« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
11 VIEWS FROM DISTRICT FISCALS
Aberdeen:
The District Fiscal at Aberdeen (who also covered Stonehaven) reported that the biggest problem was a shortage of staff especially Depute Fiscals. At the time of inspection 5 Depute posts were unfilled amounting to 25% of the total. Compounding this problem was the fact that many of the existing Deputes were very inexperienced (50% with less than one year's experience).
Shortage of staff and difficulties of retention were reported by other public sector bodies, the high cost of housing in Aberdeen and competition from better paying oil and allied companies presented difficulties to many.
She was well aware of criticisms (recorded elsewhere) of the level of service provided at Stonehaven since the closure of the Fiscal's Office there. This was allied to the staffing problem referred to. There was no-one designated as the "Stonehaven" Depute. Stonehaven cases were "marked" in Aberdeen and court days were manned from the Aberdeen summary team. There was, however, a dedicated member of the administrative staff who dealt with Stonehaven.
Queries regarding court cases were expected to be routed to the Depute shown on the rota to cover the court. This rota was made available to defence solicitors and included direct dial numbers. Given the ongoing staffing problems this was felt to be the best solution and best use of existing resources.
Disclosure was also accepted as a problem in Aberdeen and Stonehaven. Disclosure was being made but not routinely within the time scale expected (28 days before the intermediate diet). This enabled the defence to obtain adjournments of trials. The staffing levels made it very difficult to improve on this. Not all the complaints about Disclosure were accepted. Stonehaven solicitors could instruct Aberdeen agents to uplift Disclosure statements on their behalf. The requirement to uplift in person had been introduced following disputes in court when non receipt had been alleged and because of the frequently confidential nature of the material.
The District Fiscal had regular liaison meetings with the police involving local divisional commanders, CID officers, traffic officers, case management and others. The District Fiscal was accompanied by key Fiscal personnel.
Issues of mutual concern and interest were discussed such as abbreviated reporting by the police, search warrant procedures and a standard agenda had been devised. Police performance was monitored which now included monitoring of all the COPFS/ ACPOS protocols.
Very detailed discussion took place on the timing of reporting of cases by the police (up from 40% to 90% against agreed targets), submission of statements by the police (especially important in view of Disclosure requirements), the number of "undertakers" reported by the police (an accelerated form of reporting cases to the fiscal particularly relevant to summary justice reform), cases in which the Fiscal has taken "no proceedings" and the reasons for those decisions, police performance on citing witnesses and outstanding warrants.
This enables both parties to track their performance and make adjustments. For example the categories of cases in which the police should use undertakers was increased to allow the number of court slots to be filled in accordance with the agreement with the Sheriff Clerk.
Peterhead and Banff:
The Fiscal at Peterhead also covers Banff.
In Peterhead he met monthly with the Sheriff Clerk for the "Protocol" meeting, work levels are discussed and possible changes in the flow of work. The need for jury diets is discussed and use is made of statistics.
Similarly in Banff (where a Depute Fiscal is based) meeting take place with the Sheriff Clerk. The Court User's Group is also used to discuss issues there with the local bar and police.
Meetings in Peterhead with the police take place every 3 months or so and issues can be raised such as anticipated increase in the use of undertakers in accordance with summary justice reform. It is anticipated any likely increase can be dealt with by all parties.
Sheriff and jury slots are made available as required and the Sheriff Clerk is very helpful in adjusting the court programme to accommodate any increased demand. Relations with the District Court Clerk was also described as good.
The staff were described as experienced and long serving.
It was known that there was concern in taking Banff custodies in Peterhead. If the accused pleads not guilty the case returns to Banff if guilty it stays in Peterhead.
Disclosure was not found to be a problem in either Peterhead or Banff although it took a lot of time. Adjournments of trials or desertion of cases because of non Disclosure was not an issue.
« Previous | Contents | Next »