The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SMARTER JUSTICE, SAFER COMMUNITIES
SUMMARY JUSTICE REFORM - NEXT STEPS >>>

CHAPTER TWO
>>> THE RIGHT STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS - COURT ADMINISTRATION AND FINES ENFORCEMENT

a) Court Administration

2. ISSUES - WHY LOOK AT THE WAY OUR SUMMARY COURTS ARE STRUCTURED?

2.1 An efficient courts service is a prerequisite for an efficient summary justice system. Each individual case needs to be managed as effectively as possible - but if we are serious about improving the operation of the system we need to look at the structure of summary justice and ask the basic question: 'could this be done in a better way'? At present the administration of Scotland's summary courts is split between thirty of Scotland's thirty-two local authorities (responsible for district courts ⁶) and the Scottish Court Service (SCS - responsible for all sheriff courts).

2.2 The McInnes Committee considered this issue as one of its main pieces of work. As their starting point the Committee examined the current structure on the basis of its core principles of effectiveness, simplicity and consistency - and identified a number of issues:

• a lack of expertise within some local authorities in court management which (understandably) was not treated as one of their primary functions and was not given a high priority as a result;
• varying levels of investment in the estate and in IT developments across Scotland;
• varying standards of infrastructure and training for justices and legal assessors and variations in the quality of service delivered to court users as a result;
• a less than optimal use of the court resource as a whole; and
• a lack of a single clear line of judicial and management accountability for the delivery of summary justice - which could make joint work between agencies more challenging.

2.3 As a result of this analysis the Committee unanimously concluded that the best approach to the future administration of summary justice would be to unify the administration of summary criminal courts under the control of SCS. They believed that a unified system would provide the necessary platform for delivering the following benefits:

• consistent planning and delivery of good quality court services across Scotland by a specialist service provider;
• a single set of procedures and a single IT system, facilitating more co-ordinated case handling - whilst retaining flexibility for a degree of local innovation;
• a simpler system whose organisation is more transparent and more effectively accountable;
• more flexibility in resource use - Efficient delivery of the courts business is highly dependent on optimal use of a very specialised estate; and
• scope to roll out improvements in practice quickly and effectively.

What we have heard

2.4 In common with the other recommendations of the Committee we invited views on the proposal to unify the administration of the courts from consultees. One-hundred-and-thirty-seven respondents to the consultation offered a view on this issue. ⁷ Over two-thirds were in favour of unified court administration (subject to qualifications in some cases). Some respondents simply agreed with the points made by the Committee whilst others gave additional reasons as to why the court system should be unified, such as:

• it would ensure the smooth running of the system;
• it would lead to better and more consistent levels of training;
• there would be better consistency of decision making;
• there would be more cost-effective use of information technology; and
• it may allow for a reduction in the number of courts in use.

2.5 Amongst those in favour of unification there were still some caveats:

• they would have to be satisfied that the interests of staff currently carrying out district court duties would be considered as part of the unification process and that any transfer of staff to the Scottish Court Service would take place with full protection of terms and conditions of employment;
• the estates implications would have to be clearly mapped as part of any change - local people in rural areas should still have access to local courts;
• further information should be sought on the income and running costs of the district court as the costings work conducted by the Committee had been based on inadequate data; and
• lay justice must continue to play a role within the new system.

2.6 When this issue was discussed with key stakeholders involved in the operation of the summary justice system the majority favoured the principle of a unified courts administration, for similar reasons to those given above. ⁸

2.7 Just less than one-third of those who offered a view on this recommendation were against unified court administration. Those who opposed unification did not do so on the basis that McInnes had wrongly diagnosed the problems - many of these responses acknowledged significant variations in the level of service provided by district courts across Scotland, but they felt that another means of achieving common standards should be sought rather than unification. They argued that the existing system had not been shown to be fundamentally flawed and that inconsistencies might be addressed by introducing central guidelines and good practice guides within the existing structure, possibly backed up by ring fenced funding for the district court. Some consultees were opposed to unification as they associated the proposal with the proposal to abolish lay justice (over half of the respondents opposed to unification were lay justices or representatives of justices. In view of the approach outlined in Chapter 1 the concerns of some of that group may have been alleviated).

