« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER SIX: MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 In this final chapter, the Youth Court pilot is assessed with reference to the objectives set for the pilot courts in Hamilton and Airdrie by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Key differences between the operation of the 2 pilot courts are identified and the advantages and disadvantages of the Youth Court model are highlighted.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PILOT YOUTH COURTS
6.2 When the pilot Youth Courts were established, many of the procedures, agencies and personnel were similar in the 2 pilot courts. The main organisational differences between the 2 pilot sites reflected the size of the sheriff courts involved and the anticipated volume of Youth Court cases and the target timescales for processing cases took account of this. This being the case, it is not surprising that in their operation the pilot courts had more similarities than differences. However, there were some points of divergence between them that need to be highlighted since they appear to reflect important differences in the types of young people prosecuted in the Youth Courts and, correspondingly, in the types of disposals imposed.
6.3 When the second pilot was established at Airdrie Sheriff Court, a decision was taken not to formally apply the 'persistency' criteria that had previously been adopted in Hamilton. In practice, however, it appeared that Procurators Fiscal in Airdrie informally adopted similar criteria to their colleagues in Hamilton with respect to the marking of Youth Court cases so that in both sites prosecution in the Youth Court was most likely if both the persistency and contextual criteria were deemed to have been met. However, when the previous criminal histories of young people referred to the Youth Courts were compared, those referred to Hamilton Youth Court were less likely to be first offenders, suggesting that Airdrie Sheriff Court tended to deal with less persistent offenders. Indeed, while Hamilton Youth Court appeared to deal with more persistent offenders than the Sheriff Summary Court, in Airdrie the reverse was true. This, combined with a sharp increase in the number of cases prosecuted summarily in Airdrie following the introduction of the Youth Court pilot suggests that some young people may have been drawn into the Youth Court who would otherwise have received an alternative to prosecution, such as a fiscal fine.
6.4 The introduction of the Youth Court in Airdrie was also associated with an increased use of community sentences in its first year of operation, though this apparently decreased in the second year. The proportionate use of specific disposals differed between the 2 courts, with Hamilton Youth Court apparently making greater use of supervisory social work disposals (especially probation). Concerns were voiced, especially in Airdrie, about the appropriateness of the intensive packages of services and interventions being sought by the Youth Courts for some young people made subject to probation orders or structured deferred sentences who had little or no previous criminal history and whose risk of re-offending was assessed as being low.
6.5 There were also differences in the organisation of social work services across the 2 local authorities responsible for providing reports and supervising young people sentenced in the Youth Court. In one authority, resources were concentrated in a dedicated team, which appears to have facilitated communication at a number of levels. In the other authority, prior to appointment of Youth Court social workers, social workers based in area teams were tasked with report-preparation and supervision of Youth Court cases as part of a wider generic caseload. The original management structures that were in place in that authority did not appear best-suited to facilitating the types of multi-professional communication that the efficient and effective operation of the Youth Court required. Subsequently, with the appointment of a Youth Justice Co-ordinator, considerable efforts were made to improve communication within the local authority and between social work staff and staff in other agencies.
ACHIEVING YOUTH COURT OBJECTIVES
Reducing the frequency and seriousness of offending by 16 and 17 year olds (and some 15 year olds) through targeted and prompt disposals with judicial supervision and continuing social work involvement
6.6 Although the Youth Court pilot began almost 3 years ago, given the timescales required for a robust analysis of recidivism it has only been possible to undertake a limited analysis of reconviction at this stage. In Airdrie, where only a very limited reconviction analysis was possible, there was little difference between the Youth Court and comparator courts. In Hamilton, where a slightly more robust analysis was possible, the lowest 6 and 12 month reconviction rates were found among those sentenced in the Youth Court even though these young people had more previous adult criminal involvement than the comparison samples.
6.7 Hamilton Youth Court made greater use of community sentences than the Sheriff Summary Court, probably reflecting differences in the characteristics of young people sentenced in the two courts. In Airdrie it appeared that the Youth Court was dealing with a higher percentage of first offenders than the Sheriff Summary Court and that this was reflected in a lower use of custodial sentences and higher use of admonitions. Although the use of probation increased sharply in Airdrie in 2004, by the following year it had reverted to pre-Youth Court levels (possibly as a result of the suspension of review hearings) and there was little difference in the use of community-based disposals by the Youth Court and Sheriff Summary Court.
