The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR: SENTENCING IN THE YOUTH COURTS

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This section of the report focuses upon the progress of young people through the Youth Courts. 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 COURTS

4.2 Observation of the operation of the Youth Courts confirmed that in their broad operation they proceeded as any other summary adult court. All stages of cases were held in open court ³¹ in an adult courtroom and the court layout was that of any adult summary court. Legal professionals wore their formal court attire at all times. In Hamilton Youth Court business lasted during observed days for between 2 minutes and four and three quarter hours including recesses and any down time while in Airdrie, where the Youth Court sat for only one day per week business lasted during observed days for between 3 and 6 hours.

4.3 During the period covered by the evaluation, Hamilton Youth Court business did not necessarily occupy all of the time scheduled. This meant that it was possible for other court business, such as short summary trials, to be re-scheduled and dealt with by the Youth Court Sheriff. Indeed, laterally other summary trials were being timetabled to be heard by Youth Court Sheriffs immediately following the Youth Court on 2 days per week. This meant that, despite having its own courtroom, the Youth Court was not separated fully from adult proceedings since those due to attend for adult summary trials were also present in the Court. However a generally relaxed and friendly atmosphere to the court was noted before court and in recesses, with young people able to approach professionals for information. The court's full-time police officer and court clerk were particularly important in this respect. Family or other supporters often accompanied young people to the court. Young people appearing were nearly always legally represented while social workers (usually the court social worker) were present in nearly 90 per cent of the case stages observed.

4.4 A number of general observations can also be made about the operation of the Airdrie 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 filled up with families and friends of the accused ³², who often - in the initial stages of the pilot when most of the observation was undertaken - 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 ³³. The need to maintain order in court was felt by many professionals to impinge on the potential for honest dialogue between the accused and the Sheriff in the early stages of the pilot, though there were indications from professionals attending court regularly that the issue of public order had improved over time. This was facilitated by the transfer of the Youth Court to a larger courtroom 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. However Sheriffs were concerned that that some offenders did not take the Youth Court seriously, viewing it as an extension of the Children's Panel Hearings, rather than an adult summary court.

4.5 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 maintaining adequate time for trials.

PROGRESS OF CASES THROUGH THE COURTS

4.6 The progress of the referrals that had been completed by the end of December 2004 in Hamilton and December 2005 in Airdrie is illustrated in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. In just under one half of cases in Hamilton and just over one half of those in Airdrie a guilty plea was tendered at first appearance or at the intermediate diet. The proportion of cases resulting in a guilty plea at first calling of the case was higher (at 30%) in Airdrie than in Hamilton, where only 14 per cent of cases were resolved at this stage. However, as a comparison of the progress of citation cases in the Youth Court and Sheriff Summary Courts will demonstrate later in this capter, the resolution of this proportion of cases at this stage in the Airdrie Youth Court appears similar to the Sheriff Summary court. A further 31 per cent of accused in both courts tendered a guilty plea at the trial diet. Forty-five cases in Hamilton (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. The percentage of cases resulting in the setting of a trial date was slightly lower in Airdrie (45% compared with 52% in Hamilton) but the proportion of cases resulting in an evidence-led trial was broadly similar in the 2 pilot sites (9% compared with 11% in Hamilton).

Figure 4.1: The route of cases through the Hamilton Youth Court (June 2003 - December 2004)
Source: Youth Court database

Footnote ³⁴

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

Footnote ³⁵

FIRST APPEARANCE AND BAIL

4.7 Accused referred to the Youth Court made their first appearance at Court from police custody, on a citation or on a police undertaking. Although it was anticipated when the pilot was established that most cases would appear from custody or on an undertaking, in practice 42% of referrals in Hamilton were scheduled to appear from custody, 16% per cent on a police undertaking and 42% were cited to appear. In Airdrie in the majority of referrals to the court (61%) the young person was cited to appear while 27 per cent of those referred made their first appearance from custody and 12 per cent on a police undertaking. Overall 43 per cent of people referred to the Youth Court in Hamilton and 28 per cent of those referred to Airdrie Youth Court made at least one of their appearances in court from custody. Despite initial concerns that the high proportion of reports and citations in Airdrie might result in delays in some cases reaching court, 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.

4.8 Although not explicitly recorded it was possible, using dates provided, to infer the bail decision of the court at first calling of the referral. Overall at first callings where the case was not resolved, 9% of accused in Hamilton were remanded, 41% were bailed and 50% were ordained to appear at the next hearing. In Airdrie, 41% of referrals were bailed, 52% were ordained and 7% were remanded. When the Procurator Fiscal opposed bail, it was usually in cases where the young person was alleged to have committed further offences whilst on bail or probation or was without a fixed address. Where bail was not opposed the Crown sometimes requested additional conditions, usually for the young person to be excluded from certain areas or prohibited from contacting certain individuals.