What we will do

2.8 We have considered both the recommendations made by the Committee and points made by consultees before reaching a decision on this issue. A number of thoughtful analyses were provided both in favour of a move to a unified courts administration and against it. We have reached the conclusion that our summary courts will work most effectively under a unified summary courts administration, providing:

• effective service integration;
• consistency of standards;
• greater simplicity and accountability; and
• unitary management of the court estate.

2.9 We recognise and are grateful to local authorities for the professionalism with which Scotland's district courts have been administered since their inception in the 1970's. In the light of the work of the Committee we are now convinced that consistency and efficiency can be increased by providing unitary management of this highly specialised function and estate. Local authorities are key partners in the reduction of anti-social behaviour. In the formal criminal justice context they have a vital role as partners in reducing reoffending, supporting our overall goals by:

• providing effective reports to the courts to aid sentencing decisions;
• supervising community programmes that benefit a large number of offenders who enter the summary justice system - helping them tackle offending behaviour effectively; and
• operating as a point of access to other relevant services for those individuals.

This is recognised in the proposals in the Criminal Justice Plan outlining a new framework for offender management. Running courts is not local authorities' core role, and we think they should be able to concentrate on the reduction of anti-social behaviour and of reoffending.

2.10 We believe that effective operation of our courts must be a top priority if they are to play their part in reducing reoffending. Giving the Scottish Court Service responsibility for the administration of all courts will ensure there is a consistent approach to courts management by an agency which has that task as its top priority. Unification will create a single, clearly identifiable agency responsible at local level for administration of all courts - making it easier for criminal justice agencies to work effectively together in local criminal justice boards to deliver improvements in the handling of summary cases (chapter 4 considers the role of local criminal justice boards further). That model will allow us to deliver change in partnership with the main agencies - change that will ultimately deliver improvements in speed, efficiency and the effectiveness of justice delivered at the local level. Change that is central to realising the goals set out in the Criminal Justice Plan.

2.11 We therefore agree with the Committee that a step change is required. Whilst a degree of local variation will always be inevitable (reflecting differing local circumstances and levels of business) we believe that a single point of oversight will provide a more consistent approach to court management and a single clear point of accountability for the results delivered.

2.12 We have listened carefully to those who made observations on system capacity and the risk associated with abolishing an existing layer of the judiciary. A number of consultees and MSPs observed that it was important to test out the potential to take cases out of court. If we do not, we run the risk of radically restructuring the system - only to discover that a reduction in business does not materialise (our proposals in relation to alternatives to prosecution, including the modelling we have carried out, are outlined in the next chapter). The package of reforms to lay justice combined with those on unified court administration will improve consistency whilst maintaining capacity in the system. Lay justices will continue to hear cases in a lay tier, supported by a unified administration. Unification will also bring the entire summary judiciary in each sheriffdom within the responsibility of one individual - the Sheriff Principal. This approach will support the Sheriffs Principal in applying available judicial resources flexibly to meet future need. We believe this provides the opportunity for a more consistent approach to be taken to the management of summary business in each area, whilst placing lay justices within the overall direction of the Sheriff Principal. Unified management of the court estate would also make it simpler to deliver consistency between sheriff court district and local authority boundaries in the longer term - something that the Committee recommended. Although these boundaries are well matched on the whole there are some localities in which further alignment may be of benefit and make a useful contribution to local joint working arrangements.

How we will deliver unified administration

General approach

2.13 Developing a unified administration is a major system change that will require legislation to establish the unified summary criminal court. We are committed to introducing that legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament and will work with our partner agencies and stakeholders who have an interest in the new structure to develop a framework for change that helps us realise our goals.