6.8 Young people given Orders in the Youth Courts, and who were interviewed, were mostly of the view that the intervention they had received had reduced their likelihood of further offending and professionals were cautiously optimistic that the Youth Courts were reducing re-offending in most cases. The additional resources made possible by the introduction of the Youth Court was regarded positively by professionals, though there had been some differences in perspectives between social workers and Sheriffs, particularly in Airdrie, regarding the appropriateness of intensive packages of intervention for low risk offenders, resulting in a perception by the latter that services that they wished some young people to have access to were not available.
6.9 Professionals were generally supportive of the judicial review process, believing it to be important both as a means of holding young people to account and providing encouragement when they were doing well. The potential to call a review of an order also made it possible to respond quickly to instances of non-compliance. Sheriffs made it clear that the review was not a soft option or a chance to build rapport with the young person and communication between Sheriffs and young people was generally limited. However, Sheriffs and other professionals lamented the suspension of the power to review probation orders from July 2005 and welcomed its re-introduction through new legislation in February 2006. Given the amount of time spent by social workers in court waiting for reviews to be heard, however, their limited involvement in the reviews process would not appear to represent the best use of their time.
Promoting the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of the young offenders whilst maximising their potential
6.10 The services provided to young people made subject to orders and structured deferred sentences through the Youth Court are intended to impact upon their risk of re-offending. However they are also aimed at promoting the social inclusion of young people and maximising their potential. The extent to which the pilot has been successful in this regard is more difficult to establish, especially in light of the relatively short follow-up period. Social workers believed that interventions aimed at employment, training or education would have some positive effect and some young people had valued assistance in these areas. Information provided by Community Alternatives suggested that several young people had secured employment following periods of training in either skill seeker or career training.
Establishing fast-track procedures for those young offenders appearing before the Youth Court
6.11 The aspect of the Youth Court that was perceived by various professionals as having been most effective was the fast-tracking of young people into court. In both courts the time-scales for getting young people into the Youth Court and disposing of their cases were generally met. Furthermore warrants were issued in a timely manner for non-compliance and would be enforced promptly by the police. Fast-tracking was viewed by Sheriffs and other professionals as making the connection between the offence and the resulting sentence more meaningful. This and other associated procedures - such as the early disclosure of the Crown case to the defence, the availability of legal aid and the rolling up of cases by the Fiscal - were thought by professionals to have contributed to a higher level of guilty pleas and lower incidence of evidence-led trials in the Youth Court. This was supported by a comparison of citation cases dealt with by the Airdrie Youth Court and Sheriff Summary Court.
6.12 A reported disadvantage of the priority afforded to Youth Court cases was the impact upon other court business. This had become more of a concern in Hamilton as the Youth Court caseload increased. Although there was widespread support for the introduction of fast track procedures for dealing with young offenders, this created dilemmas in that resources were being diverted from the processing of other cases which, arguably, merited a comparable or greater degree of targeting.
Enhancing community safety by reducing the harm caused to victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime
6.13 This particular objective of the Youth Court is more difficult than the others to evaluate because the relevant data are difficult to interpret. At an anecdotal level, police officers reported that the introduction of the Youth Courts and the implementation of specific measures such as police monitored curfews had resulted in a marked reduction in some types of crime in some areas covered by the courts. However, changes to the recording of crimes in 2004 render any direct comparisons between figures before and after that date highly problematic and almost impossible to interpret.
6.14 Some use was made through both pilot Youth Courts of restorative justice interventions with young people (including, in Airdrie, Restorative Justice Conferencing), though it would appear that this more often took the form of unpaid work for the community. Restorative justice was an area of work that social workers believed could usefully be expanded. In particular there is scope for greater use to be made of forms of restorative justice that involve direct reparation for or contact with victims, though how this would fit within existing adversarial processes would need to be considered.
