« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SMARTER JUSTICE, SAFER COMMUNITIES
SUMMARY JUSTICE REFORM - NEXT STEPS >>>
INTRODUCTION - THE SUMMARY JUSTICE SYSTEM IN
CONTEXT
Why is summary justice so important?
1. The summary justice system deals with
those less serious offences which account for 96% of
criminal court business. All cases heard by sheriffs
sitting alone in the sheriff court or by a bench of one or
more lay justices in the district court (or, in Glasgow
only, a paid stipendiary magistrate) fall within the
summary justice system. The types of offence dealt with
range from minor breaches of the peace through to assaults
and weapons offences - and include nearly all road traffic
offences.
2. Summary justice matters because it is
the entry point to the formal adult criminal justice
system. If a case against an offender is processed speedily
and effectively when first prosecuted, he or she will be
given a clear signal that crime does not pay. A slow,
ineffectual system which is easy to evade gives the
opposite message, and is much less likely to deter
reoffending.
3. A robust summary justice system is also
critical because this is where the majority of cases are
dealt with. Better management of cases - diverting from
prosecution where appropriate, swift prosecution where
necessary - helps to reduce the upward flow of business
towards short sentences. A focus on efficiency in isolation
may simply mean that more people end up in prison faster.
We need a balancing emphasis on handling cases at the
appropriate level.
4. And we need to think much more about
how to build public confidence in the system. Justice needs
to be done, and fairness to the accused remains our core
principle. But it must also be seen to be done. The summary
justice system is the part whose impact or lack of impact
is most visible to communities, and which causes most
widespread concern. From our public opinion work we heard a
strong message that the system only seems to care about
serious crime - drug dealing, violence - and underestimates
the community impact of less serious but persistent
offending. We need to redress this impression by engaging
actively with communities, as we have done over anti-social
behaviour. Confidence that this level of the system works
well is critical to restoring public confidence in the
criminal justice system as a whole.
5. So our goal is not just a better
version of the system we have. It is about a system which
delivers summary justice in a different way. Our goal is to
engage communities in tackling low level offending, and to
do that effectively we need a new approach. Visible and
speedy reparation to communities as the collective victim
of crime is important. Enhancing the roles which lay people
can play at the heart of the system helps to demonstrate
our commitment to break down the barriers between
professionals and communities. This is not just about
listening to public opinion - it is about giving community
members a real say in how the service is delivered.
6. We recognise the challenges here, and
the importance of not eroding key principles like the
independence of judicial decision making on individual
cases. But we want a different kind of justice service,
which does more than simply process the offenders who come
through its entry points. We want a service which addresses
the needs of communities as well as the deeds - and the
needs - of offenders.
7. That is why we are now putting forward
proposals for reform of summary justice. The offences with
which the summary justice system deals may not individually
be serious, but their volume means that cumulatively they
are the ones whose successful handling is critical to the
confident Scotland which we are seeking to build.
How we reached this point; the McInnes
report
8. In September 2001 Jim Wallace (then
Minister for Justice) announced proposals to review the
provision of summary justice in Scotland. To take this
forward, the Summary Justice Review Committee was appointed
under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal John McInnes.
The 'McInnes Committee's' remit was:
'to review the provision of summary justice in
Scotland, including the structures and procedures of
the Sheriff Courts and District Courts as they relate
to summary business and the inter-relation between the
two levels of court, and to make recommendations for
the more efficient and effective delivery of summary
justice in Scotland.'
9. Consultation was a key feature of the
Committee's approach. In 2002, the Committee examined the
high-level issues in a paper-based consultation exercise.
In 2003 it held a series of events at which summary justice
practitioners discussed a number of technical proposals
considered by the Committee. The Committee also
commissioned a large-scale public survey that was conducted
in January and February 2003 and continued to develop its
proposals through a series of bilateral meetings with
interested groups in 2003.
