The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO IMPLEMENTATION & OPERATION OF THE PILOT

2.1 In April 2004, the Scottish Executive published SSI 2004/194 designating Ayr Sheriff and Glasgow District Courts as pilot sites to investigate the implementation of the powers given to Ministers under Section 235(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to prevent the use of custody in the event of an offender defaulting on a fine of £500 or less.

2.2 Ayr Sheriff Court covers the local authority area of South Ayrshire Council, and part of East Ayrshire. There are three Sheriffs resident in the court. South Ayrshire Council Social Work service receives Supervised Attendance Orders for the whole of the local authority area. As well as Ayr Sheriff Court, orders are also received primarily from Ayr District Court, but also from other Sheriff and District Courts in the area. East Ayrshire Council receives Supervised Attendance Orders for the whole of the local authority area. However, due to the distances involved, South Ayrshire Council manages a number of Supervised Attendance Orders on behalf of East Ayrshire Council (those from the Doon Valley area). Throughout this report, these orders are included in the totals for South Ayrshire Council, as this is the preference of the councils concerned. The bulk of the orders managed by East Ayrshire Council are imposed by other courts.

2.3 Glasgow District Court covers the local authority area of the City of Glasgow. Glasgow District Court is unique in Scotland in having both Stipendiary Magistrates and Justices of the Peace. The former have the summary sentencing powers of Sheriffs (although only hear summary cases). Glasgow City Council Social Work service receives Supervised Attendance Orders for the local authority area. The vast majority of orders managed by Glasgow City Council are imposed by Glasgow District Court and Glasgow Sheriff Court.

2.4 Both East Ayrshire Council and Glasgow City Council subcontract the delivery of the Order to APEX Scotland.

The introduction of the pilot

2.5 This section will deal with the introduction and implementation of the pilot in the two courts.

The situation prior to the pilot

2.6 The use by the two courts of Supervised Attendance Orders prior to the implementation of the pilot was markedly different. Glasgow District Court had rarely made use of Supervised Attendance Orders prior to the pilot, while Ayr Sheriff Court, on the other hand, had used these extensively.

2.7 Figures provided by Glasgow Council Social Work Service suggest that, in the year to June 2004, only 30 SAOs had been received from Fines Inquiry Courts and 2 from Custody Courts. Over the corresponding period, more than 330 orders were received from Glasgow Sheriff Court, representing the vast bulk of the work of both the Social Work service and APEX (their contractor).

Expectations

2.8 As part of the bidding process, services were asked to estimate the total number of orders likely to be received as a result of the pilot.

2.9 South Ayrshire Council (which coordinated a bid on behalf of both Social Work services) anticipated than the additional level of Supervised Attendance Orders generated would be "in the 250-300 range". In the event, this was not achieved, and a lower number of orders have been made.

2.10 Glasgow City Council Social Work service estimated that an additional 1100 orders would be received during each year of the pilot. As will be set out later, in the first year far fewer orders were received, but by year two, as the number of orders increased, this was exceeded.

Implementation

2.11 In both areas, a group brought together the Court and Social Work services, and it was through these groups that the implementation was planned. In each case, specific meetings were held between court staff and Social Work staff in the planning stages (prior to bids being made to the Scottish Executive, and following the decision being taken to award the pilots to Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court).

Implementation at Ayr Sheriff Court

2.12 In Ayrshire, Social Work staff and Sheriffs were found to have regular meetings to discuss emerging issues. Supervised Attendance Orders are discussed at these meetings, and, in the context of the pilot, the nature and scope of the changes were also discussed in advance. The view of all concerned was that the implementation of the pilot at Ayr Sheriff Court was trouble free, and led to no significant issues. It was suggested that, as sentencers at the court had used Supervised Attendance Orders regularly in previous years, the pilot had been relatively easy to implement. Court staff suggested that the changes had made little or no difference to its operation.

2.13 The level of additional resources in Ayrshire applied as a result of the pilot was as follows:

Ayr Sheriff Court: No additional resources were seen to be required or requested.

South Ayrshire Council: On the basis of the estimated number of orders, it was agreed that the delivery of the orders should be moved to a new location in the town. Capital (non-recurring) costs of £34,710 were provided by the Scottish Executive to fit out the office with additional equipment. A total of four new staff were recruited (2 Supervised Attendance Order assistants, 1 Court Officer and 1 Administrative Assistant). The recruitment costs, as well as the marginal costs associated with the extra orders attracted an additional allocation from the Scottish Executive of £228,311 over the life of the pilot.

East Ayrshire Council: A small amount of capital costs were grant aided (£6,400) but the bulk of the costs were related to the recruitment of 1 Supervised Attendance Officer and 1 Administrator. A total of £40,000 was provided to support activities provided by APEX on behalf of the council. The total additional revenue cost of the pilot was £84,078.

Implementation at Glasgow District Court

2.14 Prior to the pilot, Glasgow District Court had not operated a dedicated Fines Inquiry Court, with inquiries being held as part of the routine business of the court. There were no staff dedicated to processing orders specifically, and the system had only recently been computerised. For these reasons, this pilot represented a much greater level of change than was the case at Ayr Sheriff Court.

2.15 An added complication was the fact that, at the point at which the pilot should have commenced, the court was in the process of a significant reorganisation. While a total of 180 Supervised Attendance Orders were imposed in the first weeks of the pilot by Stipendiary Magistrates sitting in Custody Courts, no Fines Inquiry Courts were held for an extended period (due to the reorganisation).

2.16 In the event, no Fines Inquiry Courts were scheduled until early November 2004, by which time a very considerable backlog of outstanding fines had accrued. A total of 2250 offenders were cited during November 2004 but the actual numbers who attended were small, with only 348 means enquiries being held (and a total of 1376 warrants issued). Virtually all of those who attended were given further time to pay with no alternative being imposed, as most were classed as first citations. It was March 2005 before a significant number of second citations were heard (381 in the month) and Supervised Attendance Orders began to be imposed in any volume at Fines Inquiry Courts.

2.17 The initial batch of Supervised Attendance Orders imposed by Stipendiary Magistrates in Custody Courts was delayed in being passed to the Social Work service, and, coupled with the lack of address checking (discussed in more detail later), meant that there was a very high initial attrition rate (with many letters being reported by Social Work staff as having been returned marked "gone away").