6.15 The evaluation of the Hamilton pilot Youth Court included a community survey that sought to establish whether the introduction of the Youth Court had been associated with less fear of crime and altered perceptions of youth crime in the communities served by it. More people in the follow-up survey believed that the crime rate had improved over the previous 2 years and fewer of this sample believed that there was a problem with youth crime. However, whether this could be attributed to the existence of the Youth Court is more difficult to establish, especially in the absence of similar data on national trends. 74
Examining the viability and effectiveness of existing legislation in servicing a Youth Court and to identify whether legislative and other changes may be required
6.16 The Youth Courts have available the same disposals that are available to a Sheriff Court sitting summarily. This being so, Sheriffs were content with the range of options available to deal with young people appearing before the Youth Courts. Sheriffs did not consider the Youth Courts to be 'distinctive' other than in the fast-tracking of young people and believed that it would be inappropriate to treat young people appearing before the Youth Courts any differently than those appearing before the Sheriff Court. Similarly, the range of sanctions available to the Youth Courts in the event of non-compliance by a young person on an Order was regarded as adequate.
6.17 An additional option that is available to the Youth Courts (and only now being piloted on a wider basis) is for Sheriffs to bail the young person with an electronically monitored curfew. Although this was viewed by professionals as a useful option where a custodial remand was otherwise likely, it had been used relatively infrequently by Sheriffs in Hamilton and not at all by Sheriffs in Airdrie who preferred to make use of police monitored curfews instead.
6.18 As previously indicated, the ability of Sheriffs to bring young people back to court periodically to review their probation orders was suspended by an Appeal Court ruling in July 2005. Given the perceived importance and increasing prominence of court-based probation reviews in Scotland (not just in the Youth Courts but also in, for example, the Drug Courts), legislative provision for reviews was introduced by the Scottish Executive through Section 12 of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 which came into effect on 8 February 2006. Otherwise, none of the professionals who were interviewed identified additional legislative provision that would make the Youth Court procedures more effective or efficient. Existing legislation would therefore appear to be adequate to accommodate Youth Court procedures.
CONCLUSIONS
6.19 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 and the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people involved in offending. 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.
6.20 The impact of the Youth Courts on offending among young people referred to them will take longer to establish, though the data thus far for Hamilton are encouraging in this regard. However, Youth Court procedures were operating effectively and the pilot has demonstrated that the operation of Youth Courts in Scotland is viable without the need for legislative change. There was a broad consensus that the Youth Courts represented an improvement over previous arrangements for dealing with youth crime, though whether this required a dedicated Youth Court or whether these procedural improvements could be brought about by other means was less clear. For example, given that many (and in Airdrie most) young people who were dealt with in the Youth Court were first offenders, would it have been more appropriate for them to have accessed similar resources through the Children's Hearings System? Alternatively, should the Youth Court be more explicitly youth focused and, if so, what might be the practical implications for the way in which it is run?
6.21 It is also important, however, to consider aspects of the Youth Court pilot that were less successful. These include operational issues that during the course of the pilot were on the whole successfully addressed. In Hamilton these included: the scheduling of business to accommodate Youth Court arrangements and increasing pressure on staff resources as caseloads grew. In Airdrie they included: the police undertaking accused to appear on the wrong day; difficulties maintaining order in a busy courtroom; shrieval concerns about the quality of reports; and the perception by Sheriffs and by some other professionals that anticipated services and resources were either not available or not being made use of.
6.22 Of greater concern, however, is the ongoing lack of clarity in both courts as regards for whom the Youth Court was intended. In Hamilton this centred upon the interpretation of the 'contextual criteria', leading to a concern among some professionals that young people were being drawn into the young court and dealt with more severely than might previously have been the case though there is little objective evidence that this occurred on any significant scale. In Airdrie, where the 'persistency' and 'contextual' criteria were not formally applied, many of those who found themselves appearing before the Youth Court were first offenders who were assessed by social workers as presenting little risk of recidivism. The steep increase in Sheriff Summary prosecutions following the Youth Court's introduction may have resulted from an increased propensity to prosecute cases that previously might have received some alternative such as a fiscal fine. The potential for net-widening in this way (that is, drawing young people into the court system who would not otherwise have been there) will require careful monitoring and suggests the need in Airdrie for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.
« Previous | Contents | Next »