10. The 'McInnes report'
1 was published on 16 March 2004. It made
recommendations on a number of significant issues,
including the structure of the summary justice system,
judges in the summary courts and the procedures to be
followed in court cases. Before reaching any decisions on
the recommendations made in the report a period of open
consultation was held by the Executive to obtain the views
of organisations with an involvement or interest in the
criminal justice system, as well as the public generally. A
four month period of open consultation followed
publication. A total of 240 responses were received and
analysed and a wealth of information provided. An analysis
of the consultation responses was carried out by
independent consultants on behalf of the Executive
2. In order to gather a wider range of views on the
issues of community involvement in the justice system and
the use of alternatives to prosecution the Executive also
commissioned research
3 on these subjects, which took place in the second half
of 2004. In reaching decisions on the way forward we
therefore have the benefit of views from an expert
committee, interested consultees and an objective sample of
public opinion. Our proposals reflect the range of views
submitted.
11. On 25 March 2004, shortly after the
report was published, its recommendations were debated by
the Scottish Parliament. We took from that debate clear
messages that a practical focus on better outcomes was
vital.
Summary justice and the community
12. As we have said, the summary system is
more than a series of processes by which professionals
ensure that an accused's behaviour is effectively dealt
with. It is a public service, which needs to command the
confidence and consent of the community at large. So it was
important to look at what community members thought of it,
and how we could increase their engagement and sense of
ownership.
13. Individual partners in the justice
system already engage with communities. Last year's report
by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 'Local
Connections; Policing with the Communities'
4 noted the extent of current activity and recommended
the extension of existing links by, for example, the
extended use of public perception surveys to engage with
local people on policing priorities. And procurators fiscal
engage with the public in relation to sensitive areas like
the handling of domestic violence, and also in relation to
diversity/race issues. Likewise, the Scottish Court Service
conducts regular sample surveys of customer satisfaction
with the services it provides.
14. In 2003 we consulted extensively on
our proposals for legislation on anti-social behaviour,
with a focus on face to face engagement. A series of 70
Ministerial and official visits to key stakeholders and to
local communities was complemented by a series of detailed
focus groups and in-depth interviews, as well as the more
traditional written responses.
15. This highlighted the feeling within
communities that although they were frequently asked to
give their views on problems, they rarely or never saw
effective follow up which indicated that agencies had taken
those views seriously and acted upon them. And there was a
sense of helplessness in the face of behaviour which,
although low-level, caused constant stress and lowered the
quality of life.
16. In response, our package of
legislation and investment in anti-social behaviour seeks
to build community confidence that action will be taken and
that victims of anti-social behaviour will be supported.
Investment in community wardens, greater support to
witnesses and victims, support for mediation, dedicated ASB
'helplines' and a continuing public information campaign -
all this helps to demonstrate continued commitment to
resolving the problem.
17. In addition, we carried out last year
a substantial piece of research
5 involving two separate sets of high level interviews
with a sample of 1000 adults, supplemented by 12 focus
group discussions and 16 one to one interviews with
community leaders and representatives of particularly
vulnerable groups. This complemented the earlier work on
anti-social behaviour, seeking views on the handling of
offences by the summary criminal justice system.
18. We asked those taking part to tell us
whether they felt that the system listened to their views
on less serious offending, what messages they would want to
convey, and what methods of communication they would find
most helpful. We also listed a number of potential formal
roles for community members - including that of being a lay
justice, and of deciding what types of unpaid work
offenders should do locally as part of their community
service.
19. While community members could identify
existing channels of communication, there was considerable
doubt and cynicism about whether action was taken on the
matters raised - and this was particularly marked in
deprived areas. This reflected views given during the
anti-social behaviour consultation.
20. Most respondents, when questioned,
felt that the system should provide a range of ways in
which community members could make their views on law
enforcement and community safety known. Public meetings
were more popular amongst older respondents, while e-mail
was more strongly favoured by younger ones.
21. It was, however, noticeable that when
participants in the second large scale survey were asked
what methods of communication they would personally use,
levels of interest halved. Some residents in more
prosperous areas had little perception of low-level crime,
and therefore little sense that it was 'their' problem.
Residents in deprived areas were uncertain about what could
be achieved, and sometimes expressed the view that minor
offending had simply become a normal part of everyday life
which was greeted with weary acceptance rather than
outrage. Again, similar views were expressed in the
anti-social behaviour consultation.