2.18 On the basis of the projections made at the start of this pilot, Glasgow Council Social Work service had employed 3 additional Supervised Attendance Officers to bring the total number working in the service to 7. This was considered to be adequate to deal with the 1000-1200 orders which were anticipated. However, as during the early months the number of orders was much lower than anticipated, by January 2005 two Supervised Attendance Officers had left the service. Due to internal difficulties including a freeze on recruitment, these posts were not filled until March 2006, but the workload of the team had increased considerably (from around May 2005) meaning that the staffing shortfall seriously impacted on the ability of the service to respond to the greatly increased demand. These issues began to be resolved after March 2006 as the team reached full strength. This issue will be discussed in more detail later.

2.19 It is clear that there were early issues with the implementation of the pilot at Glasgow District Court. The nature of the court is more complex than at Ayr and, as noted above, both Justices of the Peace and Stipendiary Magistrates sit in the court. In these circumstances, it is considered to be more difficult for sentencers and Social Work staff to meet on a regular basis. Following the initial difficulties with the pilot, Social Work staff organised a lunchtime briefing event for both Justices of the Peace and Stipendiary Magistrates, as well as for court staff. Basic information about the nature of the order was presented, and the opportunity was provided to sentencers to discuss any issues or concerns they had about the order. This event was well-attended, and was considered to have been valuable both for sentencers and Social Work staff. One sentencer indicated that they had, prior to the event, a more limited understanding of the order, and that the event had helped to broaden their knowledge both of the way in which the order is delivered, as well what its potential benefits might be.

2.20 The level of additional resources provided by the Scottish Executive to be applied as a result of the pilot was as follows ²²:

Glasgow District Court: Two administrative staff were recruited to support the increased number of orders likely to be made. Prior to the pilot, the court had no staff dedicated to processing Orders.

Glasgow City Council: The core allocation for Glasgow City Council for 2004-05 was £199,976, and for 2005-06, £211,864. There were a range of additional costs as a result of the pilot. Three additional Supervised Attendance Officers were recruited by the Council and there was also a non-recurring capital cost related to equipment. The main additional costs, however, were related to the delivery of the order by APEX. A total of £394,758 was requested from the Scottish Executive for provision by APEX, with an extra allocation of £158,000 in relation to Glasgow City Council costs (representing an extra cost of around £552,000, or a total cost of around £751,000, not including start up costs). Start-up costs of £143,500 were also provided in 2004-05. The total costs for 2005-06 included a core allocation of £211,864, with additional costs of £565,000 (covering both APEX and Glasgow City Council) making a total of around £777,000.

The use of custody as an alternative at the time of imposition of a fine

2.21 It was not possible for either the Scottish Court Service ( SCS) or Glasgow District Court to provide definitive statistics on the use of custody as an alternative at the time of the imposition of a fine, but this issue was explored with sentencers. In no cases had the sentencers interviewed increased their use of this power, and virtually all noted that they had never, or hardly ever, used this. Sentencers interviewed in both courts identified other sentencers who they felt may have used this intermittently, but none were aware of any increased use in this within their court.

The operation of the pilot

2.22 The remainder of this chapter summarises issues in the actual operation of the pilot in the two courts.

Fines Inquiry Courts

2.23 Both Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court operate dedicated fines management systems, which are capable to generating up to date assessments of whether or not a fine is in default (in common with all other courts). Glasgow District Court was one the first courts in the UK to have a computerised fines management system.

2.24 The procedure in both courts was broadly similar, although details vary. At a predetermined point, a trawl was carried out in the system to identify which offenders are in default. At both Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court there was no "grace" period allowed. If an offender was in arrears, they would be liable for action. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some courts operate "grace" periods of varying lengths before a fine is considered to be in default and attract action.

2.25 The printout of fines in default generated by the system was generally examined by the cashier in each court, and a decision made on the action to be taken. At Ayr Sheriff Court, this may have involved a warning letter, or a citation to appear at the Fines Inquiry Court. Glasgow District Court does not generally use warning letters, citing offenders directly to appear at a Fines Inquiry Court.

2.26 Both Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court operated dedicated Fines Inquiry Courts (although this is not the case in all courts). Some smaller courts deal with this business as part of other sittings (largely for administrative reasons as it allows the business heard at individual sittings to be maximised and can cover, for example, the late delivery of custody prisoners).

2.27 Ayr Sheriff Court scheduled Fines Inquiry Courts once every two weeks, while Glasgow District Court (with a much higher volume of business) scheduled courts three times per week. In the case of Ayr Sheriff Court, around 40 offenders were typically cited to appear at each Fines Inquiry Court, while at Glasgow District Court, the number varied between 100 and 150.

2.28 At a Fines Inquiry Court, the sentencer has a number of options. These include to

• remit the fine;
• agree to a request for further time to pay, and impose no alternative in the event of future fine default;
• agree to a request for further time to pay, and impose an alternative of a Supervised Attendance Order;
• give no further time to pay and impose an alternative of custody; or
• give no further time to pay and impose an alternative of a Supervised Attendance Order.

2.29 In practice, Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court varied in their common mode of operation. In Glasgow District Court, offenders were almost invariably given further time to pay with no alternative imposed. At Ayr Sheriff Court, this was more varied, with an alternative being applied in some cases at a first calling of a Fines Inquiry Court.

2.30 In both Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court, if a fine remained in default, and no alternative had been applied, then an offender would be respondent-cited to appear at a second Fines Inquiry Court. In both courts, offenders were highly unlikely to be given further time to pay at a second calling. At Ayr Sheriff Court, both S235 and S237 Supervised Attendance Orders were used, whereas, at Glasgow District Court, all of the Supervised Attendance Orders imposed to date have been S235.

2.31 It is clear from anecdotal evidence that there are wide variations in the operation of these processes across Scotland. The main variations appear to be

• the frequency with which trawls take place;
• the elapsed time after a fine is due before it is treated as being in default and liable to action;
• whether or not a warning letter is used;
• whether an alternative is applied at the first calling of a Fines Inquiry Court; and
• how often offenders are re-cited to Fines Inquiry Courts.

Attendance at Fines Inquiry Courts

2.32 The sheer volume of fine default is considerable. For example, Glasgow District Court cited nearly 23000 offenders to appear at Fines Inquiry Courts in the period from November 2004 to June 2006.

