would appear to be as chairs of the groups, which would comprise the local heads of the relevant service-delivery agencies, including the SCS. Overall, the Sheriffs Principal would seem to be best placed to undertake the role of chairing local CJS boards. It may be useful to support the Sheriffs Principal in this role with some dedicated inter-agency resource. An important part of the work of such a secretariat would relate to the collection and analysis of relevant business information for the local unit (whether Area or Sheriffdom).
11.37 It would be essential for the most senior figures to participate in these local CJS groups, if they are to be effective in securing the joined-up operation of the system, in contributing to planning and in overseeing and improving the performance of the system in their Area - by reference to the system objectives and targets. That would mean, for example, personal involvement of Chief Constables and Area Procurators Fiscal, together with the heads of the other main agencies, which would probably include CJSW and SCRA and possibly the SPS. It would be for consideration whether the local defence 'service' should be represented, but that may be problematic, both in terms of selecting a suitable person and because of the lack of any executive authority of any such representative.
11.38 As mentioned, the outcome of the McInnes Review may be relevant to this question of the best arrangements for local cross-system co-ordination bodies, but it would be undesirable to delay the setting-up of such bodies to await the outcome of that Review. The better option for co-ordination of the system, rather than just the courts, may be to establish Area, rather than Sheriffdom, groups but there are arguments for both options, as has been noted. Whatever the unit adopted, these groups would work within the framework of the overarching aim, objectives and targets of the CJS - overseeing, co-ordinating and monitoring them.
11.39 An Area-based arrangement may also be useful in addressing an issue that has emerged in this Review, which is the question whether, and if so to what extent, CJS planning, co-ordination and oversight should link with community planning arrangements. There is a perceived need for improved community engagement. There is recognition in the Pryce/Dyer Report on the COPFS, for example, that there should be greater community contact by the prosecution service and that will be important in terms of the CJS-community planning link.
11.40 Returning to consideration of the new English model, the suggestion in Justice for All that local CJS boards should establish advisory and consultative machinery [ Justice for All , paragraph 9.12.] is worthy of consideration for adoption here. Such machinery may, for example, be a better way of covering the defence interest, as well as other important interests such as Victim Support Scotland, the Commission for Racial Equality and Racial Equality Councils.
11.41 More difficult is the question of accountability on the part of local CJS bodies - having regard, for example, to the proposed involvement of a senior judge and the operational independence of some members. There may well be a need for, or value in, some link between the local bodies and the national-level group, facilitated or supported by the proposed joint unit. However, it is not clear that there is a strong case at present for trying to create a formal line of accountability from local CJS bodies to the national co-ordinating group. Internal departmental accountability arrangements will, of course, connect many of the members of the local groups with the national group.
INSPECTION
11.42 In England and Wales the White Paper, Justice for All, asserts that "the role of Inspectorates is crucial to raising CJS performance and supporting transparency and accountability". [ Justice for All , paragraph 9.43.] One of the recommendations of the Auld Review was for the formal establishment of a Joint Inspection Unit for the CJS, under the collective control of the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors, with sufficient resources to instigate and co-ordinate a programme of cross-agency inspection. The need for better-integrated inspection across the CJS, for example in order more effectively to examine the relationships between the criminal justice agencies and to assess the effects of individual initiatives on the system as a whole, had been previously identified in the Cross-Departmental Review in 1998.
11.43 Justice for All supports the Auld recommendation to formalise the role of joint inspection and announces an intention to develop a new approach to CJS inspections, "with the emphasis on tough joint inspections across CJS agencies, to be done on a thematic or regional basis". It is considered that this will "help to identify and address inefficiencies in the way the CJS works, particularly at the interfaces between agencies, and will support better case management and preparation." [ ibid ., paragraph 9.44.]
11.44 In England and Wales the Criminal Justice Chief Inspectors have already established a joint Inspectorates' Secretariat to support their activities, and that is seen as having value in the development of joint inspection and otherwise in enabling improved and joined-up practices.
11.45 The Home Office is committed to setting up a new independent inspectorate to look at the administrative performance of the courts in England and Wales, including the Crown Court and county courts. It is intended that the new body will help to maintain and enhance performance of the courts once their management is unified.
11.46 In Northern Ireland also, as has been seen, there is an intention to appoint an independent criminal justice inspectorate which will have responsibility for inspecting or ensuring the inspection of all parts of the criminal justice system, with the exception of the courts.
11.47 I have referred to these developments in the CJS inspection arrangements in the other U.K. jurisdictions because it seems likely that many of the arguments presented in, for example, the Auld Report and Justice for All may have relevance to the CJS here. If greater integration and improved joint working is to be achieved in the CJS in Scotland, there is probably a case for better integration of inspection arrangements in our system.
11.48 Prior to the recent disbanding of the COPFS Quality and Practice Review Unit there had been discussions of possible joint thematic reviews with the Police Inspectorate and meetings of the heads of the various Inspectorates (and equivalent) operating under the Scottish Executive (extending beyond the criminal justice system) had been organised.
11.49 There is a commitment to establish an independent COPFS inspectorate. An issue that may require to be considered in a context of any reorganisation of the court system or court administration in Scotland will be whether an independent inspectorate should be set up to look at improving administrative performance in the courts, as in England and Wales.
11.50 In a better joined-up system there will, I believe, be clear value in cross-system joint thematic inspection and consideration should be given to establishing some machinery to assist this, perhaps in the form of a small joint Inspectorates' Secretariat.
