The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Section Four: Sentencing in the Airdrie Youth Court

Introduction

4.1 This section of the report focuses upon the progress of young people through the Youth Court. It includes discussion of the disposals received and the range of services for those made subject to supervisory orders. It begins, however, with an overview of the operation of the Youth Court and a summary of the stages at which prosecutions were resolved.

General Operation of the Youth Court

4.2 The Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court was observed for 7 days involving 145 case stages. This confirmed that its procedures were similar to any other Sheriff summary court. All stages of cases were held in open court. ²⁶ The court layout was the same as that in any Sheriff summary court and legal professionals wore their formal court attire at all times. Youth Court business lasted during observed days for between 3 and 6 hours including recesses and down time.

4.4 A number of general observations can be made about the operation of the Youth Court. Firstly, it appeared that the Sheriffs dealt with young people as they would in any summary Sheriff Court. Second, Sheriffs paid close attention to the background evidence in each case and to Social Enquiry Reports. Third, the interactions between the legal representatives and Procurators Fiscal were generally congenial. Fourth, the courtroom was regularly full of the accused person's families and friends ²⁷, who often appeared unaware of, or who otherwise failed to respect, the formality of the court. This resulted in the issuing of reprimands (asking members of the public gallery to remove hats, refrain from eating and stopping talking) and on some occasions a need to exert some control and order over the public gallery ²⁸, though by late 2005 professionals attending court regularly indicated that that the issue of public order was beginning to improve.

4.5 Sheriffs reported having experienced problems in maintaining order within the Youth Court. Starting in Court Four, the Youth Court soon transferred to the larger Court Two in order that the numerous attendees could be facilitated, so that the court could be more easily policed and so that easier access to the cells could be available. Although these problems reduced over time, raucous and disrespectful behaviour by the large number of attendees at the Youth Court was a cause of concern for the Sheriffs. They argued that the social element of the Youth Court encouraged relationships between individuals and competitively 'gallous' behaviour in the court (and possibly out of it). Interruptions and ejections were reported to be frequent. Sheriffs argued that concentrating young offenders in this way might have been counterproductive, imbuing the court with a 'Youth Club' feel. They argued that some offenders did not take the Youth Court seriously, viewing it as an extension of the Children's Hearings, rather than an adult summary court. As one Sheriff observed:

"[T]here is anecdotal evidence that it has encouraged a kind of club feel about it which is why we have tried to keep quite a tight reign on it. But it is not a club that you come along to with your pals. It's a serious business."

4.6 The need to maintain order in court was felt by many professionals to impinge on the potential for open dialogue between the accused and the Sheriff. Some commented that having friends and other offenders in the public gallery seemed to affect some of the young people in such a way as to give the impression they were not taking the court or the charges they faced seriously. Some professionals thought there would be benefits, particularly for communication between the Sheriff and accused, to restricting public access. However they also acknowledged that this was not practical unless the current court system was changed or Youth Court business was spread over more than one day.

4.7 Despite this, Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court gave the impression overall of being tightly run with a heavy volume of cases being heard. Despite the large volume of court work, the procedures were tightly adhered to. Those professionals more involved with court business felt that although the capacity was sufficient at present the issue should be kept under review, particularly in light of court probation reviews being reinstated and the need to maintain adequate time for trials.

Progress of Cases Through the Court

4.8 The progress of the 493 referrals that had been completed by the end of December 2005 is illustrated in Figure 4.1. In just over one half of the cases a guilty plea was tendered at first appearance or at the intermediate diet. A further 31 per cent of accused tendered a guilty plea at the trial diet. Forty-five cases (9%) resulted in an evidence-led trial, with 24 of these (5% of referrals or 53% of evidence-led trials) resulting in a finding of guilt. No significant differences were evident when compared to data from the first 9 months of the Youth Court's operation.

Figure 4.1: The route of cases through the Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005)

Footnote ²⁹

4.9 Procurators Fiscal identified a culture of maintaining not guilty pleas right up to the trial diet and this resulted in heavy workloads for the deputes. It was commented upon at the Implementation Group meeting in December 2004 that the timing of pleas had shifted since the start of the pilot, towards a greater proportion of guilty pleas at first calling or intermediate diet. This was thought likely to have occurred as a result of some of the distinctive features of the Youth Court process. These include the rolling up of charges by the Procurator Fiscal, the early disclosure of the Crown's case to the defence - the Procurator Fiscal is expected to provide a case summary to the defence after a not-guilty plea is entered and to make available police statements prior to or at the intermediate diet - and the availability of legal aid to enable the young person's solicitor (rather than the duty solicitor) to represent them on appearance from custody or on an undertaking. The defence agents felt that young people, particularly those with no established pattern of repeat offending, were more inclined to take their advice than more hardened recividists. The early disclosure of the Crown's case also meant the young person saw the evidence against them, this combined with the rolling up of cases and their inclination to take advice often resulted in a tendering of guilty pleas earlier in the prosecution process. The availability of legal aid was seen by defence agents as a huge improvement to the system and they were keen to see such resourcing continuing for both those who pled guilty and for those who chose to go on to trial. Despite a fairly widespread view among professionals that there had been a shift towards earlier guilty pleas since the pilot started, analysis of information from the Youth Court database does not indicate this to have been the case. For example, 53% of cases were resolved by a guilty plea at first calling or intermediate diet in the first 9 months of the pilot ³⁰ compared with 52% of cases across the entire period covered by the evaluation (June 2004 to December 2005). There was, however, some evidence that cited Youth Court cases were more likely to be resolved by way of guilty pleas than cases cited in the Sheriff Summary Court (see para 4.28).

First Appearance and Bail

4.10 In the majority of cases prosecuted in the court (319/521 ³¹ or 61%) the young person was cited to appear. Twenty-seven per cent of cases (140 referrals) made their first appearance from custody and 12 per cent (62 referrals) on a police undertaking. Overall, 28 per cent of the young people prosecuted in the Youth Court (97/341) had appeared for at least one prosecution from custody. The proportion of report cases/citations was higher than had been anticipated, leading to some concern that cases might not reach court within the expected timescales. However, it was noted at the Implementation Group meeting in December 2004 that report cases were reaching the Procurator Fiscal from the police very quickly with the result that they were being called to court within the expected timescales (see also the material on fast tracking later in this chapter).