2.33 Of the 22665 offenders cited to appear in Fines Inquiry Courts at Glasgow District Court, 4878 appeared and a further 3682 paid their fines. The standard procedure following a failure to appear is that a warrant to apprehend is granted. A total of 13290 warrants were, therefore issued by the court over this period, with nearly 1400 in November 2004 alone. Around 59% of citations resulted in a warrant being granted.

2.34 In the first completed year of the pilot at Ayr Sheriff Court (which, as noted, operated a slightly different system in using warning letters before a citation), 699 offenders were cited to appear in Fines Inquiry Courts. Of these, 294, or approximately 42% of those cited to appear did not do so, generally resulting in a warrant being granted (although in some cases, the warrants may not actually be served if the offender subsequently pays the fine). This was a very similar proportion to the year prior to the pilot, when around 180 offenders failed to appear from a total of 489 citations.

2.35 The administrative resources required (both at the court and in terms of police time in either serving the warrants or arresting those whose warrants come to light in different ways) are clearly considerable, and, for this reason, the first instance pilot currently operating in two other courts is the subject of some interest and speculation. It is also understood that the Scottish Court Service is proposing to pilot an enhanced fines collection system some time in 2007, which may also help address this.

Means warrants at Custody Courts

2.36 Both Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court hear means warrant cases when offenders appear from custody. In the case of Glasgow District Court, Stipendiary Magistrates sit in Custody Courts, while Justices sit in the Fines Inquiry Court.

2.37 There was a sharp increase in the number of offenders appearing from custody on means warrants in Glasgow District Court following the introduction of regular Fines Inquiry Courts in November 2004. Over the two year period to June 2006, 6149 offenders appeared in the Custody court in relation to a means inquiry warrant. No statistics are available on the number of offenders appearing solely in relation to means warrants.

The use of Supervised Attendance Orders by the courts

2.38 This section considers the use of Supervised Attendance Orders by the courts participating in the pilot.

Use of Supervised Attendance Orders by Ayr Sheriff Court

2.39 In the year prior to the implementation of the pilot, the court had regularly made use of SAOs, both imposed directly and in the form of S237 orders. In the year prior to the pilot, 85 Supervised Attendance Orders were imposed in Fines Inquiry Courts alone covering both East and South Ayrshire. Examination of records for the year prior to the implementation of the pilot shows that, at a small number of Fines Inquiry Courts, all the alternatives imposed were S237 SAOs, with in no cases the alternative of custody being applied. This provides support for the view expressed by both Sheriff Court and Social Work staff that the pilot does not represent a step change for the court.

2.40 Over the course of the pilot, the numbers of SAOs imposed were as shown in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 SAOs imposed at Ayr Sheriff Court (May 04 - May 06)

Source: South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire Councils

2.41 Although, as noted earlier, sentencers at Ayr Sheriff Court had used SAOs extensively in the past, the figures in table 2.1 (above) do represent an increase on the previous 12 month period.

2.42 In the first year of the pilot, South Ayrshire Council received 166 orders from Ayr Sheriff Court, while East Ayrshire Council received 51. In the period to May 2006, the comparable figures were 113 and 65, making totals of 279 and 116 respectively. These orders were imposed on a total of 332 offenders (with 232 in South, and 96 in East Ayrshire).

Use of Supervised Attendance Orders by Glasgow District Court

2.43 Table 2.2 below sets out the numbers of SAOs imposed in Glasgow District Court between the commencement of the pilot in June 2004 and the end of June 2006.

Table 2.2 SAOs imposed by Glasgow District Court (by quarter)

Source: Glasgow District Court

2.44 It is clear from table 2.2 that while the pattern of imposition of orders is irregular (due to both the pattern of sittings of Fines Inquiry Courts and the number of means warrants which arose from the high number of Fines Inquiry Courts which sat from November 2004 to clear the backlog), there is a significant increase over time. There has been a considerable increase over time in the numbers of orders being made both by Justices in the Fines Inquiry Court, and by Stipendiary Magistrates in the Custody Court.

2.45 It is interesting to note that the court does not use S237 orders (and has never done so). All of the orders imposed by Glasgow District Court are S235 orders, which are imposed in open court by a sentencer.

2.46 A total of 1869 SAOs were imposed by Glasgow District Court over the nominal period of the pilot. Overall, this represents a huge increase on the preceding year (when fewer than 40 were imposed). Over this period, there were no cases where custody was imposed (in line with the terms of the pilot), compared to more than 1000 in the previous year. On this measure alone, it is clear that the pilot process had a significant impact on receptions to prison.

2.47 It is interesting to note that, in the period July 2006 - September 2006, a total of 555 orders were imposed, the largest number in any quarter to date, suggesting that the slowing in the rate of orders evident in the April to June 2006 period was not sustained.

Other areas

2.48 For other areas, detailed comparisons are at present available only by District Court in terms of the numbers of fine defaults resulting in custody. In 2003-04, the year prior to the pilot, the alternative of custody was imposed in relation to 2882 fines ²³ in courts for which data was presented, excluding Glasgow. The comparable figure for 2004-05, the first year of the pilot, was 2264 - again excluding Glasgow. This suggests that the use of custody as an alternative is declining in District Courts quite separately from the pilot.

2.49 The number of fines resulting in custody (again excluding Glasgow) ²⁴ also declined on a like for like basis from 1952 to 1508. The reasons for this are less clear, although it must be in part due to the decline in the use of the alternative (but may also be due to the rate of enforcement of warrants).

2.50 This is consistent with the figures set out in Chapter 1, showing that the level of receptions to custody for fine default is declining over time.

Repeat orders

2.51 Detailed information provided by each of the participating Social Work departments suggested that, on the basis of orders imposed at least 3 months apart, the level of repeat orders was found to be very small in comparison to the overall number of orders ²⁵. Social Work staff suggested that this would be likely to change over time. Overall, it was identified that around 1 in 6 of all offenders had multiple orders, but around half of these were imposed at a single court, or at courts very close together in time, and could not necessarily be regarded as "repeat" orders.

2.52 It is too early to assess the full impact of repeat orders. Social Work staff in all areas suggested that offenders who complete one order are "more or less likely" to complete a second order, but that an offender who has breached an order is likely to do so again (which is consistent with the findings of Levy and McIvor (op cit) from 1998-99).