TRAINING
11.51 There is a clear need to address problems of lack of mutual awareness and understanding of each other's work and of 'organisational empathy' on the part of staff within the CJS agencies. Organisational culture issues may hinder effective joined-up working. There is interest in and support for joint training, which is currently limited, and this would seem to offer a useful means of seeking to remove such 'blockers' to more effective integrated working. There would also be value, I believe, in increasing other opportunities for cross-system contacts and for obtaining up-to-date information about, for example, criminological developments. The Scottish Association for the Study of Delinquency (SASD) is a useful non-governmental body, in this regard, but other training provision may merit consideration.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
11.52 As indicated above, while the principal CJS agencies in Scotland operate their own internal management information systems for monitoring performance, and publish data showing performance against key agency targets in Annual Reports, there is no centralised mechanism for monitoring performance of the CJS as a whole. There is some limited monitoring of business information relating to parts of the system and process by the CJLG.
11.53 In England and Wales, as indicated in the White Paper Justice for All, [ Justice for All , paragraph 9.39.] a dedicated CJS Analytical Unit has been established to assist the 42 local CJS Areas in interpreting performance management information and planning remedial action. The Unit produces quarterly CJS performance management reports for each of the Areas. These reports collate various data under the headings of Timeliness, Crime and Punishment, Just Processes and Outcomes and Court User Satisfaction, and indicate the performance of the particular Area against the national average for England and Wales.
11.54 Other proposals in Justice for All aimed at strengthening the performance management framework include the appointment of dedicated performance officers in each of the 42 CJS Areas, a team of national performance advisers and the development of a new management information system to enable Areas to access and use all agency performance information. [ Justice for All , paragraph 9.40.]
11.55 The extent to which it would be appropriate for the Scottish CJS to adopt similar measures will depend on the nature of the structures developed for co-ordination and liaison at national and local levels.
11.56 I have recommended above that a national CJS Board and local CJS Boards should be set up, with remits giving the groups responsibility for overseeing the operation of the CJS and monitoring performance against the overarching aim, objectives and targets. These bodies will require to have available adequate, accurate and timely management information.
11.57 Developments in the ISCJIS project should assist this. The scoping study presently being undertaken by SEJD Statistics Unit to establish the range of statistical and management information currently available from CJS agencies and to consider what further information is required, should help to identify the potential offered by ISCJIS for enhancing the range of information currently available on the CJS in Scotland. That study will require to take account of this Review.
11.58 In relation to the gathering and measurement of cross-system performance information, future consideration could be given to establishing a dedicated unit, as in England and Wales, to collate and provide a national body with this information and to advise on performance improvement. Alternatively, it may be possible for the Scottish Executive to gather this information centrally through ISCJIS, rather than relying on individual agencies providing information in relation to their respective parts of the process. In any event, it is clear that it will be necessary to ensure that agreed definitions, data standards and recording practices are being adopted by the principal agencies so that system wide performance against overarching objectives and targets can be effectively measured.
11.59 Given the reservations stated above in relation to the creation of a formal line of accountability from local CJS bodies to the national body it is unlikely that it would be appropriate in Scotland to follow the English approach of having performance officers in each Area. However, if the local bodies are to have a role in improving the performance of the system in their Area, there will be a need for greater consideration of local performance data than presently occurs. Arrangements will therefore require to be made to ensure that information to be gathered for the national body is also collected or broken down for the local level.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS and SUGGESTIONS FOR CO-ORDINATION and LIAISON
Recommended - there should be an effective framework of cross-system mechanisms and 'machinery' to support better joined-up working.
(Paragraph 11.1)
For consideration - arrangements for enhanced joint Ministerial oversight of the CJS in Scotland.
(Paragraph 11.19)
Recommended - there should be a top-level national Board of senior officials and officers to oversee the operation and performance of the CJS against the overarching aim, objectives and targets, to keep those under review, to ensure co-ordinated and consistent planning across the system and to be responsible for a national CJS plan.
(Paragraphs 11.20 & 11.22)
For consideration - it is highly desirable that there should be a senior judge on the national Board.
(Paragraph 11.23)
For consideration - it would be useful for a small, dedicated joint CJS unit to be set up to support the national Board.
(Paragraph 11.24)
For consideration - there may be value in the national Board setting up sub-groups to deal with specific areas of importance.
(Paragraph 11.25)
Recommended - there should be a cross-system consultative and advisory body, such as the Criminal Justice Forum.
(Paragraph 11.26)
Recommended - there should be an effective, coherent, consistent framework of co-ordination and liaison at local level, in the form of local CJS boards.
(Paragraphs 11.27, 11.29 & 11.38)
For consideration - the local level unit for CJS co-ordination boards should be either the existing Sheriffdoms or new Areas reflecting the Police and Procurator Fiscal Service Areas.
(Paragraphs 11.29 & 11.38)
Recommended - the local CJS boards should be chaired by the appropriate Sheriff Principal.
(Paragraph 11.36)
For consideration - it may be useful to support the Sheriffs Principal and local boards with secretariats.
(Paragraph 11.36)
Recommended - the most senior officers in the relevant service-delivery agencies should participate in the local CJS boards, which would work within the framework of the overarching aim, objectives and targets of the CJS, overseeing, co-ordinating and monitoring performance locally.
(Paragraph 11.37)
For consideration - there may be value in establishing local consultative and advisory groups to support the local CJS board.
(Paragraph 11.40)
Recommended - there should be cross-system joint thematic inspection.
(Paragraph 11.50)
For consideration - there may be value in setting up some machinery to assist joint, thematic inspection, such as a small secretariat.
(Paragraph 11.50)
Recommended - there should be more joint training across the CJS agencies.
(Paragraph 11.51)
Recommended - adequate, accurate and timely management information about the operation of the CJS will require to be available to the national and local CJS boards, using agreed common definitions, recording practices and data standards.
(Paragraph 11.56)
Recommended - the current SEJD Statistics Unit scoping study in connection with ISCJIS will require to take account of this Review report.
(Paragraph 11.57)
« Previous | Contents | Next »