Electronic monitoring on bail

4.9 Although electronically monitored bail is only now being piloted in other Scottish Courts this option was available to the Youth Court pilots. Data provided by Reliance Monitoring Services showed that electronic monitoring on bail was utilised at some point during 5 per cent of referrals in Hamilton (31) with 6 per cent of people (25) ³⁶ referred to the Youth Court being subject to electronic monitoring on bail at some stage. For the majority (21) of the 31 electronically monitored bail conditions the person was on curfew for 12 hours, with 5 for periods over 12 hours (up to a maximum of 16 hours). All monitored curfew conditions applied for 7 days a week. The earliest a curfew started was 5pm, the latest 11pm. The latest end of a curfew was at 9am.

4.10 Just over half the people (13 people on 18 separate occasions) were deemed to have failed to complete their envisaged period of electronic monitoring on bail because of a significant breach. In addition, 2 people who completed their period of electronically monitored bail were also recorded as having breached the curfew during it. The most common reason noted for non-completion and breaches was the withdrawal of consent for the tagging by the premises holder (9 occasions). Other reasons included the young person having gone absconded (4), being taken into custody (2) and having tampered with the tag's strap (1).

4.11 Electronic monitoring on bail was viewed by Sheriffs and by social workers interviewed as a useful alternative to a custodial remand, though relatively little use was made of this option and levels of non-compliance were relatively high. It was considered by social workers not to be appropriate for young people with chaotic living conditions who would have difficulty adhering to the terms of the monitoring arrangements, though they acknowledged that it was difficult to predict who would struggle to comply and who would succeed. Sheriffs stressed that electronic monitoring would only be considered as an option if a decision had already been made that a custodial remand was required. They regarded lengthy monitoring periods as unrealistic and one suggested that electronic tagging could provide an unnecessary stigma for some young people.

4.12 The power to bail accused subject to electronically monitored curfew was not used by Sheriffs in Airdrie during period of the evaluation. 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 that the curfews were personnel intensive and could prove disruptive to other members of the family and that electronic monitoring could potentially be more effective in maintaining the young person's compliance. Nevertheless the police respondents felt that the curfews imposed had had a positive impact on communities and that they were witnessing a reduction in crime in some areas through their use.

FAST-TRACKING OF CASES THROUGH THE YOUTH COURTS

Time to first appearance

4.13 The Youth Court's target was for young people to appear in Hamilton within 10 days (exceptionally 14) and in Airdrie within 14 days of being charged with an offence ³⁷. The initial expectation was for most cases to either appear from custody or on police undertaking with only rarely young people being cited to appear after report to the Fiscal (hereafter referred to as 'report cases'). In such cases the police target of the report to the Procurator fiscal was submission within 28 days from commission or detection of the alleged offence.

4.14 The Youth Court database did not contain the relevant data from which the length of time between a young person being charged and first appearing in court could be calculated. To enable such a calculation to be made the Procurators Fiscal provided the date of charge and the date of report to the Fiscal for 83 cases marked for Hamilton Youth Court prosecution between June and December 2004 and for 107 cases marked for prosecution in the Airdrie Youth Court ³⁸.

4.15 In Hamilton, the 18 custody cases all appeared in the Youth Court in 4 days or less following charge as legally they must appear on the next working day. The 13 undertakings all appeared between 10 and 14 days from charge. For report cases the time from referral to the Fiscal to their appearance in the Youth Court was measured. Thirty- five per cent of the 52 report cases in this sample appeared within 14 days or less (8 days being the minimum) with 50 per cent appearing within 20 days or less. The maximum period was 183 days. Although the report cases did not in most cases meet the proscribed timescales it had not been envisaged that many Youth Court cases would appear from this route.

4.16 Sixteen of the 20 custody cases (80%) in Airdrie appeared in court within 2 days of charge. The median time period ³⁹ from charge to first due appearance for custody cases was 1 day. Twelve of the 13 undertakings (92%) appeared in court within the 14-day target time (the remaining case was 21 days in coming to court) and the median time period from charge to first due appearance was 7 days. Information was available for 83 report cases, with 11 per cent (9) cited to appear within 14 days of the offence, 59 per cent (49) within 8 weeks and 93 per cent (77) within 90 days. The median time period for citation case was 45 days (around six and a half weeks). 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, fifty-two per cent of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the charge date. As in Hamilton, the timescales that had been set for custody cases and undertakings were often not being met in respect of citations. However, for custody cases and undertakings, in cases where relevant data were available the Youth Court timescales for this stage of the prosecution process were in most cases being met.