The use of Supervised Attendance Officers in court

2.53 One of the key issues raised by both Social Work staff and sentencers interviewed as part of this research was the need to make contact with offenders quickly. While Social Work National Standards stipulate that the initial contact should be within 7 days of the order being imposed, it was suggested that making contact at the court brings a range of advantages. This was also identified by Levy and McIvor (op cit) as a key factor in the successful delivery of SAOs.

2.54 Although there was no requirement to do so (either in law or in the Social Work National Standards), throughout the pilot, South Ayrshire Council based a Supervised Attendance Officer in the court building (co-located with other Social Work staff). The member of staff worked not only with South Ayrshire, but also East Ayrshire clients, and provided information to Supervised Attendance Officers in both services. The Officer attended both the Fines Inquiry Courts and all Custody Courts (with another member of staff from time to time covering absences). This was practically possible at Ayr Sheriff Court with one member of staff, as only one Custody Court was scheduled each day, and the Fines Inquiry Court was scheduled at a different time to the Custody Court.

2.55 It is recognised that this may not be possible in other courts, where more than one court may sit simultaneously. It was also noted that, in an area where means business is conducted as part of the sitting of a daily Custody Court, this may not be particularly efficient or cost-effective.

2.56 The presence of the Officer was viewed as very valuable both by Social Work and court staff (as well as by one of the Sheriffs interviewed). The reasons given for this included the following ²⁶:

• Offenders are provided with information about Supervised Attendance Orders prior to going into a means court.
• Sentencers can ask the Supervised Attendance Officer to clarify issues relating to the order.
• The Officer can made contact with offenders immediately following the imposition of a S235 order so that, for example, addresses and telephone numbers can be confirmed (particularly mobile numbers), and information can be provided to the offender about the next steps. This was seen to be a significant factor by both of the Social Work services in limiting the attrition rate of orders.
• The conversation with the Officer was also viewed as valuable by some offenders, as it allowed them to clarify the nature of the order and what would be expected of them

2.57 It is worth noting that one interviewee in a non-pilot area suggested that APEX had previously provided a similar service in a District Court. This was viewed as worthwhile both by the clerks and by sentencers (for the reasons set out above), but, due to the restructuring of court business (specifically the incorporation of means inquiries into other business), this could no longer be sustained by APEX and the service was withdrawn.

2.58 Court staff interviewed suggested that, in some courts they were aware of, Supervised Attendance Officers may be asked by sentencers to carry out a brief assessment of the offenders' suitability for a Supervised Attendance Order. It was suggested that this focused on the offenders' motivation, commitment and (hence) likelihood of completing the order. This was found to be less common in Ayr Sheriff Court, as the court has no discretion (as exists elsewhere). Levy and McIvor (op cit) also found evidence of this practice in some, but not all courts, and identified that it was viewed positively by sentencers.

2.59 The situation in Glasgow District Court was more complex. In the early stages of the pilot court, one of two Supervised Attendance Officers attended each sitting of the Custody Court and any Fines Inquiry Courts convened. This service, however, was withdrawn and has not been reinstated. It was suggested by Social Work management staff that their staff were subjected to verbal abuse by offenders and, as noted elsewhere, Glasgow City Council has faced staffing constraints at various times over the course of the pilot.

Offenders' views of the court process

2.60 Offenders were asked whether or not they had received any information about the order prior to its imposition. Virtually none recalled having been given any information prior to their hearing (although, based on views expressed by a small number of offenders, it seems likely that some at least would have been unaware of having been provided with information).

2.61 A total of 58 offenders (nearly all of whom were sentenced in the pilot courts) claimed to have received some information prior to actually commencing on the order itself. Of these, the greatest number (19) claimed to have learned about SAOs via a leaflet or letter. Leaflets had been obtained in a number of ways, such as, with the Fines Inquiry Court summons (in one case), from a Court Clerk or from the police (although it is likely that many more might have received information and not recognised this).

2.62 Fourteen offenders had received information from their agent; eight offenders claimed to have found out about SAOs from a Social Worker, while a further two indicated that the information had come from their Probation Officer. In five cases, the offender claimed that the sentencer had provided them with information about the order (although this is likely to be a huge underestimate). A total of 11 offenders were provided with information by a Supervised Attendance Officer at court. Of those offenders who received an explanation of the basis and content of the order, as many as 22 suggested that they could not remember anything said to them.

2.63 Eleven offenders claimed to have been told that an SAO was an alternative to prison (with the phrase that it was a "fine on my time" mentioned a number of times). Twelve offenders recalled receiving an explanation of the breach procedures and punitive aspects, such as "if I broke it I'd go back to court" and "I was told that three breaches would result in prison." Eight offenders recalled being told about the educational aspect of an SAO.

2.64 A further 18 offenders mentioned some other details which had been given to them about their order. For example, two stated that the only information they had been given was the location at which their SAO would be delivered. One offender (not in a pilot area) had been told that an SAO was "similar to Community Service". Another offender recalled that they had been told that an SAO would mean they would "sit in a room for hours". Fourteen offenders stated that they had been told by the sentencer that they would receive an explanation about SAOs from someone else, either by letter or in person.

2.65 Twenty one offenders recalled being given information about the length of the Supervised Attendance Order. In two cases offenders specifically stated that this was the only information they received and they were given no other details about SAOs at that point. The mandatory nature of the SAO was explained by the sentencer in 11 cases heard in the pilot courts. Related to this, five offenders were also told about the need for compliance and punctuality.

2.66 Four offenders recalled the sentencer mentioning the fact they had been given "enough chances" or "enough time" to pay the fine, thus necessitating the imposition of a Supervised Attendance Order. Three offenders recalled being told the order would replace their fine.

2.67 In a number of cases (in non-pilot areas) it appeared that the process leading to being given an SAO was consensual. In four cases, the sentencer asked the offender if they were interested in or willing to do an SAO, and in two cases the offenders were offered the choice between an SAO and prison. In one case, the offender asked for an SAO, to which the sentencer agreed. Similarly, in several cases it appeared to the offender that the sentencer had initially embarked on one course of action, then reconsidered this and imposed a Supervised Attendance Order.