4.11 Forty one per cent of cases (224/543) resulted in the granting of bail while 40 cases (7%) were remanded at some point in the prosecution process. In interview, Procurators Fiscal suggested that in the Youth Court Sheriffs were willing to grant bail when it was opposed - especially with a curfew - and were reluctant to remand.

4.12 When the Hamilton Youth Court pilot was established, the option of imposing an electronically monitored curfew as a condition of bail was made available to the court ³². Sheriffs in Hamilton occasionally made use of this option, though identifying who would adhere to the conditions had proved challenging and the conditions had been breached in around one half of the cases ³³. The Sheriffs in Airdrie agreed to this option being available to the Youth Court pilot, although this power was not used during the period up until December 2005. This was perhaps partly because of the low number of custody cases in Airdrie and an apparent Shreival preference for police monitored curfews. Sheriffs expressed a preference for the use of police monitored curfews, arguing that, due to the proactive approach taken by the police, this was an effective and rigorously enforced means of promoting compliance which could be brought to bear without delay. According to some police respondents, the additional work involved in checking addresses to verify the presence of the accused was more than offset by a reduction in the number of new incidents with which they had to deal. However others felt the curfews were personnel intensive and could prove disruptive to other members of the family. They also thought that electronic monitoring could be potentially more effective in maintaining the young person's compliance and could offer greater monitoring flexibility. Nevertheless the police respondents believed that the curfews imposed through orders had had a positive impact on communities and that they were witnessing a reduction in some crimes in some areas through their use.

Fast-Tracking of Cases Through the Youth Court

Youth Court

4.13 Each case in the Youth Court database up to December 2005 was examined in order to determine timescales of case processing, resolution and sentencing. The progression of cases through the court itself was influenced by a number of processes and pressures and resulted in a wide range of possible outcomes. However, it was possible to determine the length of time from first calling to the resolution of a case (this could mean a plea or finding of guilt, acceptance or finding of a plea of not guilty, a finding of not proven or a case being deserted), when cases were resolved (at first calling, intermediate diet, trial diet or after an evidence-led trial) and when sentence was passed.

4.14 Charge dates in relation to 117 cases marked for prosecution in the Youth Court were available from the forms provided by the Procurators Fiscal. In 107 cases it was possible to compare these with the dates on which complaints were received by the Procurator Fiscal. The minimum period between an accused being charged and reported to the Procurator Fiscal was zero days, the maximum was 110 days and the median time period ³⁴ was 18 days. Seventy-eight per cent of these cases were reported to the Procurator Fiscal within one month of the date that charges were imposed. The minimum period between an accused being charged and the first calling of a referral was zero days, the maximum was 125 days and the median time period was 29 days. Overall, 52 per cent of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the charge date.

4.15 The dates on which cases were passed to the Procurator Fiscal by the police were available in respect of 243 Youth Court cases. These data were compared with the dates on which cases were first called in the Youth Court. The minimum period between a case being reported to the Procurator Fiscal and first calling in the Youth Court was zero days, the maximum was 123 days and the mean time period was 22 days. Seventy-four per cent of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the date they were received by the Procurator Fiscal.

4.16 It was also possible to assess the time from charge to first due appearance in respect of different types of referrals. For the 20 custody cases where data were available, 80% appeared in court within 2 days of charge. The median time period from charge to first due appearance for custody cases was 1 day with the maximum observed period being 15 days ³⁵. For undertakings, information was only available for 13 cases of which 12 (92%) appeared in court within the 14 day target time (the remaining case was 21 days in coming to court). The median time period from charge to first due appearance for undertakings was 7 days. Information was available for 83 citation cases, with 11 per cent (9) cited to appear within 14 days of the date of the offence, 59 per cent (49) within 8 weeks (56 days) and 93 per cent (77) within 90 days. The median time period for citation cases was 45 days (around six and a half weeks), the minimum was zero days and the maximum was 125 days. For the cases where data were available the Youth Court timescales for this stage of the prosecution process were, therefore, being met in most cases and there is no indication that the one-day sitting of the Youth Court was impacting adversely upon the ability of these timescales to be met.

4.17 Regardless of specific outcomes, Table 4.1 shows the proportion of cases resolved at each stage of the Youth Court process and the time period for resolution associated with each stage. As anticipated, cases resolved at first calling were dispensed with quickly (78% (120) on the date of the first appearance). Case resolution at intermediate diet was also very quick; 53% (62) of these cases were concluded within one month of the first appearance. Cases resolved at the trial diet were concluded marginally quicker than at an evidence-led trial: 17% (30) and 7% (3) of the cases resolved at these stages respectively were concluded within one month of the first calling date. Overall, Youth Court cases which were resolved up to the end of December 2005 took an average of around one month to resolve, with 49% (242) concluded within one month of first calling.

Table 4.1: Number of days taken from first calling to resolution of cases through Airdrie Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005)

*This is not zero in all cases due to instances where first callings were continued without plea, for personal appearance or were warrants were issued.
Source: Youth Court database

4.18 Three hundred and ninety-nine (81%) of the 493 referrals which were resolved resulted in at least one disposal (including deferred sentences of 3 months or more for good behaviour) being imposed before the end of December 2005. The minimum time taken to pass sentence was zero days, while the maximum time was 252 days (around eight and a half months). In the main, sentences were passed relatively swiftly; the most prevalent response was that sentence was passed on the same day that the case was resolved (101 cases, or 25%). However, in 30% of cases (119) it took more than 30 days to pass sentence, possibly indicative of a high proportion of short deferred sentences before disposals were imposed and/or non-appearance of the accused. Overall, an average of 31.5 days between case resolution and sentence was observed among all cases disposed of.

4.19 Taking account of the pre-court data, it took an average of 56.5 days (1.9 months) for cases to progress from initial charge to resolution (minimum 1 day, maximum 189 days; 116 cases). A quarter of cases (24% or 28) were resolved within one month, 97% (112) in 6 months (180 days) or less. From charge to initial disposal took an average of 91 days (3 months) with a minimum of 8 days and a maximum of 432 days being recorded (108 cases). Eleven per cent (12) of these cases were disposed of within one month, while 85% (92) were disposed of within 6 months (180 days).