Progress through the Youth Courts

4.17 A principle aim of the Youth Court pilot was the fast tracking of young people both to the court and through the court. Each referral in the Youth Court database (up to December 2004 in Hamilton and December 2005 in Airdrie) 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 of a plea, or finding, 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.

4.18 At pre-sentence stage the main target was for a trial diet date to be set no more than 40 days after the case was first called. As an intermediate diet and trial diet date would not be set at first calling if a plea was not entered, the first calling date in this instance has been taken as the first date a not guilty plea was entered. The Youth Court Co-ordinator's database did not record explicitly the date the plea was first entered, so this was estimated taking into account any warrants for initial non appearance and continuations without pleas. Excluding the 77 referrals where the individual involved pled guilty on first appearance, information was available for 517 referrals in Hamilton. Ninety-five per cent of these had trial dates set within 40 days, with 46 per cent having trial dates set within 35 days. Of those outside the target, the maximum was a trial set 49 days after first estimated date of plea. In the Youth Court, it is also expected that an intermediate diet will be set not more than 19 days after an initial plea is entered. All of the referrals had an intermediate trial date set within 10 days, with an average of 5 days. In all of these cases, therefore, this timescale had been met.

4.19 At the pre-sentence stage the proposed target in Airdrie was also for a trial date to be set no more than 40 days after the case was first called. The relevant information was available for 377 referrals in Airdrie. Forty-four per cent (165) of these cases had trial dates set within 40 days, while the average was 42 days. The percentage of cases with trial dates set within 40 days was markedly lower in Airdrie than in Hamilton, possibly because the Youth Court in Airdrie only sat on one day a week while the Hamilton Youth Court was sitting on 5 days a week in the period covered by this analysis. Of those outside the target, the Airdrie maximum was a trial set 154 days after the estimated date of plea. It appears that the Youth Court was achieving these targets more effectively during its first 9 months of operation: if only those cases having their first calling before the end of February 2005 are examined, 72% (127 of 176) met the proposed timescale.

4.20 The initial guidance issued for the Airdrie Youth Court also proposed that an intermediate diet should be set within 21 days of an initial plea being entered. Of the 376 cases where the relevant information was available, 49% (183) were set within 21 days, while the overall average was 27 days. In just under half of the cases, therefore, this timescale had been met. However, if only those cases having their first calling before the end of February 2005 are examined, 83% (147 of 177) met the proposed timescale. It appears that the ability to fast-track cases through the court in Airdrie has diminished to some extent over time though . However, as we shall see, the Youth Court was much quicker in processing comparable cases than Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court.

Time to case resolution and sentence in Hamilton

4.21 The majority of first calling stage cases (80% of these 77 referrals) were resolved on the day of the young person's scheduled first appearance in court, with a mean of 7 days to resolution. The mean for intermediate diet stage resolutions was 26 days and for referrals reaching the trial diet stage it was 46 days (in the 63 referrals where the case proceeded to trial the mean time was 52 days). Overall Youth Court referrals took an average of 34 days to resolve. The non-appearance of young people for the calling of a case could delay the court process. Sheriffs would normally issue a warrant for the arrest of a young person who failed to attend court. Overall, warrants had been taken in 18%t of referrals before their resolution. The average time for a referral to be resolved when a warrant was taken was 54 days in contrast to the 30 days for referrals where a warrant was not taken. Therefore although non-appearance delayed the resolution of referrals, their enforcement by the police ensured that they were generally resolved within a reasonable period of time.

4.22 For those convicted an assessment was made of the length of time from resolution to initial sentence. Only first referrals ⁴⁰ to the Youth Court were included in this analysis. Referrals where initial sentence was deferred for 3 months or more were excluded, as this deferment was likely to have been for good behaviour. Out of 190 referrals assessed, 27 per cent were sentenced within 3 weeks of resolution of the case and 70 per cent within 4 weeks. Sixteen per cent were sentenced on the day of resolution of the case, with the majority of these being admonished or fined.

Time to case resolution and sentence in Airdrie

4.23 Table 4.1 shows the proportion of cases resolved at each stage of the Youth Court process in Airdrie 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)

Source: Youth Court database *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.

4.24 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 8 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 as a result of deferments for social work and other reports to be prepared and non-appearance of the accused at court. Overall, there was an average of 31.5 days between case resolution and sentence.

4.25 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. A quarter of cases (24% or 28) were resolved within one month and 97% (112) in 6 months (180 days) or less. From charge to initial disposal took an average of 91 days (3 months). Eleven per cent (12) of these cases were disposed of within one month, while 85% were disposed of within 6 months.

Cited cases

4.26 In order to compare like with like, the case processing timeframes of cited Youth Court cases in Airdrie were examined alongside the data for cited cases from the Sheriff Summary Court. Excluding those cases not cited to appear in the court, charge dates in relation to 83 cases 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.