2.14 We intend to phase in unification across Scotland over a number of years, on a sheriffdom by sheriffdom basis. There are a number of reasons for adopting this approach rather than imposing 'big bang' change:

• it will allow change to be effectively managed on an area by area basis - making real progress without overwhelming stakeholders;
• lessons will be learned as the unification project rolls out - this approach reduces risks of failures in the system and will allow local innovations and developments to be captured and used to the benefit of other areas as they unify; and
• appropriate local initiatives and court solutions will be implemented to fit the needs of individual communities as each phase of the roll-out proceeds.

2.15 The precise timescale for roll-out of unification (and the order in which areas will unify) will be subject to the passage of legislation and the views of the main players in the system. Unification of the first sheriffdom will not take place until at least the 2007/08 financial year. Sheriffdoms have been selected as the business area for the unified summary criminal court for a number of reasons:

• sheriff court summary business is already organised by sheriffdom - unification will be a significant change of itself without introducing further changes to the boundaries of business areas;
• the sheriffdom area provides more flexibility in case handling than current district court commission areas. Use of the sheriffdom will also allow us to take advantage of the court programming and management expertise already developed in SCS at this level;
• with the exception of a couple of minor boundary issues sheriffdoms are contiguous with the boundaries of a group of local authorities. Each local authority's interest in the administration of district courts would therefore transfer to SCS in a single phase of unification - eliminating excessive transitional arrangements; and
• unification will provide the opportunity to address some current anomalies in business flow to particular courts and ensure that court capacity is effectively managed at the sheriffdom level.

2.16 A number of consultees opposed to the recommendation to unify the administration of the courts expressed a fear that unification would be used as an opportunity to reduce the number of court locations in Scotland - possibly to the prejudice of those living in smaller towns and rural communities. Whilst unification provides the opportunity to consider optimal use of the entire court estate we make clear here that there are no plans to reduce radically the number of towns in which courts sit as part of the unification project. Some towns currently have both a sheriff and district court - neither of which is fully employed. In those situations we would take the opportunity to realise sensible efficiencies through rationalisation and upgrade of the estate - something that should also benefit those who use the courts. Local provision will be maintained under a unified system. We may, however, need to consider the overall provision of the court estate and ask whether our courts are sited where we genuinely need them - but this project is essentially about unifying court administration and using resources effectively to deliver the best possible service to all court users.

2.17 This highlights a further point about how communities have a voice in the delivery of the court system. In line with the principles set out in the introduction to this document, we believe that the court service should take a systematic approach to engagement with lay people over the quality of services it provides and in setting its strategic direction. This is particularly important in the context of court unification.

2.18 We have already underlined the fact that unification of court administration does not mean a 'one size fits all' court provision. Phased unification provides an ideal opportunity to review the most effective way of delivering justice - sheriffdom by sheriffdom - and involvement of local communities in that process will be crucial to the success of a future unified administration. This approach offers scope (for example) to consider different ways of organising the court day, in the interests of a service which meets community and victim needs. This builds on the work SCS already carries out to feed views from user surveys into its planning, locally and nationally, and to support courts in working towards Charter Mark accreditation.

Further work required

2.19 The decision to proceed with unification marks the start of a process - a process that will require careful planning of policy in liaison with interested stakeholders in the first instance and detailed joint work with all those involved in the system at the local level to ensure a smooth transfer and the realisation of benefits as we move to implementation.

2.20 Accurate data will be required to ensure that decisions on unification are made from an informed position. We have already set about improving the information we have on the operation of the district court. In view of the criticisms levelled at research commissioned by the McInnes Committee we established a joint working group with COSLA on district court finance, which considered the current costs, income and staffing levels of the district court and reached an agreed position. This addresses one of the concerns of a number of consultees - namely that the cost calculations on which the McInnes Committee made its recommendations were based on inadequate data. We will take forward work on court unification using the agreed data we now have.

2.21 We do not intend to use unification as an opportunity to make cash savings at the expense of service provision - which must be local, dedicated and responsive to change (see para 2.16 on court locations, for example). Provisional projections by SCS have indicated that they will be able to realise the benefits of unification over time without spending significantly more on running costs than local authorities currently do.