2.68 A total of 23 offenders claimed that the sentencer had said nothing about the order. Twelve offenders could not remember what was said.

Delivery of the Order

2.69 As set out earlier, Supervised Attendance Orders are delivered by Social Work services. Although the basis of the Order is set out in both legislation and National Standards, there is a considerable variation in how this is interpreted. The three pilot local authorities deliver the order in two quite different ways. Additionally, two of the other local authorities interviewed as part of this research were found to deliver the order in a third way, quite different to the two models operating in pilot sites.

2.70 The initial stages of the order were effectively the same in all areas, and were specified in the Social Work National Standards for Supervised Attendance Orders. The offender is instructed to attend an interview with their Supervising Officer within 7 days (although this is not always possible). As set out in Section 1, a process is then followed by the Supervising Officer to ensure that the offender is aware of their responsibilities, and the consequences of any breaches of the order. As part of the development of an Order Plan, the Supervising Officer agrees an attendance pattern with the offender which best fits with their personal circumstances.

2.71 There were only small variations in the ways in which this operated in the three areas, although there appeared to be a good deal of flexibility in terms of, for example, meeting an offender at a local office closer to their home, or in some cases, undertaking a home visit.

Delivery of the order by South Ayrshire Council

2.72 South Ayrshire Council delivered the order in-house, using staff directly employed by the authority. The service was based in an office in the centre of Ayr, adjacent to both the Sheriff and District Courts. The service had previously been located elsewhere in the town, and the renovation of the current offices was funded as part of the pilot project. The service had a designated manager.

2.73 The basis of the order in South Ayrshire was slightly different to other areas (both pilot and non-pilot areas). The service did not deliver a core module, as set out in the legislation, rather it provided a rolling programme of group work, designed to address similar issues, albeit in a quite different way. APEX was involved in the delivery of the order as the provider of one of the group work modules (providing employment and training advice). Among the other issues regularly covered were money advice, health, drugs, finance and trading standards.

2.74 The service also offered some computing and arts/craft work options (the outputs of which may be sold for charity). The approach was described as "social education". The programme delivered in South Ayrshire has not varied in structure over the period during which the scheme has been in place. (South Ayrshire Council was one of the original pilot authorities for Supervised Attendance Orders in the early 1990s.)

2.75 There was no practical difference in the way in which orders imposed in Ayr Sheriff Court and those imposed in any other court were delivered.

Delivery of the order by East Ayrshire Council

2.76 East Ayrshire Council had two Supervised Attendance Officers, line managed by the manager of the Community Service team (although, as will become clear, there were no elements of unpaid work in the East Ayrshire order). The Council subcontracted the delivery of the order to APEX Scotland. APEX worked with the Council to deliver all Supervised Attendance Orders, regardless of the court in which these were imposed. As noted earlier, some East Ayrshire Council orders were delivered by South Ayrshire Council, largely as a matter of transport convenience for the offenders concerned.

2.77 The APEX staff were based in new offices in New Cumnock, which were opened to coincide with the launch of this pilot. Other services were delivered from a base in Kilmarnock (covering largely orders imposed in other courts). The basis of the APEX provision (as in Glasgow) was that offenders were provided with a range of mandatory and optional modules designed to improve their employability. Among these modules were

• debt awareness;
• benefit awareness;
• employment preparation;
• health awareness;
• drugs and alcohol awareness;
• self awareness; and
• equal opportunities.

2.78 As with the provision in South Ayrshire, APEX (as the main provider) also worked with external providers. Among the agencies which delivered modules were:

• NHS bodies ;
• Jobcentre Plus ;
• Police; and
• Community-based health and addictions services.

2.79 As in South Ayrshire, the orders were managed in an identical fashion whether or not they were imposed in Ayr Sheriff Court or any other court.

Delivery of the order by Glasgow City Council

2.80 As in East Ayrshire, the Glasgow City Council contracted the delivery of the order to APEX Scotland. APEX delivered orders imposed both by Glasgow District and Glasgow Sheriff Court (as well as any orders transferred in). As in other areas, there was no difference in the substance of the delivery of the order between courts.

2.81 APEX provided a range of mandatory and optional modules designed to improve the employability of offenders (similar to those offered in East Ayrshire). For offenders with longer orders, there were opportunities for work placement (assuming that a risk assessment did not indicate any risk to either the community or the offender).

Other models of delivery

2.82 In some areas, the order is delivered alongside Community Service Orders, with day to day management of offenders being undertaken by Community Service staff. In these cases the offender would generally receive a 10 hour basic programme covering life and employment skills, but the remaining hours would be spent in productive unpaid community work. To all intents and purposes, there is no distinction on a day to day basis between this model of delivering the Supervised Attendance Order and a Community Service Order.

Issues in the delivery of the order

2.83 It is worth bearing in mind that this research was not designed to assess the delivery of Supervised Attendance Orders per se. However, interviewees raised a range of issues in relation to the delivery of orders which are worth setting out here, as these may impact on completion and breach rates as these relate to the mandatory pilot.

Administrative issues

2.84 A number of points were made by staff about the delivery of an order which are relevant to the pilot, particularly in terms of reducing the attrition rates of orders. It was suggested that where court staff, or court-based Supervised Attendance Officers check the contact details of offenders, this makes it more likely that the order and associated interview instructions will reach the offender. The first batch of orders from Glasgow District Court had a relatively high attrition rate, as the addresses of offenders were not checked, either as part of the means inquiry, or by Supervised Attendance Officers at the time of the imposition of an order.

2.85 From a practical perspective, it was also noted that gathering mobile phone numbers was found to be very effective by staff in the two Ayrshire councils. This allowed follow-on contact to be made with offenders, for example, where they failed to attend their initial interviews. In cases where, for example, the order and joining instructions went to a previous address (or particularly to an address provided to the Procurator Fiscal for the serving of citations), the officer could sort this out, hence preventing an order being breached before it has commenced.

2.86 There was a consensus view that orders should be actioned as quickly as possible. The experience of staff (in the pilot and other areas) was that the longer an order takes to commence, the more likely it is to be breached due to the offender failing to attend for their initial interview. Some of this relates to the fact that many offenders lead relatively mobile lifestyles, and are unlikely to set up mail redirection etc. Related to this, it was also suggested that offenders were more likely to attend for interview when the order was "fresh" in their minds.