4.27 The dates on which cited cases were passed to the Procurator Fiscal were available in respect of 157 Youth Court referrals. These data were compared with the dates on which referrals were first called in the Youth Court. The minimum period between a case being referred 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.

4.28 It was also possible to compare the charge dates of the 83 referrals 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 referral was zero days, the maximum was 125 days and the median time period was 45 days. Overall, 33% of these cases were called in the Youth Court within one month of the charge date.

4.29 Figure 4.3 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%.

4.30 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; 12% (12) and 6% (2) of the cases resolved at these stages respectively 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 1 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)

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

Figure 4.3: The route of cited cases through the Airdrie Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005)
Source: Youth Court database

Footnote ⁴¹

4.31 One hundred and ninety-seven (70%) of the 283 cited 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 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 for the reasons previously outlined. Overall there was an average of 33.4 days between case resolution and sentence.

4.32 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. Only around a tenth of cases (11% or 9) were resolved within one month and 95% (78) in 6 months or less. From charge to initial disposal took an average of 102 days (3.4 months). Four per cent (3) of these cases were disposed of within one month, while 81% (61) were disposed of within 6 months.

Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court

4.33 Charge dates in relation to 146 individuals were available in order to be compared to the dates on which cases first called in the citation 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 ⁴² between charge and first calling was 132 days, while the comparable figure for the Youth Court was 50 days; around three and a half months quicker than in the adult court.

4.34 Figure 4.4 shows the passage of adult cited 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. While this difference cannot easily be explained, it may partly reflect the impact of the fast track Youth Court procedures on the quality of evidence available.

4.36 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, citation 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 for comparable cases 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)

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

Figure 4.4: The route of cited cases through Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court (March 2005)
Source: Citation court records

Footnote ⁴³

4.37 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 there was an average of 14 days between case resolution and sentence 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 probably because in a higher proportion of Youth Court cases a Social Enquiry Report was requested prior to sentence.

4.38 Taking account of the pre-court data, it took an average of 267 days (8.9 months) for cases to progress from initial charge to resolution. A third of cases (33% or 41) were resolved in 6 months or less and 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). 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.

4.39 Procurators Fiscal identified a culture in both Hamilton and Airdrie of maintaining not guilty pleas right up to the trial diet and this resulted in heavy workloads for the deputes. However the Youth Courts were reported by professionals to have resulted in a lower percentage of cases proceeding to trial and a greater proportion of guilty pleas at first calling or intermediate diet. This was attributed to 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 as a huge improvement to the system by Defence Agents, who were keen to see such resourcing continuing for both those who plead guilty and for those who chose to go on to trial. From the perspective of the Defence Agents, each of these changes is likely to have encouraged the tendering of earlier pleas.

4.40 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. One difficulty that arose with fast tracking in Airdrie was in relation to the rolling up of several offences. There had been occasions when social work reports had been compiled based on offences known to them at the time. However when they got to court other offences had been rolled up together with those addressed in the social enquiry report. Although this process had the potential to up tariff a young person (because appropriate disposals may not have been considered in the social enquiry report) it was not possible to determine from the available data whether this was the case.

YOUTH COURT DISPOSALS

Reports to the court

4.40 The Youth Court Sheriff will often call for a Social Enquiry Report ( SER) before sentencing a young person ⁴⁴. 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 Youth Courts 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 ⁴⁵ - and should contain an individualised action plan identifying the proposed level and method of intervention with the young person. Social Enquiry Reports and supplementary review reports played a vital part in observed proceedings, informing both the Sheriffs and the defence about the young person's background. 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). Reports prepared for the Youth Court contained more detail and fuller action plans than reports prepared for other courts, and Sheriffs reported in interview that they valued this.

4.41 The perceived quality of SERs provided to the Youth Court was a source of concern to Sheriffs in Airdrie throughout the first 9 months of the pilot. 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. Criticism of reports in open court was regarded as very stressful by social workers. Social work managers attributed the problem to delays they had encountered in appointing dedicated Youth Court workers, reflecting wider difficulties in social work recruitment on a national basis ⁴⁶. With the appointment of Youth Court social workers - who were also able to provide the court with additional relevant and up-to-date information on request - and the institution of quality assurance measures, the quality of reports was perceived to have improved and the matter was effectively resolved. In hindsight, social work staff believed that the issue could have been resolved more quickly if they had been party to early discussions on the matter ⁴⁷.

4.42 Social workers also believed 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 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 was thought by social workers to have resulted in Sheriffs in Airdrie having more confidence in their recommendations to the Youth Court.

