On this page:

Smarter Justice, Safer Communities: Summary Justice Reform - Next Steps

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CONCLUSION: HOW WE WILL DELIVER THIS AGENDA

5. INTRODUCTION

5.1 Delivering this agenda involves changing the law in a number of key areas, notably in relation to the structures and procedures of the courts. We are committed to legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament.

5.2 But success in delivery is critically dependent on delivering change which takes into account the interests of key stakeholders. We therefore propose early and formal engagement with those directly interested in unification of court administration. Our proposal to phase unification gives time to consider in detail staffing and estate issues specific to court unification in each individual sheriffdom.

5.3 Success also involves engagement with stakeholders to ensure sensible and workable changes in areas of good practice, like arrangements for the recruitment and training of our lay justices.

5.4 And we also recognise the need to take into account the community perspective. Statistical evaluation and monitoring are important, and we will develop collaboratively and put in place ways of assessing what our changes are achieving in terms of improved case handling and impact on reoffending. But we will also develop and maintain enhanced engagement with communities, to see whether we are achieving what we stated in the introduction to be our prime goal - confident communities which believe that crime at all levels is being taken seriously.

The next few months

5.5 Where there is an obvious need to set up collaborative work - for example, with stakeholders interested in court unification and with those (principally district court clerks and JPs) who have a strong interest in the reshaping of lay justice - we will do so as quickly as possible after this paper is launched.

5.6 We also recognise that the summary justice agenda impacts on stakeholders in widely differing ways. The public at large has an overriding interest in the direction of travel. But discussions on the best way of reforming court procedure (for instance) tend to be of particular interest to stakeholders who engage formally with the courts, including the defence.

5.7 We therefore intend to bring stakeholders together before the summer to map the areas where further joint work would be useful, and to agree how it should be taken forward. And we propose to do some early work to create ways in which communities can get engaged in the development and implementation of our proposals.

Continuing work

5.8 Our proposals will develop a court system which is simpler and easier for court users and the wider community to understand, and will invest in lay justices, one powerful expression of the community's place at the heart of the justice system.

5.9 With that new structure we need to deliver effective problem-solving justice for the high volume of minor crime which comes to court but does not merit imprisonment.

5.10 We have learned lessons from our own problem solving courts - which stress a collaborative, multi-disciplinary, problem solving approach to address the underlying issues of individuals appearing in that court. They also feature sustained follow through on the part of the court to ensure accountability and monitor progress. We have also learned lessons from recent consultations on anti-social behaviour, reducing reoffending and the Children's Hearings system as well as developing our experience of problem solving courts dealing with volume crime in other jurisdictions. Some of the key elements of success in dealing with lower level offending seem to be:

  • Immediacy: getting people into court and onto disposals quickly was vital for community confidence, and greatly reduced the chance that offenders would 'fail'.
  • Visibility: the justice system is a public service and should let those around know what it is doing (although it is obviously vital not to prejudice judicial independence by discussing individual cases or judgements). Similar issues came out strongly in Phase 1 of the Children's Hearings consultation.
  • Accountability: good information about outcomes was vital, and should be shared widely. And compliance with court disposals should be expected and enforced.
  • Active community involvement: through a range of roles, often as volunteers.

5.11 The work already conducted on anti-social behaviour has highlighted the importance of supporting community members by delivering justice which helps offenders to change.

5.12 Much of the answer is covered earlier. There is scope to take more minor crime out of court and deal with it through alternatives to prosecution, avoiding the stigma of a criminal record. This will free up some more system capacity. Getting cases to court more quickly, with better information for the judge when he or she first sees the case, will also help. And bringing together advice services and those who most need them in the court setting will also help.

5.13 But smarter processing is only part of the answer. We recognise the need to roll out affordable improvements to all courts, particularly by making more effective use of resources already in the system, such as lay justices. In all the models of problem-solving court, increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of the judge's role. The success so far of the drug and youth courts has been substantially due to the willingness of sheriffs to become much more actively engaged in monitoring the progress of the offenders whom they convict. We need to consider with our judiciary about how this principle might be rolled out more widely.

5.14 And the system flexibility offered by sheriffdom by sheriffdom unification of court administration offers opportunities to design new forms of court which bring together local services in a different way to tackle particular concentrations of offending and deprivation.

Joined-up working

5.15 This agenda is closely linked with - and dependent on - that for Reducing Reoffending. We have started to rebuild community confidence from the bottom up with our investment in a robust response to anti-social behaviour. The accountability of the justice system to communities is not just a matter of engaging lay people in designing the future, and in new roles at the heart of the system. It is also about ensuring swift action where sentenced offenders do not comply with community based disposals, so that communities can see that reinvestment in damaged localities is not a theory, but a reality.

5.16 We recognise the need to ensure that these two agendas progress together. We have in place the National Criminal Justice Board, which focuses on the process between caution and charge and disposal, and are now setting up the national advisory body to oversee more joined up delivery of services to sentenced offenders. Key agencies will be involved in both. We will ensure that the targets set by these two bodies are complementary, and that they work together to ensure that we get better at handling cases, but also much better at dealing with offenders as individuals.

Conclusion

5.17 Delivering better summary justice is an area of prime concern to the Executive and to the people of Scotland. We are most grateful to the McInnes Committee for the thoughtful and wide ranging work in their review, and to all those who have contributed to the consultation process. We have set out above how we will reform the system.

5.18 But delivering better justice is not just a matter for the Executive. All the agencies and individuals involved in delivering the justice service share responsibility for more effective joint working, and for a changed culture which focuses on better outcomes for individual offenders. We are greatly encouraged by the evidence we see that the issues are being tackled at local level.

5.19 This is a Partnership commitment, in every sense. Taking it forward fulfils a commitment in our Partnership for a Better Scotland.21 But delivering better justice on the ground involves practical partnerships - between the Executive and lead agencies, between those agencies at local level, and between government and communities. That is the key challenge on which we seek to deliver. This paper is one step - albeit a vital one - to realising our goal.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Thursday, March 24, 2005