Cited cases

Airdrie Youth Court

4.20 In order to compare like with like, the case processing timeframes of cited Youth Court cases were examined alongside the data from the Sheriff Summary Court. Excluding those cases not cited to appear in the court, charge dates in relation to 83 referrals were available from the forms provided by the Procurator Fiscal. In 75 cases it was possible to compare these with the dates on which complaints were received by the Procurator Fiscal. The minimum period between an accused being charged and referred to the Procurator Fiscal was zero days, the maximum was 110 days and the median time period was 10 days. Sixty-eight per cent of these cases were referred to the Procurator Fiscal within one month of the date that charges were imposed.

4.21 The dates on which cited cases were passed to the Procurator Fiscal were available in respect of 157 Youth Court cases. These data were compared with the dates on which cases were first called in the Youth Court. The minimum period between a case being reported to the Procurator Fiscal and first calling in the Youth Court was zero days, the maximum was 106 days and the mean time period was 29 days. Sixty-three per cent of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the date they were received by the Procurator Fiscal.

4.22 It was also possible to compare the charge dates of the 83 cases discussed above with the dates on which cited cases first called in the Youth Court. The minimum period between an accused being charged and the first calling of a case was zero days, the maximum was 125 days and the median time period was 45 days. Overall, 33 per cent of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the charge date.

4.23 Figure 4.2 shows the progress of cited cases through the court. The patterns of case resolution observed here do not differ markedly in any respect from those observed among the wider Airdrie Youth Court sample. In the full Youth Court sample, the proportions pleading guilty at the first calling, intermediate diet and trial diet stages were 30%, 22% and 31% respectively, totalling 83% across all stages. The same figure for the cited cases was 81%.

Figure 4.2: The route of cited cases through the Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005)

Footnote ³⁶

4.24 Regardless of specific outcomes, Table 4.2 shows the proportion of cited cases resolved at each stage of the Youth Court process and the time period for resolution associated with each stage. As anticipated, cited cases resolved at first calling were dispensed with quickly (75% (69) on the date of the first appearance). Case resolution at intermediate diet was also very quick; 50% (29) of these cases were concluded within one month of the first appearance. Cases resolved at the trial diet were concluded marginally quicker than at an evidence-led trial; respectively, 12% (12) and 6% (2) of the cases resolved at these stages were concluded within one month of the first calling date. Overall, cited Youth Court cases which were resolved up to the end of December 2005 took an average of just over one month to resolve, with 46% (131) concluded within one month of first calling.

Table 4.2: Number of days taken from first calling to resolution of cited cases through Airdrie Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005)

*This is not zero in all cases due to instances where first callings were continued without plea, for personal appearance or were warrants were issued.
Source: Youth Court database

4.25 One hundred and ninety-seven (70%) of the 283 cited cases which were resolved resulted in at least one disposal (including deferred sentences of 3 months or more for good behaviour) being imposed before the end of December 2005. The minimum time taken to pass sentence was zero days, while the maximum time was 217 days (around 7 months). In the main, sentences were passed relatively swiftly; the most prevalent response was that sentence was passed on the same day that the case was resolved (54 cases, or 27%). However, in 31% of cases (61) it took more than 30 days to pass sentence, possibly indicative of a high proportion of short deferred sentences before disposals were imposed and/or non-appearance of the accused. Overall, an average of 33.4 days between case resolution and sentence was observed among all cases disposed of.

4.26 Taking account of the pre-court data, it took an average of 78.5 days (2.6 months) for cited cases to progress from initial charge to resolution (minimum 7 day, maximum 189 days; 82 cases). Only around a tenth of cases (11% or 9) were resolved within one month and 95% (78) in 6 months (180 days) or less. From charge to initial disposal took an average of 102 days (3.4 months) with a minimum of 14 days and a maximum of 432 days being recorded (75 cases). Four per cent (3) of these cases were disposed of within one month, while 81% (61) were disposed of within 6 months (180 days).

Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court

4.27 Charge dates in relation to 146 individuals were available in order to be compared to the dates on which cases first called in the court. The minimum period between an accused being charged and their first calling was 35 days, the maximum was 407 days and the mean time period was 148 days (around 5 months). The median time period ³⁷ between charge and first calling was 132 days, while the comparable figure for the Youth Court was 45 days; around three months quicker than in the adult court.

4.28 Figure 4.3 shows the passage of adult cases through Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court. When compared to the data from cited Youth Court cases, broadly similar patterns can be observed in respect of when, during their passage through the court process, cases were resolved. However, it can be noted that the proportion of adults entering guilty pleas at first calling, intermediate and trial diets was slightly lower than among cited cases in the Youth Court (32%, 19% and 30% respectively). While none of these was significantly different on its own, taken together, the proportion of cases resolved by a guilty plea was much lower in the adult court (81 or 64%) than in the Youth Court (228 or 81%). Even more striking is the significantly higher proportion of adult cases discontinued at each stage of court proceedings; these accounted for 20% of adult cases (25) compared to only 3% (9) of cited Youth Court cases. This might be due to a number of factors such as the complexity of cases, time elapsed since the offence, etc.

Figure 4.3: The route of cited cases through Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court (March 2005)

Footnote ³⁸

4.29 Regardless of specific outcomes, Table 4.3 shows the proportion of cases resolved at each stage of the adult court process and the time period for resolution associated with each stage. It can be seen that, as would be expected, cases resolved at first calling were dispensed with relatively swiftly. However, there was little difference in the time taken to resolve cases at the intermediate and trial diet stages (unexpectedly, the latter were resolved more quickly); both took around 6 months to conclude. Cases that resulted in evidence-led trial took the longest to resolve - an average of 7 months from first calling. Overall, cases beginning in Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court in March 2005 took an average of 4 months to resolve, a significantly longer period of time than in the Youth Court across the period covered by this evaluation (35.6 days).

Table 4.3: Number of days taken from first calling to resolution of cited cases through Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court (March 2005)

*This is not zero in all cases due to instances where first callings were continued without plea, for personal appearance or were warrants were issued.
Source: Data gathered from citation court records.
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

4.30 Eighty-five (67%) of the 126 referrals which were resolved resulted in at least one disposal (the same as in the Youth Court, including a deferred sentence of 3 months or more for good behaviour) being imposed in the period before the data was collected. The minimum time taken to pass sentence was zero days, while the maximum time was 176 days (almost 6 months). The imposition of sentences occurred swiftly in the adult court; the most prevalent response was that sentence was passed on the same day that the case was resolved (55 cases, or 65%) while in only 14% of cases (12) did it take more than 30 days to pass sentence. Overall, an average of 14 days between case resolution and sentence was observed among all cases disposed of in the adult court. In this regard, the Youth Court was somewhat slower, with an average of 33.4 days elapsing between case resolution and sentence. This is likely to be a result of Social Enquiry Reports having been requested in a higher proportion of Youth Court cases.