22. When we asked what formal roles
residents would welcome there was a good level of interest
in the role of a lay justice. By far the most popular
option, however, was that of deciding what work should be
carried out within their local area by offenders offered
community-based alternatives to prosecution - 83% thought
this role should be available, and 35% would be interested
in it personally.
23. We have also begun to act upon the
need to engage communities actively in the nature of
community work to be carried out in their areas. Community
reparation orders, which will be piloted this year in
Dundee, Inverness and Greenock, will build on the views of
local people about what should be done. Local authorities
will have a statutory duty to consult with community groups
and organisations about the nature of reparation to be
undertaken by offenders in their area. This consultation
process will include, for example, community safety
partnerships, police, retail organisations and victims
groups amongst others.
24. In terms of services which support
communities by supporting offenders, we have been learning
lessons from our own problem-solving courts - the drug
courts, youth courts and the recently created Glasgow
domestic abuse court. These courts take a multi-agency
approach to the problem, with shared objectives and a
co-ordinated approach to the kinds of support an offender
may need, without eroding the independence of the
sentencer. And one factor appreciated by both sentencers
and offenders is the systematic follow-up of offenders by
the same judge, so that progress can be monitored, success
recognised and failure dealt with by someone who knows the
whole story. We have also visited a number of
problem-solving community justice initiatives
elsewhere.
Our package of reform
25. Our package of reform builds upon the
recommendations proposed by the Committee, consultees,
those involved in the administration of the summary justice
system and, most importantly, the public. We are clear that
summary justice reform must:
- deliver effective solutions to the problem of
persistent but minor offenders whilst building
community confidence in our handling of minor
crime;
- play its part in promoting safer
communities - we need efficient handling of
cases as well as effective management of sentenced
offenders;
- engage local people in the
development, delivery and monitoring of new
services;
- create
greater speed and efficiency in the
system - providing effective responses to offending
which reinforce that offences have consequences, reduce
the scope for further offending and make best use of
system resources, particularly the time of committed
professionals;
- deliver
smart disposals - the majority of
sentences of six months or less (which give prison
little time for rehabilitation) are passed by the
summary courts; and we need disposals which tackle
needs as well as deeds;
- deliver
services which are appropriate to local
needs rather than taking a 'one size fits all'
approach;
- generate a greater
focus on the needs of victims, witnesses and
the accused - not service providers - at the
heart of the system;
- engender a
collective commitment from all the
agencies to work together to ensure that
organisational boundaries never become barriers to
justice;
- produce
better case information - which will
travel with the offender from the moment of arrest and
charge to the moment of disposal, so that everyone
involved at every stage knows the full picture - whilst
providing reassurance to victims that courts reach
decisions from a fully informed position; and
- produce
better management information - about
what really happens in the system now and information
about how best to improve the system.
26. Above all, we need to focus on
outcomes rather than process. Every change we make to our
systems ought to be judged by a simple benchmark: will this
contribute to a reduction in reoffending and make our
communities safer, better places to live?
A plan of action
27. Delivering on this agenda requires us
to look at the underlying system in quite fundamental ways.
We have considered the structure, processes and personnel
involved in the handling of less serious crime and believe
that the changes proposed in this paper will improve them.
And we have considered throughout how best to ensure that
the lay perspective is represented at the heart of the
system. Our proposals on the future structure of summary
criminal courts and the judiciary in those courts are made
clear in chapters 1 and 2.
28. We will introduce a package of
procedural/system improvements that will help deliver on
the goals outlined above - better case handling, smart
interventions and effective enforcement of penalties.
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 outline the overall direction of change
and detail a number of specific improvements. Detailed
change in this area will be technical and complex in
places. We will work with stakeholders to ensure that
revised procedures serve their purpose.
29. Chapter 5 sets out briefly how we will
take this agenda forward in partnership with stakeholders.
We will make a number of changes to the law and are
committed to introducing legislation on summary justice
reform in the lifetime of this Parliament. But we will also
take a flexible approach to introducing reform, as
different communities have different needs. We will focus
on the outcome we all seek; confident communities in which
all crime is taken seriously, but where needs as well as
deeds are addressed and reoffending is reduced.
« Previous | Contents | Next »