2.22 We are not yet at the stage where the detailed funding package that will allow SCS to administer the unified summary court can be provided. Detailed figures will be subject to the outcome of discussions with COSLA and individual local authorities. In view of the fact that SCS will be taking on fine enforcement duties (see section b of this chapter) SCS will assume the entitlement to retain fine income currently retained by the district court (and used by local authorities to defray court running costs). The remainder of the funding package will consist of an element of central government grant to local authorities being transferred to SCS (reflecting the fact that local authorities no longer have to bear the cost of administering the district court) and resources to cover transitional arrangements and necessary upgrade work to court buildings.

2.23 We are committed to working with local authorities to plan and deliver unification as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Where efficiencies can be realised, that will lead to savings for the public sector as a whole - savings that could be used by central and local government to tackle the root causes of offending and reoffending more effectively.

2.24 Joint work with local authorities has now entered a new phase. In order to provide accurate information on the condition of the existing district court estate a detailed survey of the buildings is now getting underway. The results of this survey will be used to develop detailed plans for phased unification and to consider what work may be necessary to ensure that our court accommodation is modern, secure and addresses the needs of victims and witnesses.

2.25 More detailed aspects of the transfer to a unified system will need to be carefully planned before the proposals take effect. The implementation phase of unification will include challenges such as:

• negotiations relating to staffing issues and detailed work to ensure that the interests of staff who transfer from local authorities are protected;
• integration of the new staff and premises into SCS management systems;
• rolling out of the new SCS IT system to all unified courts to realise the benefits of integrated case management; and
• transfer of properties in which court services are delivered.

2.26 This work will be taken forward by a dedicated project team within SCS - to ensure consistency of approach and that the transfer to a unified system does not adversely impact upon court users. We will work in partnership with local authorities to manage successfully the transition to a unified system in each area of Scotland.

2.27 SCS will also develop a mechanism for consultation at local level on the arrangements for planning unification in each sheriffdom, and develop from there ideas around how there will be ongoing involvement of lay people in the strategic planning of court services. These will take account of developments elsewhere, such as the Court Boards being set up in England and Wales. In line with the principle of avoiding duplicate structures and consultation, any arrangement will need to fit sensibly with the structure of local criminal justice boards and other approaches to consultation. Taking account of these issues, we will review how the arrangements for lay input to the planning and quality of court business should operate in the long term.

Timing

2.28 In common with investing in lay justice, delivering a unified courts administration is a long-term commitment. It will not offer a 'quick-fix' but will ensure that we have the right structure in place to handle court business effectively in future. We will bring forward legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament to realise these commitments - allowing unification to commence from 2007/08.

Court Administration - Conclusions

• We have decided to proceed with unification of the summary courts administration. Unification will be at the heart of an efficient and effective summary justice system.
• We believe that unification should be phased-in across Scotland, on a sheriffdom by sheriffdom basis. This will allow change to be effectively managed, lessons to be learned as the project rolls out, and appropriate local solutions to be developed as part of the unification package.
• Unification will be based firmly on the principle of strengthening the links between courts and communities - the new unified system will continue to see court business conducted in locations throughout Scotland, taking account of the needs of victims, witnesses and the communities themselves.
• Further work is required on issues such as costs, estates, staffing and IT to ensure that unification progresses smoothly and its benefits are realised - we will take that work forward with local authorities, district courts and other relevant partners to ensure that the needs of court users, staff and the organisations involved in the change process are taken into account and carefully managed.

b) Fines Enforcement

Issues - Why is it important that fines are effectively enforced?

2.29 The fine is a widely-used penalty which can be very effective if it is properly enforced. In 2002 Scottish courts imposed fines in over 77,000 cases (63% of all disposals). The McInnes Committee itself observed that those offenders who received a fine were the least likely to reoffend in the two years following the imposition of that penalty. ⁹ Within the summary justice system it is important to maintain the fine as a credible and enforceable penalty as it is:

• flexible and capable of being tailored to the seriousness of the offender/offence;
• cheap to administer and a proportionate response to certain types of offence; and
• does not normally disrupt the work or family life of the offender - maintaining the sort of stability that prevents a pattern of reoffending emerging.

