« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
1. Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children's Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts 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 Courts include:
- fast tracking of young people to and through the courts and fast track breach procedures;
- the ability to electronically monitor as a condition of bail;
- dedicated staff to support and service the Youth Courts(Procurator Fiscal, clerk, social work)
- additional resources across agencies to enable provision of a consistent, high quality service;
- the formation of multi-agency Youth Court Advisory Fora in Hamilton and Airdrie, each chaired by a Sheriff, to review the working and operation of the courts;
- 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 Courts' operation and programmes.
3. Many of the procedures, agencies and personnel are similar in the two pilot courts. However there are some organisational differences between the two pilot sites, which reflect the size of the sheriff courts and anticipated volume of Youth Court cases and target timescales for processing cases take account of this.
Identifying potential Youth Court cases
4. 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. When marking cases for possible prosecution in the Youth Court Procurators Fiscal considered whether cases met agreed criteria with respect to persistency of offending and contextual circumstances, though in Airdrie the persistency criterion was not formally applied. Procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were said to be operating smoothly as a result of good working relationships between the agencies concerned.
5. Most youth cases reported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal were not marked for prosecution. Prosecution in both Youth Courts 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 dealt with by the Youth Courts
6. During the period covered by the evaluation, the Hamilton Youth Court (June 2003 - December 2004) had dealt with 611 cases involving 402 young people while 543 cases featuring 341 young people had been dealt with by the Youth Court in Airdrie (June 2004 - December 2005). Most of those prosecuted in both courts were male, were 16 or 17 years of age and were prosecuted on a single occasion.
7. Most young people (74%) had first come into contact with the criminal justice system at least two years before their first Youth Court appearance. Just over a third of young people sentenced in Hamilton (35%) and slightly more of those in Airdrie (43%) had had at least one previous referral to the Reporter on offence grounds. However, only 47 per cent of young people in Hamilton and even fewer of those in Airdrie (26%) had previously been convicted in an adult court.
8. Most young people who appeared in the Youth Courts for whom the relevant data were available lived at with a parent and many were reported to have had difficulties at school. Two-fifths of those on who Social Enquiry Reports ( SERs) were prepared and who were sentenced in Hamilton were unemployed. Many young people acknowledged their offending to be alcohol related or, less often, related to the misuse of drugs. The charges most commonly prosecuted in the Youth Courts included breaches of the peace, petty assault, carrying offensive weapons and possession of drugs.
Progress of cases through the courts
9. In their broad operation the Youth Courts proceeded as any other summary adult court. Overall they were tightly run with a heavy volume of cases being heard in Airdrie. Just under one half of the cases in Hamilton and just over half of those in Airdrie were resolved prior to the setting of a trial diet, with only 10 per cent of cases in Hamilton and 9 per cent of cases in Airdrie proceeding to an evidence-led trial. A relatively high incidence of guilty pleas at first calling in Airdrie may have been brought about by a number of procedures that are distinctive to the Youth Court. However there was no evidence that the Youth Court differed markedly from the Sheriff Summary Court in this respect.
10. The proportion of cases appearing on citation was higher than expected in both courts. Following their appearance in court most accused were granted bail or ordained to appear. Sheriffs in Hamilton occasionally made use of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail but Airdrie Sheriffs preferred police monitored curfews.
11. 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, was borne out by an analysis of how quickly cases were dealt with at different stages of the prosecution process. A comparison of cases processed by the Youth Court and by the Sheriff Summary Court in Airdrie showed that 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. The fast-tracking of young people into and through the court was the aspect of the Youth Court that was perceived by various professionals as having been most effective. Fast-tracking was viewed by Sheriffs and other professionals as making the connection between the offence and the resulting sentence more meaningful and was regarded as something to be aspired to in all summary court business.
Sentencing in the Youth Courts
12. Sheriffs in Hamilton were content with the quality of social work reports to the Youth Court. The perceived quality of certain social enquiry reports was initially a source of concern to Sheriffs in Airdrie but this issue was resolved over the course of the pilot through steps taken by the social work department to improve the quality of reports and through the appointment of Youth Court social workers.
13. The sentences most commonly passed in the Youth Court were probation orders, community service orders, monetary penalties and detention. Hamilton made more use of probation orders than Airdrie while Airdrie made greater use than Hamilton of monetary penalties and community service orders. The relatively high use of probation in Hamilton and the infrequency of probation as a final disposal in Airdrie was particularly striking.
14. The Youth Courts have available to them a range of additional resources and services that are intended to meet the assessed needs of young people made subject to supervisory orders. Services were provided by youth justice workers, by non-statutory agencies and by other local authority staff. However, Sheriffs and some other professionals in Airdrie 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 observed that some young people dealt with in the Airdrie Youth Court in particular did not have an established pattern of offending and they were wary of offering services to young people that they did not consider to be required.
15. 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
16. 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 in Airdrie 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.
17. In practice, the Youth Courts 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 (such as the perceived lack of clarity regarding the criteria) and the impact on other court business were highlighted.
Youth Court Outcomes
18 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 imprisonment rose. There was a sharp rise in cases dealt with in Airdrie following the introduction of the Youth Court, suggesting that its introduction may have encouraged prosecution in cases that might previously have attracted an alternative. In Hamilton there was no overall change in the proportionate use of different disposals following the introduction of the Youth Court, suggesting that the greater use of community sentences and detention in the Youth Court compared with the Sheriff Summary Court reflected the characteristics of the young people concerned.
19. In terms of crime reduction at the aggregate level, changes in the recording of crimes in 2004 make it very difficult to interpret any changes in recorded crime levels in Hamilton, Airdrie and in comparison courts. At the individual level, only a limited analysis of reconviction data was possible in view of the timeframe for the evaluation. While the Airdrie data were too incomplete for meaningful interpretation, 6 and 12 month reconviction rates among those sentenced in Hamilton Youth Court were encouraging, particularly given the prior criminal histories of this sample.
20. There was little change in community attitudes towards youth crime over the period of the Hamilton pilot, though any differences tended to be in a positive direction. In particular people reported feeling less unsafe in their neighbourhood after dark, more believed that the crime rate had improved over the previous 2 years and fewer thought that there was a problem with youth crime. However it is not possible to say whether these changes can be attributed to the Youth Court or are part of a broader national trend.
21. Most professionals were cautiously optimistic that the Youth Courts would be effective in reducing re-offending, at least with some young people who appeared before them. 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. The Youth Courts had available to them a wider range of services and resources than had previously been available to young people made subject to supervision by the courts. Social workers were of the opinion that most interventions undertaken with young people would be effective to some extent, though they also believed that most young people were likely to re-offend. Young people were generally positive about the supervision and services they had received.
22. Only a limited analysis of the costs and cost savings associated with the Youth Courts was possible in light of the available data. The costs of operating the Youth Courts were offset to a limited extent by savings in criminal justice costs. Although the costs of orders made in the Youth Court were higher than the costs of standard probation orders, this reflects the additional supports and services made available through the Youth Courts. These costs could be offset to a significant extent if the Youth Courts prove effective in preventing crime.
Conclusion
23. The Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots have, as far as can be assessed, been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both are tightly run courts that - particularly in Airdrie - deal with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements include the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was 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 Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis.
24. Whether Youth Courts are required or whether procedural improvements are 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 Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity is required regarding for whom the Youth Courts are intended. This suggests the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.
« Previous | Contents | Next »