2.87 Both Ayrshire councils provided travel warrants for offenders, rather than reimbursing expenses in arrears. This was viewed as being effective in lowering the attrition rate. (The logic of this is obvious. If an offender cannot pay a fine, they would also find the payment of a bus fare difficult, and even though a payment would be refunded at a later stage, this would still cause potential cash flow difficulties.)

The suitability of offenders

2.88 A number of staff interviewed at the commencement of the pilot indicated a concern that breach rates would be high as a result of "inappropriate" offenders being placed on orders. As was set out in Section 1, Supervised Attendance Orders are unusual, in that there is no mechanism to determine the suitability of an offender for the order ²⁷. The imposition of a Community Service Order, for example, would be preceded by a community service assessment, and most likely, a social enquiry report. It would be unusual for a sentencer to call for any form of report prior to imposing a fine, and any reports which are prepared prior to the imposition of a fine are most likely to have been prepared to allow the sentencer to consider a community disposal.

2.89 As noted elsewhere in the report, the practice in some courts where a supervised attendance officer is present has been that the sentencer asks the officer to provide a brief report. This would be unnecessary in the pilot courts, as the sentencer has no discretion in terms of either imposing an order, or not (except to remit the fine altogether).

2.90 It is also worth noting that each of the sentencers interviewed indicated that, prior to the pilot, they had formed judgements about whether or not an offender was likely to be able complete an order successfully. One indicated that, where they believed that an offender was (a) unable to pay a fine, (b) could benefit from an order and (c) would be likely (on the basis of their understanding of their circumstances and offending history) to complete it, they would use it in preference to imposing custody. This approach is consistent with that described by both Sheriffs and Justices in the national evaluation in 1998-99, where similar factors were found to be taken into account.

2.91 It was identified that relatively little use was made of reviews in Ayrshire. Each service manager, however, indicated that they would use this process if necessary where an offender is manifestly unsuitable. One manager indicated that they took the view that their role was to "make it work". In Glasgow, it was found that little use was made of reviews in the early stages of the pilot, although the number of reviews has climbed steadily as more staff have come into post.

2.92 A wider concern was expressed by a small number of interviewees who suggested that where Supervised Attendance Orders are mandatory, there may be no effective route to managing fine default for offenders with either addiction or mental health problems. As noted above, sentencers (in this research and both that of Levy and McIvor, and Brown relating to the initial pilots) indicated that they would not ordinarily have imposed orders on offenders in these circumstances as a result of a perception that they would be unlikely to complete these.

2.93 It was thought to be unlikely that at least some offenders facing these issues could successfully complete a "standard" order, and, in the event of a review being sought, interviewees thought it unlikely that sentencers would be able to do much more than remit the order and take no further action.

The receipt of information from the court

2.94 Few issues were raised about the information passed by the court to Supervised Attendance Officers. As noted earlier, there was an early issue with Glasgow District Court in that addresses were not checked by the court (although there is no obligation for them to do so), leading to a presumption that the attrition rate was higher than it might otherwise have been. This was addressed immediately when it came to light, and the practice in place for most of the pilot period was that the Sentencer or Assessor checked all addresses prior to imposing an order.

2.95 The only other issue raised was that staff in one area were not routinely receiving copies of the summary complaint and any previous convictions libelled in court. Staff were unaware that this information should have been supplied to them.

2.96 It is also worth noting that the previous conviction data provided by the court is that libelled in court at the time of the original conviction. As noted earlier, due to the processes involved (particularly with S237 Supervised Attendance Orders, and cases where more than one Fines Inquiry Court is required to address the fine default), these convictions are likely to be well out of date. This may pose a range of issues in terms of the ability of officers to carry out risk assessments, as, in the absence of other information, they may be left with only the offender's account of any more recent convictions or pending cases.

Security and safety issues

2.97 One issue which came to light during the pilot (although it seems likely to have been encountered elsewhere) is that the lack of pre-sentence reports makes it more likely that two or more offenders who are "enemies" may be on Supervised Attendance Orders at the same time. Staff in one council identified the potential for this to have occurred through reading a social enquiry report prepared for another community disposal, and took action to separate the offenders (unknown to the offender). It was suggested that little can be done to address this systematically without a social enquiry report prior to the imposition of a Supervised Attendance Order, which, it was recognised, would be expensive and unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

2.98 An issue was identified with the flow of information about Registered Sex Offenders and Schedule 1 offenders. Although there are a range of ways in which Social Work services maintain this information (for example on centralised information systems, by placing a stamp on paper files and through physically marking previous conviction summaries), staff in one area, indicated that they were not routinely aware of whether or not an offender fell into one or other of these categories (with potential safety implications for staff who may, as a result of the way the order is carried out, have to meet with an offender on a one-to-one basis).

2.99 It was also noted by other staff that they have no way, other than through previous convictions, of assessing whether or not an offender may pose a risk in terms of violence (with the issues this raises in terms of out-of-date schedules of previous convictions being available to staff, particularly in the case of S237 orders). In this case, the practice of the team leader is to carry out an initial trawl of all Social Work files, and, where previous convictions suggest a risk of violence, discuss this with police officers.

Compliance and enforcement

2.100 All three Social Work services operate within National Standards in terms of compliance and enforcement (the basis of which was set out in Section 1). Each confirmed that there had been no change to their approach of compliance and enforcement as a result of the pilot, although, as noted below, the increased staffing available meant that more work could be done in preventing breaches through early intervention.

Offenders' awareness of the implications of breaching an order

2.101 It is interesting to note that, compared with the lack of awareness of other issues, as many as 101 offenders (75%) recalled being told what would happen in the event of a breach of their Order. The remaining offenders claimed they had not been told. In most cases, offenders had been told about this after the imposition of the order. Some recalled receiving this information in a letter, while others were provided with this by Social Work staff on commencement. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of offenders were aware of the consequences of breaching an order.

2.102 By far the greatest number of responses related to the threat of imprisonment if the SAO was breached. Some offenders were "certain" that they would be sent to prison if the SAO was breached. One noted that they had understood that there were "no chances, breach equals prison", whereas others appeared less certain that this would be the outcome of a breach. Another suggested that "I'd be back in court possibly facing imprisonment".