2.30 The McInnes report provided an analysis of the present structure of fines enforcement and the procedures available to the courts to enforce payment of financial penalties (including court imposed fines, compensation orders, fiscal fines and fixed penalty notices (FPNs) which become registered fines if not paid on time). The Committee noted that the use of court fines had decreased in recent years, partly due to the greater availability of community based sentences, fiscal fines and police fixed penalty notices. However, the Committee observed that the decrease might be partly attributable to enforcement difficulties, including:

• low attendance at fines enquiry courts resulting in the issue of a large number of warrants for non-appearance;
• variation in enforcement practices locally; and
• the ineffectiveness of current provisions for imprisonment in the case of fine default.

2.31 They highlighted deficiencies in the system such as sheriff court fines having to be paid at the court of imposition. They noted that the use of deduction from benefit or arrestment of earnings to recover fines, although available to the courts, was low. This was attributed in part to the higher priority given to other debts such as housing costs and fuel charges in relation to deductions from benefit - and the fact that the costs of administering the deduction would frequently be higher than the level of fine recovered.

2.32 It is important to stress that the Committee did not consider the current system of fine enforcement to be in crisis. Indeed, collection levels have been steadily improving over recent years, with over 80% of the value of all financial penalties imposed in the sheriff and High Court in 2001/02 (the most recent year in which the majority of fine accounts are now closed) collected in full. The remainder was either discharged in favour of an alternative disposal (such as imprisonment), written off or remains outstanding. Our core system is stable and performs the task for which it was established. The Committee concluded however that the present system:

'while successful in collecting and accounting for payments which are made, fails to secure prompt payment of sums which those fined are unwilling to pay and does not cope well with those who genuinely cannot pay.'¹⁰

2.33 The Committee noted that the current system placed responsibility for enforcement largely in the hands of the police and the courts. This had historically been the case but should now be challenged. They did not consider that the police should be required to call at the doorstep of fine defaulters in the hope that they would recover the outstanding fine (or arrest the offender) and concluded that the fines enforcement process should be redesigned to free up police officers to keep our communities safer. They also took the view that the enforcement process could be dealt with administratively and thus reduce the involvement of the judiciary with consequential saving of court time. They examined enforcement in other jurisdictions and noted that a common feature had been to shift the balance between what has to be done judicially and what could be done administratively. They were clear in their view that a new approach to fines enforcement was required and that the most significant change that would pave the way for improved consistency of collection and enforcement would be unification of the administration of summary criminal courts.

2.34 As a result of this the Committee made a number of recommendations aimed at making fines enforcement more consistent and effective. ¹¹ The main drivers behind their proposals were:

• to reduce the amount of police and court time engaged in enforcement proceedings;
• to ensure consistency of enforcement - crucial if the credibility of the fine as a penalty was to be maintained; and
• to make effective use of a range of possible administrative methods of collection - equipping those charged with collecting fines with the tools to do the job.

2.35 More fundamentally, the Committee proposed a major structural change - that the overall responsibility for fine enforcement should be removed from individual courts and placed in the hands of a single organisation - which could be a separate arm of the Scottish Court Service or a freestanding public sector organisation. This organisation, which would have a variety of new powers, would collect and enforce all financial penalties.

2.36 In view of the fact that the Sentencing Commission had been asked to look at the broader issue of the relationship between fines and the ability to pay the Committee restricted the majority of its recommendations to practical aspects of fines enforcement.

What we have heard

General - who should enforce fines?