4.31 Taking account of the pre-court data, it took an average of 267 days (mean: 8.9 months) for cases to progress from initial charge to resolution (minimum 40 days, maximum 684 days; 125 cases). A third of cases (33% or 41) were resolved in 6 months (180 days) or less, 78% in a year or less. The median time period from initial charge to resolution in the adult court was 262 days (8.7 months). The Youth Court was significantly quicker in this regard, with an average time period of 78.5 days between initial charge and case resolution; a difference of 6 months. In the adult court, the period from charge to initial disposal took an average of 273 days (9.2 months) with a minimum of 40 days and a maximum of 629 days being recorded (84 cases). Thirty-two per cent of these cases were disposed of within 6 months (180 days) while 76% were disposed of within a year. The median time period from initial charge to resolution in the adult court was 281 days (9.4 months). Despite the longer period of time between case resolution and initial disposal observed in the Youth Court, in terms of processing cases from charge to disposal it remained significantly quicker than the adult court. On average, this took 102 days in the Youth Court, 6 months less than the comparable timeframe for the Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court.

4.32 There was agreement among professional respondents that timescales were being met as a result of effective intra- and inter-agency co-operation and the resourced dedicated staffing. The meeting of timescales was also facilitated by the perceived increase in early guilty pleas and by the avoidance of unnecessary adjournments. Despite the workload of the court being higher than anticipated, it was suggested at the Implementation Group meeting in October 2004 that where adjournments had occurred it was for a number of reasons (such as witnesses not turning up) rather than through a lack of court time. On the 2 occasions where the volume of business for the Youth Court exceeded its capacity, additional courts had been run to facilitate Youth Court business and ensure that no trials were adjourned through a lack of court time. One difficulty that arose with fast tracking was in relation to the rolling up of several offences. There had been a few occasions when social work reports had been compiled based only on offences known to social workers at the time but when other rolled up offences were subsequently dealt with in court. This being so, social workers may have underestimated the seriousness of the young person's situation and may not have given consideration to all appropriate disposals in the Social Enquiry Report.

Youth Court Disposals

Reports to the court

4.33 The Youth Court Sheriff will often call for a Social Enquiry Report ( SER) before sentencing a young person ³⁹. In addition to furnishing information about the background characteristics of the young person, the SER is intended to discuss the likely impact of the various sentencing options available to the court and how the young person is likely to respond to them. In the Airdrie Youth Court it was intended that the preparation of the SER would be underpinned by the use of a formal risk/needs assessment - the YLS/ CMI or LSI-R ⁴⁰ - and should contain an individualised action plan identifying the proposed level and method of intervention with the young person.

4.34 The perceived quality of SERs provided to the Youth Court was a source of concern to Sheriffs throughout the first 9 months of the pilot and also attracted comment from other professionals. In particular, reports were criticised as being 'bland', lacking the additional detail that was expected of them, including the likely response of the young person to different disposals and a detailed action plan - problems Sheriffs associated with the lack of dedicated Youth Court Social Workers (hence, a lack of familiarity with the client group and with the Youth Court ethos). These issues occupied an increasingly prominent role in Implementation Group discussions during the first 9 months of the pilot. Social work managers attributed the problem to delays they had encountered in appointing dedicated Youth Court workers. Although Sheriffs expressed disappointment that the Social Work Department had not made these appointments at the start of the pilot, the delay reflected wider difficulties in social work recruitment on a national basis. Interim arrangements (the screening of reports by senior social workers, dip sampling of reports by the Youth Justice Co-ordinator, the development of a Quality Assurance tool and staff training ⁴¹) were put in place and facilitated enhancements in the quality of reports, which were commented upon by Sheriffs and other professionals. Sheriffs were also of the view that the appointment of dedicated Youth Court social workers towards the end of the pilot brought about a marked improvement in the standard of the SERs brought before the court. Their appointment also meant that SER authors were in court more often to answer queries regarding their recommendations. Overall, Sheriffs commended the Youth Court social workers, who were able to provide additional relevant and up-to-date information on request.

4.35 By the second round of interviews, therefore, the issue of the Social Enquiry Reports seemed to have been more or less resolved. A new form had been designed that detailed not only what intervention was recommended, but also what intervention was being ruled out. Many social workers felt that if they had been party to early discussions on this matter, what the sheriffs expected and what they were able to provide, the stressful criticisms of reports could have been avoided. This view was shared by other professionals who felt that the open criticism of reports in court was not the most constructive way of resolving the issue.

4.36 In hindsight social work staff considered that many of the criticisms reflected a difference in understanding between themselves and the Sheriffs with respect to the appropriateness of intensive interventions for young people who were assessed as presenting a low risk of re-offending. While Sheriffs were keen that all young people made subject to probation orders in the Youth Court should have access to a range of resources, social workers were reluctant to 'widen the net' and offer an intensive service to those for whom in their view such a level of intervention was not warranted. The lack of reference in SERs to detailed packages of intervention did not, as the Sheriffs had initially supposed, mean that relevant services did not exist: rather, they were not being proposed as appropriate in that particular case. Clarification of this matter appeared to have resulted in Sheriffs having more confidence in social workers' recommendations to the Youth Court.

4.37 From court observations, Sheriffs read over SERs and asked questions or made comments to the accused, particularly about their employment situation and about their alcohol or drug consumption (which featured heavily in a very high number of the cases observed). The observations also showed that at sentencing the key source of support for the young people came from the defence agents. Through in-depth accounts of the mitigating factors surrounding cases - the age and immaturity of the young people; absence of key kinship support; poor parental relations; alcohol and/or drug dependencies; family breakdowns and, in several cases, litany upon litany of personal problems (physical and mental health) - the defence agents were instrumental in their advocacy role. Backed up with Social Enquiry Reports and supporting statements from a range of individuals and social work services (some of whom might have been present in the court), the defence agents gave clear and concise indications of the young person's situation. In the following examples, it is evident that defence agents were central and not incidental in advocating services and supports:

"My Lord, not exactly clear from any reports in front of us today is that my client has difficulties with understanding reality. I ask that you take into account that he is a fantasist, with an underdeveloped emotional intelligence. His grandmother is his key support and he desperately needs some form of psychological assessment."