Social work recommendations

4.43 The researchers were provided with access to a sample of 106 anoymised SERs from one of the local authorities that participated in the Hamilton Youth Court pilot. As Table 4.4 shows, the most common recommendations. ⁴⁸ were for deferred sentences and probation orders. In the 85 cases where both the recommended and imposed sentence was available, the sentence recommended was imposed in 64 per cent of cases. In most of the 31 cases where the Sheriff decided to impose an alternative sentence to that recommended, a more severe sentence was imposed. These included 11 cases of probation and 6 cases of community service being imposed rather than the recommended deferment. One young person was sentenced to detention rather than having their sentence deferred as recommended. A number of the cases receiving higher tariff sentences than recommended involved the carrying of offensive weapons by young people who mainly had little, if any, previous involvement with the criminal justice system but whose behaviour could be regarded as posing a risk to public safety.

Table 4.4: Sentence recommended in sample of Hamilton SERs and sentence given (column percentages)

Source: Social Enquiry Reports

Some social work reports (31/106) gave an assessment of the young person's 'risk' of re-offending. Just over half of these assessments (16) concluded that the young person was at a low risk of re-offending, with the rest being at a medium (5) or high (10) risk of further offending. From data provided by social workers in respect of 39 young people for whom and SER has been prepared for the Airdrie Youth Court, a risk of re-offending assessment had been conducted on 38 out of these 39 young people. Twenty-six were deemed to be at low risk, 7 were deemed medium risk and 5 were deemed to be at high risk of re offending. The results of risk assessments conducted at the SER stage were also available in respect of 42 young people who received a community-based social work disposal from the Airdrie Youth Court. Nine young people were assessed as having a low (8) or low-to-medium (1) risk of re-offending, 14 had a medium (13) or medium to high (1) risk of re-offending and in 19 cases the risk of re-offending was assessed as high. This suggests that the risk profile of those given orders was different ( i.e. generally more serious) from that of the wider population of young people who were subject to SERs, though the relatively small numbers mean that such a conclusion must be tentative.

Sentences imposed

4.44 The Youth Court has available to it the same disposals that are available to a Sheriff Court sitting summarily. The observations 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 and were central in advocating services and supports.

4.45 For each referral to the Youth Courts the most severe initial and final (that is, following a period of deferment) penalty imposed was identified. The initial sentence includes sentences deferred for 3 months or more to allow the young person to prove they could be of good behaviour or to undertake work with the social work department (structured deferred sentence). Referrals transferred out of the Youth Court for sentence, cases where guilt was not established and cases where guilt was yet to be resolved were excluded.

4.46 A deferred sentence was the most common initial disposal in both Hamilton in Airdrie (Table 4.6). Hamilton made more use of probation orders than Airdrie while Airdrie made greater use than Hamilton of monetary penalties and slightly more use of detention. Little use was made of restriction of liberty orders in either court. A similar pattern pertained across the 2 courts with respect to the final disposals imposed (Table 4.7). Particularly striking is the relatively high use of probation in Hamilton compared with Airdrie

Table 4.6: Most severe sentence imposed for cases dealt with by the Youth Courts: initial sentences imposed

Source: Youth Court database

Table 4.7: Most severe sentence imposed for cases dealt with by the Youth Courts: final sentence imposed ( i.e. includes disposals following deferred sentence)

Source: Youth Court database

Detention

4.47 Thirty-five (10%) referrals in Hamilton and 53 (15%) in Airdrie were sentenced to a period of detention. All those detained in Hamilton were male while 4 in Airdrie were young women. Nearly all periods of detention were for 6 months or less, with the maximum imposed being 17 months in Hamilton and 26 months in Airdrie.

Probation

4.48 Up to the end of December 2004, 34 per cent of all young people convicted in Hamilton (115), 11 (10%) of whom were female, were given a probation order. Nine of those given a probation order were subject to a supervision requirement at the time of referral to the Youth Court. Orders in Hamilton varied in length from 6 months to 3 years with a mean order length of 22.2 months. In Airdrie, 96 Probation Orders were imposed upon 74 of the young people dealt with by the court. 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.

4.49 Those on probation could have had other community disposals imposed by the court either as a condition of their probation or as separate orders. Of those on probation in Hamilton, 39 (34%) had also had a restriction of liberty order imposed and 2 an untagged curfew as a condition of probation. A period of unpaid work was a condition of the order for 8 young people (7%), whilst a quarter had had separate community service orders at some point. Five of the young people on probation in Airdrie 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) ⁵¹. The extent to which Sheriffs placed other formal conditions, such as attendance on a prescribed course, on probation orders was not clear from the database however the court sheets did occasionally record courses that people would be expected to attend on their probation. These included attendance at counselling (often for alcohol and drugs), undertaking a cognitive behavioural programme and attending an activity course.

