« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Executive Summary
Background
1. A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Its objectives are to:
- reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court);
- promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential;
- establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court;
- enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and
- test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate.
2. In additional to judicial oversight, supervision by multi-disciplinary teams and the availability of a range of additional programmes, other distinguishing features of the Youth Court include:
- fast tracking of young people to and through the court and fast track breach procedures;
- the ability to electronically monitor as a condition of bail;
- dedicated staff to support and service the Youth Court (Procurator Fiscal, clerk, social workers);
- additional resources across agencies to enable provision of a consistent, high quality service;
- the formation of a multi-agency Youth Court Advisory Forum, chaired by an Airdrie Sheriff, to review the working and operation of the court;
- appointment of a Youth Court Co-ordinator and Deputy Co-ordinator to service the forum and co-ordinate practice;
- external research and evaluation of the Youth Court's operation and programmes.
Identifying potential Youth Court cases
3. Accused detained in police custody or released on undertaking were reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the police. In these cases and in cases where an accused had a possible citation to attend court, the Procurator Fiscal decided whether to prosecute and in what forum. Procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were said to be operating smoothly as a result of good working relationships between the agencies concerned.
4. Most youth cases reported to the Procurator Fiscal were not marked for prosecution. Prosecution in the Youth Court was most likely if a pattern of persistent offending was established and other contextual factors suggested that such a course of action would be appropriate.
Cases prosecuted in the Youth Court
5. The volume of cases dealt with by the Youth Court was higher than expected, with 543 cases involving 341 young people between June 2004 and December 2005. Most of those prosecuted were male (88%) and were prosecuted in the Youth Court on a single occasion (69%). Just over half of the young people (57%) had first come into contact with the criminal justice system at least two years before their first Youth Court appearance. Almost three-quarters (74%) had no previous convictions but 43% had a previous referral to the Children's Reporter on offence grounds. The charges most commonly prosecuted in the Youth Court included breaches of the peace, petty assault, carrying offensive weapons, possession of drugs and resisting arrest.
Progress of cases through the court
6. In its broad operation the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court proceeded as any other summary adult court. Overall it was tightly run with a heavy volume of cases being heard. More than half of the cases were resolved prior to the setting of a trial diet, with only 9 per cent of cases proceeding to trial. A relatively high incidence of guilty pleas at first calling may have been brought about by a number of procedures that are distinctive to the Youth Court and the characteristics of the cases with which it was dealing.
7. The proportion of cases appearing on citation (61%) was higher than expected. Following their appearance in court most accused were granted bail or ordained to appear. Sheriffs had made no use of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, preferring police monitored curfews. Although these were resource intensive for the police, they were thought to have resulted in reduced crime levels in some areas.
8. The professional consensus was that designated timescales relating to different stages in the prosecution process were being met, partly through the avoidance of unnecessary adjournments. This was borne out by a comparison of cited cases processed by the Youth Court and by the Sheriff Summary Court. The mean period of time that elapsed between the charge and the first calling of the case was much shorter in the Youth Court, a higher percentage of cases in the Youth Court were resolved by way of a guilty plea and Youth Court cases were, on average, resolved more quickly than cases dealt with by the Sheriff Summary Court.
Sentencing in the Youth Court
9. The perceived quality of certain social enquiry reports was initially a source of concern to Sheriffs but this issue was resolved over the course of the pilot partly through steps taken by the social work department to improve the quality of reports and partly through the appointment of Youth Court social workers.
10. The sentences most commonly passed in the Youth Court were, in decreasing order, probation orders, monetary penalties and detention. Most of those given social work disposals were assessed as having a medium or high risk of re-offending, though some were assessed as low risk. Alcohol and drug misuse were the most common problems identified by social workers among those given community based social work disposals by the court.
11. The Youth Court has available to it a range of additional resources and services that are intended to meet the assessed needs of young people made subject to supervisory orders. However, Sheriffs and some other professionals were initially of the view that there was little difference in the packages of intervention offered to young people sentenced in the Youth Court. This appeared partly to reflect differing perspectives on the appropriateness of intensive packages of services for young people assessed as presenting little risk of re-offending. Social workers, who were generally content with the resources available, were wary of offering services to young people that they did not consider to be required.
12. Prior to July 2005, most of those given probation orders had their orders reviewed by the Sheriff in court. Sheriffs found reviews useful in monitoring progress but dialogue with young people was limited and, despite them often having lengthy waits in court, the contribution of social workers was not usually sought. Reviews, which were conducted formally, tended to emphasise the consequences of non-compliance and the importance of young people taking responsibility for themselves and their behaviour. Sheriffs and other professionals expressed disappointment at the suspension of the power to review probation orders from July 2005.
Operational issues
13. The existence of dedicated staff across agencies and the forum provided by the Implementation Group were believed by professionals to have facilitated the efficient operation of the Youth Court pilot, though some believed that the Implementation Group should focus more on strategic analysis and there was no direct line of communication between it and front-line social work staff.
14. In practice, the Youth Court functioned as any other court being distinguishable largely by the fast-tracking of cases. While this aspect was deemed to be worthy of wider implementation, other problems with the Youth Court model as operated in Airdrie (such as the perceived lack of clarity regarding the criteria) were highlighted.
Youth Court Outcomes
15. Analysis of sentencing in Airdrie between 2002 and 2005 suggested that there was more use made of community-based social work disposals in 2004 but that the proportionate use of these disposals decreased in 2005 while the use of imprisoned rose. Compared with the Sheriff Summary Court the Youth Court made less use of imprisonment and more use of admonitions. The number of cases involving young people prosecuted summarily in Airdrie increased sharply following the introduction of the Youth Court.
16. Changes in the recording of crimes in 2004 make it very difficult to interpret any changes in recorded crime levels in Airdrie and in comparison courts before and after this date. Similarly, given the limited follow-up period available to the evaluation, only a very limited analysis of reconviction data was possible. It is still too early to reach any conclusions about its effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
17. Questionnaires completed by social workers in respect of 20 young people were generally encouraging with most being thought to have made some progress and to have reduced their offending (or ceased offending) since being made subject to supervision through the Youth Court. The small number of young people who were interviewed were also broadly positive about their Youth Court experience.
18. There was cautious optimism among some, but not all, professionals that the Youth Court would be effective in reducing youth crime. The police in particular believed that since the Youth Court was introduced there had been a reduction in levels of public disorder in areas served by it.
19. While there were mixed views among professionals regarding the desirability of making Youth Courts more widely available, most concurred that the fast-tracking element of the Youth Court should be aspired to as a feature of summary justice in all courts.
Conclusion
20. The pilot Youth Court appeared in many respects to be working well. It was a tightly run court that dealt with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. Whether a dedicated Youth Court was required or whether procedural improvements would have been possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel is more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular require further attention. First, consideration needs to be given to whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity is required regarding for whom the Youth Court is intended to avoid the risk of net-widening and its consequences for young people.
« Previous | Contents | Next »