"My client could not take going to prison. She is very immature and when in sobriety, she thinks and reflects hard on her crimes. She self-harms, is highly impressionable and I feel strongly that if you look into her background and past, you will find a tragic fractured person. I urge that instead of prison, we find the means to monitor and work with this offender."

4.38 It had been recognised that there was no need for every social worker who prepared an SER to be present in court to speak to the report. Instead, a representative from the area team or the dedicated Youth Court social worker were able to answer any queries that the Sheriff may have regarding a case. Some professionals observed that young people sometimes had their cases continued at the sentencing stage even when the SER and other assessments were available. Although the reasons for these continuations were not known, it was suggested by social workers that the young people could find the resulting delays stressful and frustrating.

Characteristics of young people subject to SERs

4.39 Information was provided by North Lanarkshire Social Work Department in respect of 39 young people who had Social Enquiry Reports prepared for the Youth Court (35 male and 4 female) ⁴². In terms of living circumstances, 72 per cent (28/39) were living in the parental home and 13 per cent (5/39) were living with other relatives. The other 6 lived in either supported accommodation, a homeless unit, a children's unit, a remand fostering placement, had their own tenancy or were homeless. Fifty one percent (20/39) were unemployed, 28 per cent (11/39) were in full time employment, 8 per cent (3/39) were in full time training, 8 per cent (3/39) were at college full time and 5 per cent (2/39) were full time mothers. The problems that the young people were identified as having at the point of sentence are summarised in Table 4.4. Problems relating to alcohol misuse were most common, followed by the negative influence of peers. Seven young people, however, had no problems identified when their SER was prepared. A risk of re-offending assessment had been conducted on 38 out of these 39 young people. Sixty nine percent (26/38) were deemed to be at low risk, 18% (7/38) were deemed medium risk and 13% (5/38) were deemed to be at high risk of re offending. Consistent with the wider pattern of sentencing in the Youth Court (See Table 4.5), these young people were most commonly fined (10), admonished (8), had sentence deferred (11) or were given probation (6).

Table 4.4: Problems identified at the point of sentence among 39 young people who had SERs prepared for the Youth Court in July - December 2005

Source: Forms completed by social workers

Sentences imposed

4.40 The pilot Youth Court has available to it the same range of disposals as in the normal Sheriff Summary Court. The sentences imposed in the Youth Court up until the end of December 2005 are presented in Table 4.5. For each referral the most severe penalty imposed initially and finally (before any further sentence for breach) is recorded. The initial sentence includes deferred sentences of 3 months where it was likely that sentence had been deferred to allow the young person to prove they could be of good behaviour and, in some cases, undertake work with the relevant social work department. Referrals transferred out of the Youth Court for sentence (17), where guilt was not established (59) and cases where guilt was yet to be resolved or where sentence had been deferred for less than 3 months (61) have been excluded ⁴⁴. As Table 4.5 indicates, the most common disposals were monetary penalties and probation orders. By contrast, less use was made of restriction of liberty orders ⁴⁵ or community service orders. When compared with figures from the interim report it appears that a significant decrease in the use of probation orders as initial and final sentences occurred (from 33% and 37% respectively after 9 months). A significant increase in the use of deferred sentences at the initial stage (from 12% in the interim report) also occurred along with a slight decrease in the use of detention (from 16%). The decreased use of probation and increased use of deferred sentences is likely to have come about as a result of the Appeal Court ruling that suspended the courts' powers to conduct reviews of probation orders in court. At the final stage of sentencing, slight increases in the use of monetary penalties and admonitions were apparent when compared with earlier figures (30% and 6% respectively in the interim report).

Table 4.5: Most severe sentence imposed⁴⁶for referrals to the Youth Court June 2004 - December 2005 (number of referrals)

Source: Youth Court database

Detention

4.41 Overall, 53 cases (15%) were sentenced to a period of detention by the Youth Court (10 after deferment). A further 8 cases resulted in a period of detention being imposed as a result of a breach of the original sentence. In total (and including sentences imposed on breach), 32 young people had been sentenced by the Youth Court to a period of detention (13% of the 255 young people found guilty of and sentenced in respect of at least one charge up to the end of December 2005). This included 4 young women and 6 young people subject to a Supervision Requirement from the Children's Panel when prosecuted in the Youth Court. Over half of these young people (17 or 53%) were sentenced to custody by the Youth Court on more than one occasion (2 young people each received a total of 5 custodial sentences from the court). The minimum period of detention recorded was one month and the maximum was 26 months, with a mean of 7.6 months.

Probation

4.42 Ninety-six cases involving 74 young people (29% of those found guilty of least one charge) resulted in a probation order being made (one was made following breach of a CSO). Orders varied from 6 months to 3 years, with a mean order length of 20.8 months. Ten (14 %) of those placed on probation were young women while 12 (16%) were subject to a Supervision Requirement from a Children's Panel at the time of referral to the Youth Court.

4.43 Five of the young people on probation were made subject to electronic monitoring as a condition while 15 had to complete a period of unpaid work, either as a condition of probation (3) or through a separate community service order (12) ⁴⁷. Although the court sheets record courses that people would be expected to attend as a condition of probation, (such as attendance at counselling (often for alcohol and drugs), undertaking a cognitive behavioural programme and attending an activity course) the extent to which Sheriffs placed other specific conditions, such as attendance on a prescribed course, on probation orders was not clear from the Youth Court database.

4.44 Thirteen young people had breached their probation order through further offending or through a breach of conditions while 3 had breached a Restriction of Liberty Order ( RLO) and 2 breached a community service order ( CSO) ⁴⁸. In relation to those who breached their probation orders, 6 received a custodial sentence, 6 were permitted to continue their orders, one was fined and one was admonished in respect of the breach. One of those young people who breached their RLO was imprisoned, one had their order extended and one had their RLO revoked while their probation order continued. Of those breaching their CSO, one young person was imprisoned and one had a probation order imposed. A mean of 7.6 months was imposed in relation to all instances where breach resulted in imprisonment.