2.37 One-hundred-and-thirty-three respondents to the consultation offered comments on one or more aspect of fines enforcement. The majority of respondents felt that the current system of enforcement lacked credibility amongst the general public and offenders. Consequently they agreed that reform was necessary. Reform should ensure that the enforcement systems are quick, fair and proportionate. The majority welcomed the Committee's aim of reducing the resources devoted by the judiciary and the police to fines enforcement and agreed with the Committee that, once a fine had been imposed, there was little need for the court to have a continuing role in its enforcement. The job of the court was to determine guilt or innocence and impose an appropriate sentence. Where that sentence is a fine its enforcement could be legitimately conducted by court staff - with appropriate safeguards to ensure that the case could go back to court if there was a significant change in circumstances or a grievance between the offender and the enforcement staff.

Structure of future enforcement arrangements

2.38 There was strong support for the proposition that fine collection and enforcement should properly lie with local court staff, rather than that task being transferred to a separate agency. Those staff should be given increased scope to respond flexibly to an offender's individual circumstances. We have heard clearly the message that fines should, as far as possible, be enforced administratively rather than judicially. There was considerable opposition to the creation of a new free-standing agency to collect and enforce financial penalties, with concerns expressed that this might lead to fines being perceived simply as another form of debt and would lead to the loss of local facilities for the payment of fines and local knowledge on the part of those enforcing them. Respondents opposed to the creation of a new agency favoured introducing measures to build on and improve existing arrangements (COSLA, for example, suggested that 'dedicated fine enforcement staff' should carry out the enforcement role).

2.39 Many thought that the cost of operating and staffing a nationwide agency would be high and that the recommended surcharges on defaulters already having difficulty in paying could escalate and become extremely difficulty to collect. Some respondents were concerned that the benefits of the current system had been undervalued and that the introduction of a new agency would create significant organisational upheaval for unproven benefit.

Other recommendations

2.40 The Committee's recommendation that supervised attendance orders (SAOs) be used more extensively in cases of fine default was generally welcomed, although there was a concern that this proposal required further investigation to overcome the difficulties of high breach rates associated with offenders on this order. Views were mixed regarding the recommendation that imprisonment be abolished as the ultimate sanction for non-payment of a fine, with many believing that the majority of offenders only paid their fines in the end because of this threat. Others disagreed, arguing that some offenders preferred the short spell in prison to payment and knew how to 'play the system'.

2.41 Most respondents felt that increased use of deduction from benefits to pay fines would be of little effect, due to the low priority accorded to fines in the list of allowable deductions by the Department of Work and Pensions. Other difficulties cited included operational difficulties (including the administrative costs outstripping the value of fines recovered), the small recovery levels even where deductions were successful and the lack of automatic transferability between different types of benefit. In addition, offenders' families could suffer if there was any reduction in benefit levels paid to offenders. A number of respondents offered more favourable views on increased use of arrestment of earnings however - observing that those who have the money to pay a fine should have it deducted at source if they are not willing to pay.

What we will do

2.42 As part of our commitment to reducing reoffending we accept the Committees' view that fine enforcement should be made as effective as possible. Many suggestions as to how enforcement might be improved have been made by both the Committee and consultees - we need to take the best suggestions and develop a collection and enforcement regime that maintains and builds credibility in the fine as a suitable disposal for minor offences. Our proposals for reform will apply not only to court imposed fines but also to fiscal fines and fixed penalty notices that become 'registered fines' (more detail on fiscal fines follows in Chapter 3).

Structure

2.43 We have concluded that there is no clear business need to create a separate fine enforcement agency. The benefits attributed to such an organisation in the McInnes report can be realised within a unified court administration managed by SCS (as the report itself suggested). Such an arrangement would ensure that fines enforcement remains within the overall control of the courts - providing the benefit of centralised consistency coupled with local case management and payment facilities. SCS already collects all High and sheriff court fines and would develop capacity for increased activity in line with court unification. As district courts are unified (on a sheriffdom by sheriffdom basis) responsibility for the collection and enforcement of fines imposed in both tiers of summary criminal court will transfer to SCS. SCS will be responsible for the collection and enforcement of all court fines, fiscal fines and registered fines in a sheriffdom post-unification. They will utilise an enhanced computer system allowing immediate viewing of all fines outstanding against an accused - information that will allow sentencers to make informed decisions without the need for adjournments. There will be scope to pay any fine at any court in Scotland and, with local access to court services continuing, the link between local court staff and enforcement practice will be maintained, allowing for a degree of local flexibility in enforcement.