2.103 Some offenders were unsure about the length of sentence which a breach would result in, others were able to give a specific number of days mentioned by their sentencer, Social Work or court staff. The suggestions offered ranged from seven days to six months imprisonment, although the most commonly mentioned potential length of sentence was 30 days (mentioned by 24 offenders, including broadly similar numbers of District and Sheriff Court offenders, even though the maximum sentence for breach in the former is actually twenty days).

2.104 One offender mentioned specifically that they were told that, if they were imprisoned for breaching their SAO, there would be "no time off for good behaviour" (which is factually incorrect). Additionally, three offenders suggested that they had been told that, if the SAO was breached, they would appear in court on the original charge. One of these offenders believed that this would result in prison. In these cases, offenders are clearly confusing a Supervised Attendance Order with another order, most likely probation.

2.105 Five offenders mentioned that breaching the SAO could result in the order being extended.

2.106 Clearly, most offenders were aware that breach of a Supervised Attendance Order could result in imprisonment. When asked whether the possibility of a custodial sentence made it more likely that they would complete their order, 80 offenders (60%) agreed with this, while only 16 offenders (12%) claimed it would not make any difference. The remainder were unsure, or felt that the question was irrelevant, as there was no prospect of their not completing their order. (It is interesting to note that the offenders suggesting this were all drawn from the group who suggested that they had been unable to pay their fine for financial reasons.)

2.107 Reasons given for the prospect of prison making it more likely that the SAO would be completed included one offender who stated that jail would seem like "more of a punishment." Similarly, several other offenders described jail as a deterrent. One suggested that prison was a "frightening prospect", while another described it as "…my worst nightmare, to be locked up with a load of junkies".

2.108 Five offenders stated that the main reason they wanted to avoid imprisonment was for their children. One offender stated the reason they were determined to complete the SAO was because they feared a return to drug use if they went back to prison. Two offenders stated that, as they had jobs, they did not want to go to prison with the possible consequence of becoming unemployed.

Proactive approaches to preventing breach

2.109 Each of the services (including Glasgow City Council where staffing resources permitted) took a proactive approach to trying to prevent the need for Orders to be breached. In the case of unexplained absence, in line with National Standards, Supervised Attendance Officers tried to ascertain whether or not the absence could be justified. However, staff from each service indicated that this would generally be a relatively superficial approach, and would do little to try to assess the underlying reasons leading to the absence. For this reason, staff tried to meet with, or at least talk directly with the offender to try to identify whether there were issues which could be addressed (for example, a change of day of attendance, permitting non-attendance for a short period to cover a family situation etc). In all cases, staff stressed that this would not be used routinely simply to suit the offender, but only where the change would have the effect of reducing the risk of a breach taking place.

2.110 Staff shortages at Glasgow City Council meant that this level of contact with offenders was not possible for an extended period during the pilot. However, once full staffing was restored in March 2006, a proactive approach to addressing absence was re-instated. Improved staffing has also meant that the initial contact with offenders was taking place within the designated National Standard. Additional sessions were also offered by APEX, allowing offenders in work a greater choice of sessions to attend. Taken together, these initiatives appeared, in the view of the officers concerned, to have a beneficial impact on the rate of breach in the final months of the pilot period.

The outcome of the orders

2.111 The status of orders imposed in the pilot was assessed as at 30 ^th August 2006.

The outcome of orders imposed by Ayr Sheriff Court

2.112 The outcomes of orders managed by South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire Councils are dealt with separately, even though the orders were imposed by the same court. These statistics represent only orders made by Ayr Sheriff Court, and not the full workload of either service (which includes orders imposed by other courts, and orders received from other areas).

Outcome of orders: South Ayrshire Council

2.113 The total number of orders received from the court in the period was 279, covering 236 offenders. A total of 233 orders were commenced, representing 200 offenders. This suggests that 36 offenders did not commence. Of these, 13 offenders had their orders terminated as a result of this breach, while 3 were the subject of review applications. ²⁸

2.114 By 30 ^th August 2006, a total of 157 orders (136 offenders) had been completed with a further 39 orders (covering 36 offenders) remaining to be concluded.

2.115 The total number of breach applications made for orders imposed in the first year of the pilot was 49, covering 39 offenders. The number in the second year was much lower, with 21 applications covering 15 offenders. In total, South Ayrshire Council made 70 applications covering 54 offenders. This suggests that around 24% of orders were at some stage the subject of a breach application. With 28 breach applications outstanding (covering 22 offenders), the total number of orders which were revoked due to breach was 39 (covering 32 offenders).

2.116 It is interesting to note that 12 offenders (with 16 orders) were, at some point, subject to breach proceedings, but subsequently completed their order. This means that the number of breach applications is higher than the effective number of revocations due to breach.

2.117 Of the breaches heard to date and for which information is available

• 14 offenders had custodial sentences imposed;
• 8 offenders' orders were revoked and no further action taken; and
• 11 had another disposal ²⁹.

2.118 One order was the subject of a review.

Outcome of orders: East Ayrshire Council

2.119 The total number of orders received from the court in the period was 116, covering 96 offenders.

2.120 By 30 ^th August 2006, a total of 45 orders (covering 43 offenders) had been completed with a further 38 orders (33 offenders) remaining to be concluded.

2.121 A total of 66 orders (covering 28 offenders) have been subject to breach applications, in some cases, more than once. This represents slightly more than half of all orders imposed. With a total of 6 breach applications outstanding, the total number of orders which were revoked due to breach was 34, covering 15 offenders.

2.122 Six offenders with a total of 7 orders were, at some point subject to breach proceedings, but subsequently completed their order. As with South Ayrshire Council, this means that the effective breach rate is lower than is implied by the rate of applications.

2.123 Of the breaches heard to date and for which information is available, 9 offenders had custodial sentences imposed and 2 offenders had no further action taken.

2.124 Only two orders have been the subject of a review.

Ayr Sheriff Court: comparison to previous years

2.125 It is very difficult to make a direct comparison with previous years, as data from SCS is not readily available. However, using reception data provided by SPS, a total of 22 adults were received into prison for fine default from Ayr Sheriff Court in 2004/5 and 38 in 2005/6, compared to 91 in the preceding year. This represents all receptions (where fine default may be one of many offences). It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that there has been a decrease in the number of offenders entering custody as a result of a fine imposed at Ayr Sheriff Court.