4.45 Sheriffs did not, for the most part, express strong views upon the levels of compliance with Youth Court Orders because they felt they did not possess enough information to do so. They regarded compliance as generally satisfactory but expressed a sense of hopelessness in relation to some clients, stating that they were destined to breach their orders regardless of their specific content (in these cases it was argued that the fast track procedures were effective in swiftly bringing further offences before the court). However, on a more positive note, Sheriffs stated that they did not hear about many clients again - an indication that they were successfully complying with their orders. In general though, they argued that the differences in Social Work provision throughout the pilot had engendered uncertainty regarding the content of orders; a problem which, along with the absence of evaluative data, complicated the task of assessing compliance. None of the other professionals interviewed indicated that there were particular issues with compliance. Some felt that a relatively low number of orders had been breached given their view was that some young people had been made subject to lengthy and tough orders that involved many interventions.

Monetary penalties

4.46 Monetary penalties were imposed in respect of 137 cases sentenced in the Youth Court (125 referrals received fines, 15 received compensation orders). For many, this was the most severe penalty imposed (Table 4.5). Fines ranged from £40 to £960 (with a mean of £282) while compensation ranged from £50 to £750 (with a mean of £308). One hundred and twenty-five young people (50% of young people found guilty in the court) had received a monetary sentence. All but 6 of those who received monetary penalties were male (95%). Sheriffs sometimes increased the weekly fine instalments because the amounts recommended by the defence agents were said to " not hurt enough".

Structured deferred sentences

4.47 Thirteen referrals resulted in a structured deferred sentence being imposed. Ten young man and one young woman, with a mean age of 16.4 years at first referral, were recorded as being placed on a structured deferred sentence requiring them to engage with the social work department for a period before returning to court for final sentencing. Two of these young people were subject to supervision requirements at the time they were referred to the Youth Court. Social workers would have welcomed greater use of structured deferred sentences in some cases to enable a shorter, more focused period of intervention than would be possible with probation.

Remit to the Children's Panel

4.48 Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (S. 49 (3) (b)) the Sheriff is required to request that the Principal Reporter arranges a Children's Hearing to obtain their advice as to the treatment of a young person who is subject to a supervision requirement from the Children's Hearings System and who pleads guilt to or is found guilty of an offence. The Sheriff may, on that advice, remit the case to a Hearing for disposal. Seven referrals involving 6 young people (3 young men and 3 young woman, all aged 16 years), 5 of whom were subject to Supervision Requirements, had their cases remitted to the Children's Panel for disposal. One was additionally placed on probation and community service by the court.

Restorative and reparation orders

4.49 There was a feeling amongst some professionals that not enough use was being made of restorative and reparation orders. Some felt restorative justice orders could possibly operate in place of community service orders. This was particularly pertinent to those young people who were working and had difficulty keeping the myriad of appointments associated with high level interventions and to those young people who had committed particular types of offences.

Level and frequency of interventions

4.50 There was a concern amongst some professionals, not only social work staff, that many young people could not cope with the level and frequency of interventions which could and did result in them not complying fully with the order. The issue of whether or not it was always appropriate to impose interventions was one that was felt to require further clarity at the implementation group level.

Characteristics of young people given social work disposals

4.51 Information was provided by North Lanarkshire Council in respect of 90 young people who received a social work disposal from the Youth Court. Information about whether or not the young people had had previous social work contact was available in 62 cases. Thirty-five of these young people (56%) were previously known to either the Children's Hearings System and/or social work. Of these, 16 young people (46%) were previously known to the Children's Hearings system, 7 (20%) were previously known to Social Work and 6 (17%) were known to both. ⁴⁹ Thirteen young people (37%) were previously known to the Children's Hearings System and/or social work on a welfare basis, while 11 young people (31%) were known in relation to their offending. Five young people (14%) were known to the Children's Hearing System and/or social work on both welfare and offences grounds ⁵⁰. Information about the young person's living circumstances at the point of sentence was available in 54 cases. Most of these young people were living in the parental home (38 or 70% ). The majority of the young people in respect of whom the relevant information was available were unemployed (34/59 or 57%), while just under a third (18 or 31%) were in full-time employment.

4.52 The problems that these young people were identified as experiencing at the point of sentencing are summarised in Table 4.6. In comparison with the earlier SER sample, the present sample had a higher incidence of problems, which is to be expected given that they had received a social work disposal (in most cases probation). Alcohol misuse was the most commonly identified problem, followed by drug misuse and anger management. One third of young people who had received an order from the Youth Court had no problems identified, though the extent to which this reflects missing data or an actual absence of problems cannot be identified. It should also be noted that most of these cases (21/30) involved individuals given community service orders or restriction of liberty orders where there would be no expectation of offending-related needs being identified or addressed.

Table 4.6: Offending-related problems identified in SERs resulting in Youth Court Orders (June 2004-December 2005)

Source: Information provided from SERs by North Lanarkshire Council
* As more than one factor associated with offending could be identified, percentages total more than 100%.

4.53 The results of risk assessments conducted at the SER stage were available in respect of 42 young people. Nine young people (21%) were assessed as having a low (8) or low-to-medium (1) risk of re-offending, 14 (33%) had a medium (13) or medium to high (1) risk of re-offending and in 19 cases (45%) the risk of re-offending was assessed as high. Most young people, therefore, appeared to present some risk of re-offending that might be addressed by a community-based social work disposal.

Services Available to the Youth Court

4.54 Young people may be referred to the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court if they offend within its catchment area but reside in other parts of North Lanarkshire or South Lanarkshire served by the Hamilton Youth Court. Social workers in North Lanarkshire will, however, supervise nearly all the young people involved with the Airdrie Youth Court. Young people living in North Lanarkshire, according to the Youth Court Information and Reference Document (Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court, 2004) and other documents scrutinised, could be referred to a range of services based upon their assessed needs as identified by the YLS/ CMI or LSI-R. In addition to being able to access existing services, new services were introduced through the additional funding provided for the Youth Court. Further information about the services and resources available to the Youth Court is presented in the Appendix to this report.