Who should enforce fines?

2.44 A project team led by SCS has been tasked with making sure that reforms to fine enforcement processes operate effectively under a unified courts administration. The project team will consult with and involve key stakeholders in developing the package of change that will be delivered. System redesign of the fine enforcement process is already being modelled and some of the proposals will be piloted as part of the local system modelling project now under way in Grampian. ¹² This will provide us with more helpful information.

2.45 The project team will examine changes in fines enforcement south of the border (introduced by the Courts Act 2003) to determine whether they are proving to be effective. That Act created the role of 'a fines officer' to take enforcement action in certain circumstances, thus removing the need for all enforcement decisions to be taken by a court. The offender retains the right to appeal the decisions of the fines officer to the court within specified time periods.

2.46 Previous attempts have been made in Scotland to improve fine recovery through increased use of administrative staff dedicated to managing outstanding fines. We believe that the effectiveness of these attempts has been constrained by legislation which (as outlined above) requires recourse back to the court before certain changes can be made such as variations in payment terms, collection of fine income direct from earnings or benefits or the imposition of a non-custodial alternative sentence in lieu of a fine where it is clear that the fine will not be paid. We will develop enhanced administrative enforcement arrangements in liaison with key stakeholders - and bring forward legislation to achieve this where necessary in the lifetime of the current Parliament.

2.47 Over time, these administrative arrangements should reduce the burden of fines enforcement work faced by the police and the judiciary, particularly by reducing the number of means enquiry warrants that the police are required to serve. This is in line with the recommendations of the Short term Working Group on Outstanding Warrants which reported last year. ¹³ Developing effective national and local practice as the new systems bed-in will be essential - the National Criminal Justice Board and local boards will play a key role in overseeing improvements and ensuring that change is effectively managed at the local level.

Other measures to improve fines enforcement

2.48 We will enhance the enforcement options available to ensure that fines are collected whenever possible. We are not interested in gimmicks - rather we will introduce changes where they will:

• reduce the likelihood of default by getting the penalty right at the point of imposition;
• increase the ways in which fines can be paid;
• extend the range of enforcement actions to provide greater flexibility in recovery;
• allow court orders to be enforced administratively - keeping the involvement of the judiciary and police to a minimum, whilst building in appropriate safeguards; and
• provide help and support to those who are genuinely struggling to pay.

2.49 The project team have been asked to consider and report on:

• the benefits of consistency that will be achieved by having a single organisation responsible for the enforcement of all court fines across Scotland;
• detailed aspects of the use of fines officers in the Scottish Court Service with powers to administer and enforce court orders, including powers to trace and contact defaulters, vary payment rates, and provide advice to defaulters;
• making wider use of earnings arrestments, and deductions from benefits - it may be possible (for example) to develop a procedure allowing arrestment of earnings to be ordered by the fines officer without the need for recourse back to court making it an efficient way of recovering fine income;
• whether the statutory discount to encourage early or prompt payment has been effective in England; and
• extending the ways in which fines can be paid. Payment by debit card is already available. Other options will be considered such as payment by credit card, standing order, on-line payment and payment at other outlets such as banks and post offices.

2.50 Some of these changes can be carried out administratively whilst other would require legislation if they are to be adopted. Where that is the case we will introduce legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament for those that we adopt.

2.51 Detailed work to develop these measures will continue with stakeholders to ensure that reforms are effective and will deliver improved performance. Pilot programmes will be put in place to examine the effect of proposed reforms. These pilots will be evaluated and, the measures, if successful will be implemented nationally. More radical activities (such as publicity campaigns targeted at defaulters, clamping of motor vehicles, surcharges for non-payment, and registering fine defaulters with credit agencies) will also be examined.