2.126 As noted earlier, 395 orders imposed by Ayr Sheriff Court were received by either South or East Ayrshire Councils. Applications relating to breaches of an order imposed in the two year period of the pilot totalled 129 (relating to 82 offenders). Of these, 73 orders, covering 47 offenders were terminated due to breach. These figures (covering 2 years) represent only a slight increase on the year preceding the pilot, when 33 orders were terminated due to breach, relating to 30 offenders.

2.127 Interestingly, the total number of breach applications resulting in custody in 2003-04 was 9, compared to 23 relating to orders imposed in the 2 year pilot period, suggesting clearly that, while the number of orders, and the number of breaches, has risen, the number resulting in custody is little changed.

Outcome of orders imposed by Glasgow District Court

2.128 A total of 1777 orders were received by Glasgow City Council from Glasgow District Court over the life of the pilot. (The remaining orders were transferred to other courts and would be supervised by the relevant social work service in that area.) Table 2.3 below sets out the result of these orders, by quarter, over the period of operation of the pilot.

Table 2.3 Supervised Attendance Order outcomes (by quarter)

Source: Glasgow District Court

2.129 A total of 587 orders were completed, with, at 30th August 2006, 243 outstanding. 793 orders had, at that date, been revoked due to breach. This represents about 52% of all orders concluded, or about 45% of all orders received by Glasgow City Council over the period of the pilot

2.130 This overall statistic does not capture the dynamics of the operation of the order in practice. It is clear from the table that the relative balance of successfully completed orders to breaches has improved over time. In the first four quarters, the number of breaches (473) greatly outnumbered the number of completions (251). In the remaining four quarters, the number of successful completions has, conversely, outnumbered the number of breaches.

2.131 As noted elsewhere, Glasgow City Council has taken a variety of steps to address the level of breach in the first year, and this appears to be reflected in these statistics. On the same basis (which is the basis used by the Scottish Executive in calculating breach rates overall), the effective breach rates for the second year of the pilot were 42% of orders concluded and 33% of orders received. As orders in progress work through the system, it is likely that these figures will reduce slightly. This represents a significant improvement on the first year of the pilot.

2.132 Of the breaches reported, 61 offenders were sentenced to custody. In some cases, offenders were fined with an alternative of custody imposed in the event of default. The most common outcome was that the order was revoked with no further order being made. As will be set out later, it is clear that sentencers are taking account of time served (following arrest on an outstanding warrant) in reaching this determination.

2.133 The number of reviews has increased significantly over the life of the pilot. In the first year, only 38 orders were terminated following a review, while in the second year, this rose to 114. The main reason for this was an extension of the approach taken by Glasgow City Council staff to seeking a review where an offender would be manifestly unable to complete the order. During the period of staff shortage, it is less likely that these offenders would have been identified, and would simply have been the subject of a breach application.

Comparison to previous years

2.134 The District Court Bulletin published by the Scottish Executive sets out the number of cases where custody was imposed as an alternative, but not the number where custody actually resulted from this. Using figures provided by SPS, there were a total of 895 receptions to custody from Glasgow District Court in 2004-05 and 700 in 2005-06 where the warrant included fine default, compared to 1221 in 2003-04. This suggests that there has been a very large decrease in the number of receptions to custody as a result of default on a fine imposed at Glasgow District Court (43%)

2.135 Although there has been some impact on the number of receptions to custody, the number of breach applications has also risen steeply. In the year prior to the pilot, as a result of fines imposed by Glasgow District Court, there were only 12 breach applications made, one of which resulted in custody. It is interesting to note (and is also reflected in figures for the current year) that there are no fewer than 6 warrants outstanding as a result of breaches submitted as long ago as 2003-04. The number of orders imposed by the court over this period was also very much smaller.

2.136 As noted earlier, there were 793 orders terminated due to breach as a result of orders received over the life of the pilot. From these, a total of 61 offenders were sentenced to custody.

Women offenders

2.137 One of the key concerns of the Scottish Executive in locating the pilot at Glasgow District Court was the high number of women appearing in the court and receiving custodial sentences. As well as the mandatory SAO pilot, a range of other measures were also instituted, for example the 218 Centre (Loucks, Malloch, McIvor and Gelsthorpe, 2006) ³⁰.

2.138 Of the orders imposed by Glasgow District Court, around 13% ³¹ were imposed on women. This is, as set out in Section 1, slightly lower than the national average. The reasons for this are not clear. As set out elsewhere, no offenders with Level 1 or 2 fines were given custodial sentences, and, therefore, this suggests either that the proportion of cases (although clearly not the absolute number) involving women is lower than elsewhere in Scotland, that women appearing are less likely to be sentenced to a monetary penalty, or that women sentenced by the court are more likely to pay their fine. It may also reflect the impact of the 218 Centre, both in terms of women who had, and those who were at risk of offending.

2.139 In the year prior to the pilot (2003-04), a total of 334 women were received into Cornton Vale solely for fine default. SPS was unable to provide a definitive estimate of the number of those who were sentenced by Glasgow District Court. However, a total of 170 women were received into custody from Glasgow District Court for offences including fine default (where, for example, fine default was part of a guilty plea to a number of charges).

2.140 In the years of the pilot, it is clear from statistics provided by SPS that there was a significant change in this.

2.141 In 2004-05, a total of 253 women were received into Cornton Vale solely for fine default. Again, SPS was unable (for technical reasons) to provide a definitive number of receptions solely for fine default from Glasgow District Court, but, given the start date of the pilot (June 2004), it seems likely to be small. A total of 107 women were received from Glasgow District Court for offences including fine default.

2.142 In 2005-06, the total number of women being received solely for fine default had reduced to 213. This represents a fall of 36% over a two year period. Over the same period, the number of women received into Cornton Vale from Glasgow District Court for offences including fine default also fell, in this case to 67. This is a fall of over 60% over a two year period.

2.143 A total of 11 women were sentenced to custody as a result of breaching an SAO over the period of the pilot. In virtually all cases, the women sentenced to custody had breached at least two, and in some cases more orders.

2.144 This suggests strongly that the mandatory SAO itself, and in conjunction with other measures, may be having a significant impact on the numbers of women receiving custodial sentences.

« Previous | Contents | Next »