4.50 The Youth Court database recorded a breach of probation for 29% of the young people placed on orders in Hamilton while 13 young people in Airdrie (18%) had breached their probation order. In the absence of additional information, however, it is not possible to explain these differences between the courts. Given that many orders had only recently commenced, the overall breach rate may ultimately be higher. Further scrutiny of cases through discussion with supervising social workers in Hamilton revealed that in 58% of cases discussed (25/43) there had been full compliance or only acceptable non-compliance with social work appointments. In most cases where breach reports were submitted (15/20) this was as a result of further offending. In Airdrie 6 of those whose orders were breached were imprisoned for an average of 7.6 month, one was admonished and in 6 cases the order was continued. In Hamilton, 5 probation orders had been breached and a custodial sentence imposed (with a mean of 8.8 months) and one young person had their order terminated and was admonished.

4.51 A fast track breach procedure operates in the Youth Court, with breaches reported to the Youth Court clerk to be fast tracked subject to agreement of the Sheriff concerned. In Hamilton, where a higher number of breaches had been heard, the mean time to breach was 23 weeks with the minimum being 6 weeks and the maximum 50 weeks, with 70 per cent of breaches occurring in the first 6 months of the orders ⁵². In Airdrie, of the 16 breach cases where data were available, the mean time to breach was 25 weeks with the minimum being 4 weeks and the maximum 56 weeks.

4.52 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 (though it was suggested that in these cases the fast track procedures were effective in swiftly bringing further offences before the court). On a positive note, Sheriffs stated that they did not hear about many clients again - an indication that they were successfully complying with their orders. Some professionals in Airdrie felt that a relatively low number of orders had been breached given that, in their view, some young people had been made subject to lengthy and tough orders that involved many conditions and interventions. 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 imposed and that this could impact upon their compliance with their orders. Some professionals highlighted how the length of many Youth Court orders meant that young people would turn 18 while still subject to the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. For reviews they would appear in the Youth Court but if they re-offended the case may be heard elsewhere. Retaining those on Youth Court orders within the Youth Court system until their order was completed would, it was argued, allow a more consistent approach to be taken to their sentencing should they re-offend.

Monetary penalties

4.53 Monetary penalties - mostly fines - were relatively common disposals in both courts, but particularly so in Airdrie. Fines imposed in Hamilton ranged from £50 to £1,000 (with a mean of £283), with compensation ranging from £50 to £915 (with a mean of £255). In Airdrie fines ranged from £40 to £960 (with a mean of £282) while compensation ranged from £50 to £750 (with a mean of £308). Airdrie Sheriffs sometimes increased the weekly fine instalments because the amounts recommended by the defence agents were said to " not hurt enough".

Structured deferred sentences

4.54 Whilst not explicitly being recorded, the Youth Court database indicated that 9 young people in Hamilton and 11in Airdrie (13 referrals) had been given a structured deferred sentence requiring them to engage with the social work department for a period before returning to court for final sentencing. 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

4.55 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. Overall, 8 young people convicted in Hamilton and 6 in Airdrie (2 and 5 of whom respectively were subject to Supervision Requirements) had their cases remitted to the Children's Panel for disposal.

SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE YOUTH COURTS

4.56 A distinctive feature of the pilot Youth Courts is the availability of a range of additional services and resources for those made subject to supervisory orders. In addition to young people being able to access existing services, new services were introduced through the additional funding provided for the Youth Court. The services provided to young people sentenced in the Youth Courts were based on an assessment of their risk and need. A list of the services available in North and South Lanarkshire is included in the appendix to this report. It should be noted that some of these services are not specific to the Youth Court (they can, for example, be accessed via the Children's Hearings System) while others are.

4.57 In their discussion of 45 individual cases sentenced in Hamilton Youth Court (41 probation orders and 4 structured deferred sentences) social workers in South Lanarkshire gave an overview of the type of work undertaken or planned in each case (Table 4.8). The types of work undertaken with young people have been classified into 10 categories. It should be recognised that this is not an exhaustive list of interventions. Moreover, one intervention may cover a number of areas of work (for example, a general offending programme could also touch on issues related substance misuse). The most common type of provision was offending and cognitive behavioural work (36 cases) followed by employment, education or training and work related to alcohol misuse. All of these were, or were to be, utilised in a majority of referrals. Mental health provision was not originally included as an explicit category in our interview schedule and so the results here are likely to underestimate the use of this type of service.