4.55 It would appear that the availability of a range of age-appropriate resources may have persuaded the Sheriffs in Airdrie to make greater use of probation orders than had previously been the case (see Section Five). However, towards the end of 2004 they began to express concern that the expected levels of services and supervision were not available because the full complement of Youth Court social workers was not yet in post. This meant that additional resources made available to the local authority had not been fully utilised and resulted in the perception by some professionals that the content of community based disposals being offered in the Youth Court was little different from the content of those normally imposed in the summary court. In January 2005 the Implementation Group was informed that an action plan was being drawn up to improve services and that an audit of services was being undertaken by the Youth Justice Co-ordinator (covering groupwork and the use of resources and community alternatives). Temporary Youth Court social workers were in post by March 2005 and by December 2005 Coatbridge, Cumbernauld and Airdrie all had permanent dedicated Youth Court social workers. Towards the end of the pilot Sheriffs commented that they remained uncertain about the range of resources available as some had only recently come on stream following the appointment of the dedicated Youth Court social workers.

4.56 Social workers did not, however, share Sheriffs' concerns about the adequacy of the services made available. Overall they were satisfied with the range and availability of services for the Youth Court and regarded the available resources as adequate. The main gaps in services identified by social workers included secure placements, which were not always available for young people who could be held in prison. A remand fostering scheme - introduced to provide the court with an alternative to a custodial remand - had eventually been introduced following delays in the recruitment of carers though social work respondents felt that there was still a lack of remand fostering places. Some social work respondents observed that similar services to some of those made available to the Youth Court were also available through area teams for lower risk offenders who did not require such intensive individual and groupwork programmes, through an expansion of groupwork provision in early 2005. This had required greater flexibility on the part of these services to, for example, accommodate young people who were in employment. At a more general level, some social work respondents commented that time limited funding impaired long term planning and vision for the development of effective service provision.

4.57 Regular monitoring and co-ordination was viewed by social workers as crucial when a range of services were put in place as part of a Youth Court Order. In this respect, social workers assumed the role of case manager. Social workers were reluctant to increase the number of services accessed by a young person if their circumstances did not merit it because this might result in young people being 'up-tariffed' if they failed to comply. As already indicated, the apparent difference in attitude between Sheriffs and social workers with respect to the appropriateness of intensive packages of services appeared partly to explain initial sentencer dissatisfaction with the content of Social Enquiry Reports.

4.58 Prior to the appointment of the dedicated Youth Court social workers, most social workers who were supervising Youth Court cases were not working solely with this client group and this limited the extent to which they could provide the intensive levels of supervision and support that the Youth Court Sheriffs desired. That said, all cases were allocated and provided with an appropriate service and the appointment of 3 dedicated Youth Court social workers appeared to have ameliorated this situation. With regard to capacity, social work respondents were of the view that if they were not required to carry out other work, they could take on an increased number of Youth Court cases if the demand arose.

Youth Court Reviews

4.59 For the first 12 months of the pilot, Youth Court Sheriffs were able, if they deemed it appropriate, to have ongoing judicial oversight of the community supervision orders they imposed ⁵¹ through the convening of regular Court Review hearings. The frequency at which these hearings were held was at the discretion of the Sheriff taking into account the circumstances of the case. The Youth Court database recorded that reviews had been scheduled for 55 of the young people placed on probation (74%).

Practical issues

4.60 The Sheriffs - like other professionals - found the review hearings to be useful for monitoring the progress of a young person and the impact of relevant interventions. They stressed that the purpose of reviews was not to establish a relationship with the accused. Communication between Sheriffs and young people was generally described as minimal, possibly in part due to the effect that the formality of the court had upon the young people.

4.61 While reviews were considered to be an important feature of the Youth Court, it was suggested by some professional respondents that social workers could be more fully involved in the process when they attended court with young people. While this did happen on occasion, the extent to which social workers were consulted was said by social work respondents to vary between Sheriffs. For social workers, attendance at reviews added to their workloads. They could spend all morning in court waiting for the young person they were working with to be called, then not be invited to contribute when the case did call. They suggested that having a separate court for reviews might allow for a more efficient use of their time. This could also benefit young people whose anxiety levels could be increased by sitting in court all morning waiting for their review to be heard.

The content of reviews

4.62 Observation of the Youth Court confirmed the views of professionals that it should not be perceived as a 'soft option'. Although the majority of the sentences imposed were community-based disposals, Sheriffs strongly emphasised the consequences of non-compliance when disposing of the case and re-iterated this at appropriate points in an order. That said, Sheriffs also regularly demonstrated concern, encouragement and support for young people appearing before them at reviews.

4.63 Sheriffs occasionally noted the presence of family members at the court. In some cases it appeared to confirm that family breakdown could have contributed to the young person's offending. More generally, however, Sheriffs appeared to place responsibility for improving their behaviour firmly with the young people themselves, who were often extolled to 'get their act together'. The onus was placed firmly on young people to adhere to their orders and to meet regularly with their social workers as required. Although not a specific aim of the Youth Court, it appeared that the heavy caseload at Airdrie on one day a week may have constrained the time available for constructive and meaningful dialogue about the causes and consequences of offending.

4.64 There was only one observation of a confidentiality issue that arose out of the observed cases. This concerned an abusive relationship between the male defendant and another male. The Sheriff indicated that he had the information in front of him and that it would be better to not disclose this information publicly. This suggests that Sheriffs had given some thought to dealing with the public nature of these types of court proceedings and that sensitive issues were being considered.

Losing the Power to Review Probation Orders

4.65 The power of the Courts to review Probation Orders was lost as a result of a High Court ruling in July 2005. This was lamented by the Sheriffs and by other professionals who agreed unanimously that the loss of the power to review probation orders was a backward step for the Youth Court. It undermined potential for continuity in the relationship between the sheriff and the young person. Professionals were of the view that court-based reviews were more effective in encouraging and sustaining the young person's motivation than were social work reviews, particularly for young people who had previous experience of the Children's Hearing System. Sheriffs also regarded the review as an important tool in promoting ongoing compliance with Orders (due to their repeated contact with the young person and the instilling of mutual expectations among sentencers, clients and workers). Though optimistic that such powers would soon be available again ⁵², they argued that those clients they were reviewing before were effectively 'lost' now, only to come before them again under circumstances relating to the breach of an order. Despite this, Sheriffs made innovative use of their powers to 'keep a tight rein' on some young people, with other professionals commenting on their imaginative use of a combination of sentencing options in order to bring the young people back for reviews. If 2 charges were brought before the court Sheriffs reported making increased use of a normal or Structured Deferred Sentences along with a Probation Order, using the SER to report on the offender's response to both disposals. However, they recognised there was a lack of flexibility if only one charge was available; this usually resulted in the imposition of a Structured Deferred Sentence to bring individuals before the court on a periodic basis.

