« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Section Six: Conclusions
6.1 In this final section, the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilot is assessed with reference to the objectives set for it by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of the Youth Court model are highlighted.
Achieving Youth Court Objectives
Reducing the frequency and seriousness of offending by 16 and 17 year olds (and some 15 year olds) through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement
6.2 Although the Youth Court has been operational for almost 2 years, given the timescales required for a robust analysis of recidivism it has only been possible to undertake a limited analysis of reconviction at this stage. The reconviction analysis pointed to little difference between the Youth Court and comparator courts, though it would be premature to draw any firm conclusions about its effectiveness on the basis of these data.
6.3 The Youth Court made similar use of community sentences and less use of custody than the Sheriff Summary Court, though it also appeared that the Youth Court was dealing with a higher percentage of first offenders than the Sheriff Summary Court. Young people given orders in the Youth Court were of the view that the intervention they had received had reduced their likelihood of further offending and professionals were cautiously optimistic that the Youth Court was reducing re-offending in most cases, though some young people given orders were considered to have a low risk of re-offending in any case. The additional resources made possible by the introduction of the Youth Court were regarded positively by professionals, though there had been some differences in perspectives between social workers and Sheriffs regarding the appropriateness of intensive packages of intervention for low risk offenders, resulting in a perception by the latter that services that they wished some young people to have access to were not available rather than inappropriate.
6.4 Professionals were generally supportive of the judicial review process, believing it to be important both as a means of holding young people to account and providing encouragement when they were doing well. The potential to call a review of an Order also made it possible to respond quickly to instances of non-compliance. Sheriffs made it clear that the review was not a soft option or a chance to build rapport with the young person and communication between Sheriffs and young people was generally limited. However, Sheriffs and other professionals lamented the suspension of the power to review probation orders from July 2005 and welcomed its re-introduction through new legislation in February 2006. Given the amount of time spent by social workers in court waiting for reviews to be heard, their limited involvement in the reviews process would not appear to represent the best use of their time.
Promoting the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of the young offenders whilst maximising their potential
6.5 The services provided to young people made subject to Orders and structured deferred sentences through the Youth Court are intended to impact upon their risk of re-offending. However they are also aimed at promoting the social inclusion of young people and maximising their potential. The extent to which the pilot has been successful in this regard is more difficult to establish, especially in light of the relatively short follow-up period. Social workers believed that interventions aimed at employment, training or education would have some positive effect and some young people had valued assistance in these areas. Information provided by Community Alternatives suggested that several young people had secured employment following periods of training in either skill seeker or career training.
Establishing fast-track procedures for those young offenders appearing before the Youth Court
6.6 The aspect of the Youth Court that was perceived by various professionals as having been most effective was the fast-tracking of young people into court. Despite the Youth Court dealing with a higher than anticipated volume of cases the time-scales for getting young people into the Youth Court and disposing of their cases were generally met. Furthermore warrants were issued in a timely manner for non-compliance and would be enforced promptly by the police. Fast-tracking was viewed by Sheriffs and other professionals as making the connection between the offence and the resulting sentence more meaningful. This and other associated procedures - such as the early disclosure of the Crown case to the defence, the availability of legal aid and the rolling up of cases by the Prosecutor Fiscal- were thought by professionals to have contributed to the higher level of guilty pleas and lower incidence of evidence-led trials in the Youth Court.
Enhancing community safety by reducing the harm caused to victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime
6.7 This particular objective of the Youth Court is more difficult than the others to evaluate because the relevant data are difficult to interpret. At an anecdotal level, police officers reported that the introduction of the Youth Court and the implementation of specific measures such as police monitored curfews had resulted in a marked reduction in some types of crime in some areas covered by the court. However, changes to the recording of crimes in 2004 render any direct comparisons between figures before and after that date problematic. For this reason it is impossible to assess to what extent an observed overall increase in recorded crime in the areas covered by the Airdrie Youth Court was due to changes in recording practices.