Table 4.8: Type of work undertaken with young people sentenced in Hamilton Youth Court and its progress (number of cases)

Source: Individual case discussions with social workers

4.58 In 18 cases non-statutory organisations played a role in providing services. Many of the non-statutory services provided emanated from the intensive support provided by organisations such as INCLUDEM. In 32 cases there was a service provided or to be provided by a local authority department other than the Youth Justice Team. This particularly included employment, alcohol and restorative justice work (usually through community service). Finally the Youth Justice team were involved or to be involved in providing services to at least 38 of the young people particularly through the provision of offending and cognitive behavioural work (at an individual, and to a lesser extent, group level), work on alcohol and drug misuse and in providing familial support.

4.59 From the 20 questionnaires completed by social workers in respect of young people sentenced in the Airdrie Youth Court, the most frequently identified objectives were to address alcohol and anger management problems followed by addressing offending and accommodatio.n problems ⁵³ The most frequently referred to interventions were groupwork (most often programmes to address alcohol and drug problems), anger management, a placement coach and addiction services, although cognitive behavioural and individual issue work, the car offenders' programme and throughcare services were also utilised. In most cases social workers felt that these interventions would meet the objectives set to a large extent.

4.60 The additional resources made possible by the introduction of the Youth Court and the communication between services was regarded positively by social workers and Sheriffs associated with the Hamilton Youth Court, though the latter expressed some concern that cases were not being allocated quickly enough because of staff shortages. Two key gaps in service provision were identified as bail accommodation and mental health services for young people, though links between social work and mental health services had been developed on an informal basis. Local opposition had hampered the development of bail accommodation in South Lanarkshire. In addition, 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 rather than direct or indirect reparation to the victim of the offence. This was an area of work that social workers in both Youth Court areas believed could usefully be expanded and which was viewed positively by Sheriffs.

4.61 Towards the end of 2004, Sheriffs in Airdrie 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 ⁵⁴. 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 differed little from the content of those normally imposed in the summary court. 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. 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. Social workers in Airdrie 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. Although Sheriffs were keen that young people made subject to supervision through the Youth Court should have access to a wide range of services, 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.

4.62 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. Prior to the appointment of the dedicated Youth Court social workers in North Lanarkshire, 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

4.63 A distinctive feature of the pilot Youth Court was the facility for the Sheriffs to review probation orders they make on a periodic basis by bringing the young person back to court, if they deemed it appropriate, to have ongoing judicial oversight of the community supervision orders they imposed ⁵⁵. The frequency at which these hearings were held was at the discretion of the Sheriff taking into account the circumstances of the case. The potential to be flexible in determining the frequency of reviews was viewed by social workers as useful since individual young people generally had different requirements. According to the Youth Court database, 61 per cent of people placed on probation in Hamilton and 74 per cent of those given probation orders in Airdrie had had at least one formal review scheduled or heard. Sheriffs could also review the progress of young people by deferring sentence on other charges. However it was not possible to identify the extent to which this had occurred.

4.64 Sheriffs, like other professionals, were generally supportive of the review process, believing it to be important as a means of monitoring young people's progress, holding them 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 were keen to emphasise that the convening of reviews did not mean that the Youth Court was a soft option nor was it to be construed as a mechanism to build rapport with the young person. On the whole, communication between Sheriffs and young people was generally described by other professionals as minimal, with most business being conducted through defence agents. Possibly as a result of the formality of the court, in observed reviews young people spoke rarely and often appeared awkward in doing so.

Content of reviews

4.65 Despite varying shrieval styles the messages given at reviews were similar. 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. Certain characteristics such as maturity, having vision and showing capability were highlighted as positive. Sheriffs particularly emphasised the importance of work and training. More generally, Sheriffs appeared to place responsibility for improving their behaviour firmly with the young people themselves. The onus was placed firmly on young people to adhere to their orders and to meet regularly with their social workers as required.

Practical issues

4.66 The supervising social worker usually attended court for observed reviews and whilst efforts were made to have these cases heard promptly this was not always possible and social workers in both Youth Courts often had lengthy waits. 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. Social workers were asked for their views in around one third of observed reviews in Hamilton and their contribution was usually short (a maximum of 2 minutes). The extent to which social workers was consulted appeared to vary between Sheriffs. 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.

4.67 In sentences and reviews and more generally throughout the court process personal details of the accused were disclosed to the open court. Attempts were made to minimise such disclosures but this was not always possible. However there was evidence that consideration was being given by Sheriffs to the implications of disclosing sensitive matters. For example in one observed case (in Airdrie) the Sheriff was made aware of an abusive relationship between the male defendant and another male but chose not to disclose this information publicly.