Those who can't pay

2.52 The majority of offenders imprisoned for fine default are unemployed or have very low incomes - making earnings arrestments or deductions from benefit impractical. Providing support to those with genuine difficulties in paying, perhaps with the help of other agencies such as Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) may help us reach the root cause of the problems.

2.53 Giving sentencers the right menu of options is critical. In some cases it might be appropriate to ensure that an offender engages with the advice services that can help them develop a plan for change. We are reviewing the strategic organisation and funding of advice services on issues which might come to court, and will be looking in that context at the scope to bring some services - for example, money or housing advice, or perhaps the full range covered by the CAB - into the court setting. The advantage for the advice services would be that they gain access to those who most need their help.

Imprisonment

2.54 We have listened to the views of consultees on the role of prison as a sanction for fine default. We know from the evaluation of supervised attendance orders, published in 2001, that they can be a credible alternative to imprisonment for fine default, substituting the unpaid portion of a fine for a period of unpaid activity. A breach of such an SAO will still lead to the offender being returned to court and, if necessary, a custodial sentence being imposed. We view the SAO as an effective way both to challenge behaviour and to give offenders the skills to move away from offending lifestyles. That is why we are currently piloting the use of supervised attendance orders as a mandatory alternative to imprisonment in cases of fine default and will pilot SAOs as a disposal of first instance instead of imposing low level fines later this year. ¹⁴ We want to learn the lessons from the 2 sets of pilots before making any decisions as to whether imprisonment should be abolished as the ultimate sanction for fine default. Our aim is to increase the range of options open to both court staff and the judiciary to ensure that the fine (or an appropriate alternative to it) is 'paid' and the offender does not escape the penalty - to remove the sanction of imprisonment without knowing what effect that would have would be irresponsible. We need to see whether removing the immediate sanction of a custodial sentence will actually work - not just for the individual but for communities as a whole.

Unit fines

2.55 A fine must take into account both the seriousness of the offence and the ability of the offender to pay. The McInnes Committee recommended that the Executive consider the operation of unit fines - a proposal which elicited mixed views from consultees. A number observed that introducing unit fines would make fines fairer by establishing a link between income and the size of penalty. However, there were concerns regarding the need for clear guidelines and the perception that such a system may prove bureaucratic to operate. Some respondents observed that, prior to imposing a fine at present, the judge is obliged to enquire as to the means of the offender and then sets the fine at an appropriate level. They argued that a system of unit fines would be less flexible than the current arrangements. We are aware of developments in England and Wales in relation to unit fines. We are of the view that we should bring forward the changes to fine enforcement outlined in this chapter as a matter of priority. We have asked the Sentencing Commission to consider the basis upon which the level of a fine should be determined and intend to allow them to report on this issue in the light of developments both north and south of the border. ¹⁵

Fines Enforcement - Conclusions

2.56 Ministers believe that the courts and the public must have confidence in the fine as a sentence. The work underway is aimed at producing a package of measures that are firm but fair. These will maintain the credibility of the fine as a sentence, and make clear to those who play the system that they will be actively pursued if they do not pay.

• As unification proceeds (on a sheriffdom by sheriffdom basis) the administration of all fines imposed in and collected by the summary criminal courts will become the responsibility of SCS. SCS will be responsible for the collection and enforcement of all court fines, fiscal fines and registered fines in a sheriffdom post-unification.
• We will develop enhanced administrative arrangements to ensure fines are effectively enforced in liaison with key stakeholders - and bring forward legislation to achieve this where necessary in the lifetime of the current Parliament.
• An SCS-led project team will investigate a number of other potential improvements to the current fine enforcement regime in liaison with key stakeholders. Where these prove to be beneficial they will be rolled-out nationally. Where necessary, legislation will be introduced in the lifetime of this Parliament making it possible for pilots of new approaches to take place, and national roll-out to proceed where they prove to be successful.

« Previous | Contents | Next »