6.8 Some use was made of restorative justice interventions with young people, though it would appear that this more often took the form of unpaid work for the community. Restorative justice was an area of work that social workers believed could usefully be expanded. In particular there is scope for greater use to be made of forms of restorative justice that involve direct reparation for or contact with victims.
6.9 The evaluation of the Hamilton pilot Youth Court included a community survey that sought to establish whether the introduction of the Youth Court had been associated with less fear of crime and altered perceptions of youth crime in the communities served by it 61. More people in the follow-up survey believed that the crime rate had improved over the previous 2 years and fewer of this sample believed that there was a problem with youth crime. However, whether this could be attributed to the existence of the Youth Court is more difficult to establish, especially in the absence of similar data on national trends.
Examining the viability and effectiveness of existing legislation in servicing a Youth Court and to identify whether legislative and other changes may be required
6.10 The Youth Court has available to it the same disposals that are available to a Sheriff Court sitting summarily. This being so, Sheriffs were content with the range of options available to deal with young people appearing before the Youth Court. Sheriffs did not consider the Youth Court to be 'distinctive' other than in the fast-tracking of young people and believed that it would be inappropriate to treat young people appearing before the Youth Court any differently than those appearing before the Sheriff Summary Court. Similarly, the range of sanctions available to the Youth Court in the event of non-compliance by a young person on an Order was regarded as adequate.
6.11 An additional option that is available to the Youth Court (and only now being piloted on a wider basis) is for Sheriffs to bail the young person with an electronically monitored curfew. Although this was viewed by professionals as a useful option where a custodial remand was otherwise likely, Sheriffs in Airdrie preferred to make use of police monitored curfews instead.
6.12 As previously indicated, the ability of Sheriffs to bring young people back to court periodically to review their probation orders was suspended by an Appeal Court ruling in July 2005. Given the perceived importance and increasing prominence of court-based probation reviews in Scotland (not just in the Youth Courts but also in, for example, the Drug Courts), legislative provision for reviews was introduced by the Scottish Executive through Section 12 of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 which came into effect on 8 February 2006. Otherwise, none of the professionals who were interviewed identified additional legislative provision that would make the Youth Court procedures more effective or efficient. Analysis of Implementation Group minutes also failed to identify legislative changes that were required. Existing legislation would therefore appear to be adequate to accommodate Youth Court procedures.
Conclusions
6.13 The Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilot has, as far as can be assessed, been successful in meeting the objectives set for it by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. It is a tightly run court that deals with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures, dedicated staff and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements include the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, pleas at an earlier stage and the reduction in trials and inconvenience to witnesses, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Court was largely dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Group to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis.
6.14 The impact of the Airdrie Youth Court on offending among young people referred to it will take longer to establish. However, Youth Court procedures were operating effectively and the pilot has demonstrated that the operation of Youth Courts in Scotland is viable without the need for legislative change. There was a broad consensus that the Youth Court represented an improvement over previous arrangements for dealing with youth crime, though whether this required a dedicated Youth Court or whether these procedural improvements could be brought about by other means was less clear. For example, given that most young people who were dealt with in the Youth Court were first offenders, would it have been more appropriate for them to have accessed similar resources through the Children's Hearings System instead? Should the Youth Court be more explicitly youth focused and, if so, what might be the practical implications for the way in which it is run?
6.15 It is also important, however, to consider aspects of the Youth Court pilot that were less successful. These include operational issues that, during the course of the pilot, were successfully addressed: for example, the police undertaking accused to appear on the wrong day; shrieval concerns about the quality of reports; and the perception by Sheriffs and by some other professionals that anticipated services and resources were either not available or not being made use of. Of greater concern, however, is the ongoing lack of clarity as regards for whom the Youth Court was intended. Although some young people referred to it had established patterns of offending, many were first offenders who were assessed as presenting little risk of recidivism yet there was evidence of a sharp rise in the numbers of young people prosecuted summarily in Airdrie following the introduction of the Youth Court. Avoidance of net-widening - drawing young people into interventions that they may not require - will require careful ongoing monitoring and points to the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and criteria among the various agencies concerned.
« Previous | Contents | Next »