Losing the Power to Review Probation Orders

4.68 The power of the Courts to review Probation Orders was lost as a result of a High Court ruling in July 2005 ⁵⁶. This was lamented by the Sheriffs in Airdrie 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 contact 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 ⁵⁷, 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

4.69 Professionals who were interviewed believed that, in general, the Youth Court was operating efficiently and effectively. There was shared understanding of and commitment to the objectives of the Youth Court among the different professionals associated it. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Court was recognised as being 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. The role of the Co-ordinator was pivotal in ensuring that the various professionals worked effectively together and appeared to be particularly important in the early stages of the Court's implementation. The key task of the Co-ordinator included: liaising with people across all agencies and facilitating the reaching of agreement over issues as they arose; understanding the criminal justice system including how it operates and the role of different agencies in it; taking action to resolve issues; communicating effectively with other Youth Court professionals and with a wider constituency; and the establishment of appropriate information gathering systems.

4.70 Effective teamwork was also said by professional respondents to have been facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication and by the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups for each Youth Court to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. The effectiveness of the Implementation Group had increased as the experience, confidence and relationships between those who participated in it had developed. Although much problem-solving was done informally, the creation of an effective multi-agency forum for discussion of operational issues helped to promote teamwork between different professionals and ensured that any ongoing operational difficulties were identified and addressed.

4.71 That said, some professional respondents in Airdrie 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 rather than problem-solving in relation to operational matters. Some professionals in Airdrie were concerned that no new lines of communication between some agencies had been opened other than at the level of the Implementation Group. s 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.SERSocial work respondents in North Lanarkshire 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

THE YOUTH COURT MODEL

4.72 Although Youth Court business is separated from other court business, the Youth Courts were observed as operating essentially as adult courts 'adapted' for young people and as such did not have a distinctive ethos. 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. The label 'Youth Court' met with disapproval from Sheriffs in Airdrie, 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. They also suggested that concentrating young people in this way might not be the best model for dealing with young offenders. Whilst the fast tracking element should be retained, cases involving young people could be dealt with in a normal fashion or as early diets throughout adult summary court proceedings. 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.

4.73 It was also recognised by Sheriffs 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. This had become more of a concern in Hamilton as the Youth Court caseload and the numbers of cases going to trial increased. A particular difficulty centred on accommodating the rotation of 4 Youth Court Sheriffs within the wider 9 Sheriff cycle of rotation to enable all areas of court business to be covered. Since September 2005 each of the Sheriffs in Hamilton have presided over the Youth Court on a rotating basis.

4.74 In broad terms the additional staffing resources made available to the Youth Court appeared to have been adequate. The rolling up of cases in the Youth Courts and the increased proportion of guilty pleas at first appearance or intermediate diet was thought by various professionals to probably have had a positive impact on the workload of the Sheriff Courts. However, in Hamilton as the number of referrals and the caseload increased this began to stretch, in particular, prosecution and social work resources. For example, there were a few problems getting social work reports to the court in a timely manner due largely to the volume of work. In North Lanarkshire prior to the employment of dedicated Youth Court social workers, Youth Court work was undertaken by social workers in area teams for whom this was only one aspect of their role. The creation of dedicated posts appeared to facilitate communication, engendered and a sense of shared ownership and prevented time intended for Youth Court work being encroached upon by other demands.

4.75 The feasibility of applying the Youth Court model to other courts was questioned by Sheriffs. Sheriffs in both courts were not supportive of the level of specialisation that was occurring in larger courts and were in favour of 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 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 in Airdrie 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.

4.76 At a more general level, a central issue concerned the perceived purpose of the Youth Courts. In particular, there appeared to some lack of consensus in Airdrie (and, indeed, to some extent in Hamilton) 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. This issue was complicated by that fact that, unlike in Hamilton where 'persistent' offending could serve as a trigger for referral to the Youth Court, in Airdrie similar persistency criteria were not formally adopted but were informally applied. Some professional respondents suggested that, as a consequence, some very minor offences and offenders were being prosecuted in the Youth Court. Despite the existence and application of persistency criteria, social workers reported that young people they were supervising from the Youth Courts 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.

4.77 Given the perceived lack of clarity surrounding the 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' Hearing System and adult criminal justice system.

SUMMARY

4.78 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 Airdrie in comparison with the adult Sheriff Summary Court may have been brought about by a number of procedures that are distinctive to the Youth Court.

4.79 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.

4.80 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.

4.81 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 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.

4.82 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 detention. The relatively high use of probation in Hamilton compared with Airdrie was of particular note.

4.83 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. Bail accommodation and mental health services for young people were identified as 2 key gaps in services in Hamilton.

4.84 Most of those given probation orders had their orders reviewed by the Sheriff in court. Sixty-one per cent of people placed on probation in Hamilton and 74 per cent of those given probation orders in Airdrie had had at least one formal review scheduled or heard. 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.

4.85 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 pilots, 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.

4.86 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.

« Previous | Contents | Next »