Inter-Agency Teamwork and Communication

4.66 Overall, inter-agency teamwork at both the operational and strategic levels was regarded as good by Sheriffs. They suggested that the appointment of dedicated staff across agencies facilitated the efficient operation of the court itself. The Youth Court Implementation Group was seen as a tightly focused forum fostering effective co-operative working between stakeholder representatives, although it was suggested that much problem-solving was done informally. Other professional respondents likewise believed that the effectiveness of the Implementation Group had increased as the experience, confidence and relationships between those who participated in it had developed.

4.67 That said, some professional respondents believed that the remit of the group needed further clarity. It was suggested that more room could be made for discussing and revisiting the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved and that a greater emphasis could be placed on strategic analysis than discussion than on problem-solving in relation to operational matters.

4.68 Existing lines of inter agency communication remained, albeit in many instances they had improved through the dedicated staffing arrangements. It did not appear that any new lines of inter agency communication had been opened other than at the level of the Implementation Group. Grass roots staff felt there was room for improvement in this regard. For example, some professional respondents indicated that they would welcome opportunities for multi-agency discussion of cases (as opposed to processes) to enable the relevant agencies to share information particularly about those cases regarded as higher risk and more resource intensive.

4.69 Clearer lines of communication between the Implementation Group and social work practitioners were thought by social workers to be required. There appeared initially to be no formal direct line of communication between this group and the social work practitioners dealing with Youth Court cases. Both the Youth Justice social workers and the Youth Court social workers reported to their line manager, preventing direct dialogue between the social work practitioners dealing with Youth Court cases and the Implementation Group. Social work respondents suggested that having a dedicated Youth Court team with resources attached to it and with clear line management structures would be more effective than the initial arrangements in which practice differed across the authority. Social workers and Sheriffs alike believed that had effective links been in place much of the early criticism of SERs and misunderstandings regarding the matching of resources to offender risk could have been avoided. Steps taken to address these issues included the strengthening of social work involvement in the Implementation Group (including attendance by frontline workers) and the convening of regular meetings of Youth Court social work staff.

The Youth Court Model

4.70 Although Youth Court business is separated from other court business, Airdrie Youth Court was observed as operating essentially as an adult court 'adapted' for young people, rather than a Youth Court at the centre of which is a rationale that is youth centred. Sheriffs perceived little difference between the Youth Court and the conduct of normal summary court business, other than in the fast-tracking of cases and the availability of additional resources. Moreover, the label 'Youth Court' met with disapproval from Sheriffs, who suggested re-naming it as the 'Fast-Track Court' in order to overcome the problems relating to its perception by young people that the current label appeared to engender.

4.71 Sheriffs also suggested that concentrating young people in this way might not be the best model for dealing with young offenders. They suggested retaining the fast-tracking element (of which they were very supportive) and introducing cases involving young people in a normal fashion, or as early diets, throughout adult summary court proceedings. In this way, the control problems associated with the perceived failure on the part of some young people to appreciate the gravity of proceedings might be overcome. On the other hand, it was recognised that fast-tracking Youth Court cases created dilemmas in that resources were being diverted from the processing of other cases which, arguably (for example, on the basis of seriousness), merited a comparable or greater degree of targeting.

4.72 On the whole, there was a perception among Sheriffs (and, indeed, among other professionals) that fast-track procedures were the most notable success of the Youth Court. This led to the suggestion by some professionals that the system would benefit greatly from their wider application. The feasibility of applying the Youth Court model to other courts was, however, called into question. Sheriffs were concerned about the level of specialisation that was occurring in larger Sheriff Courts (for example, in Glasgow Sheriff Court which now had a separate Drug Court and Domestic Abuse Court) and were positive about employing each member of the Shrieval team on the Youth Court bench, rather than involving only a limited number of Sheriffs. On the other hand, they suggested that smaller Sheriff Courts with one or 2 Sheriffs would face problems implementing specific Youth Court arrangements due to the accompanying loss of time spent on other business. Sheriffs believed that in Airdrie it had been important for this reason to limit the capacity of the court to one day and to have a dedicated specialised team exerting tight control over the operation of the Youth Court.

4.73 At a more general level, a central issue concerned the perceived purpose of the Youth Court. In particular, there appeared to some lack of consensus over whether it intended to deal with persistent young offenders or with all 16 and 17 year olds who committed an offence. In other words, was it meant to identify young people who may become persistent offenders and intervene early or to provide services to those who already had an established pattern of offending behaviour and who whose risk of recidivism was already high.

4.74 This issue was complicated by that fact that, unlike in Hamilton where 'persistent' offending ⁵³ could serve as a trigger for referral to the Youth Court, in Airdrie similar persistency criteria were neither formally adopted nor applied. Some professional respondents suggested that, as a consequence, some very minor offences and offenders were being prosecuted in the Youth Court, though others were of the view that the Procurators Fiscal took into account the nature and frequency of offending at the marking stage so that persistency was being taken into account without a formal criterion being rigidly or restrictively applied. That said, social workers reported that young people they were supervising via the Youth Court sometimes had no established pattern of offending and a low assessed risk of re-offending and this had resulted in the need to adapt existing interventions to accommodate young people for whom less intensive programmes (or little or no social work intervention) were required.

4.75 Given the perceived lack of clarity surrounding criteria for the Youth Court and the reservations expressed about the transferability of the model to other parts of the country, the question arises as to whether the Youth Court model that has been adopted in the Scottish pilots is the most appropriate for this age-group or whether there are alternative approaches that should be considered. For example, some social work respondents suggested that a Youth Court might best serve as a bridge between the Children's Hearings System and adult criminal justice system.

Summary

4.76 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.

4.77 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.

4.78 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 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.

4.79 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.

4.80 The sentences most commonly passed in the Youth Court were, in decreasing order, probation orders, monetary penalties and detention. 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 interventions to young people who did not require them.

4.81 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.

4.82 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.

4.83 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 and aims) were highlighted.

« Previous | Contents | Next »