« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grampian Fiscal Area covers a large geographical part of Scotland and accounts for about 7% of all the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service caseload.
It has experienced higher than Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service average increases in cases being about 5% for the year to September 2007 and over a 4 year period has experienced an increase in serious business of 51% compared to a national average over the same period of 17%.
The overall conclusion is that the Area has performed remarkably well in the face of staffing difficulties especially in Aberdeen itself.
REVIEW OF CASES
Oil and Gas
Prosecutions arising out of exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea are of considerable public interest arising as they frequently do from fatal accidents.
Feedback from partners such as the Health and Safety Executive and The Department of Business Efficiency and Regulatory Reform on how cases reported by them were handled by the Procurator Fiscal was extremely good and was borne out by our inspection of individual cases. A specialist prosecutor had been put in place to deal with these and this was a system which operated well in practice.
Fishery Cases
The Grampian Area accounts for about 60% of the whole of the United Kingdom fish catch and fish catch quotas and other regulatory activity attracts a great deal of public interest as stocks of certain categories of fish such as cod and haddock have been seen to decline.
Again feedback from the main regulatory agency was good and this was again borne out by our examination of individual cases.
A specialist prosecutor for such cases had been appointed (based at Banff) and considerable expertise had been built up in handling contraventions of the various regulations.
Race Cases
We previously inspected every office in Scotland for compliance with Crown Office policy and guidelines on the prosecution of race cases and allied matters.
As part of this inspection we also looked at a small sample of such and found compliance with these policies to be generally very high.
Case Review General
We looked at a cross-section of cases in all the Grampian Offices namely Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Peterhead and Stonehaven (dealt with from Aberdeen).
This review looked at over 250 individual cases ranging from the relatively minor (in which no proceedings had been taken or a non-court alternative had been used) to cases prosecuted in the High Court.
We deal with each office separately.
Aberdeen:
In the category of non-court disposal cases including No Proceedings, Warnings and Fiscal Fines we found compliance with overall policy was generally good although there were some minor data integrity issues.
In the category of No Further Proceedings (where proceedings had commenced but for some reason had been discontinued) we again found that decisions to discontinue proceedings were basically sound although again there were some data integrity issues regarding the category to be used.
Prosecutions in the District Court were generally well handled in Aberdeen although Disclosure was an issue. We deal with this separately.
Sheriff summary court cases in Aberdeen were again generally well handled with appropriate decisions taken by the Procurator Fiscal regarding bail and appropriate pleas being adjusted. Again Disclosure was an issue to which we return later.
In solemn cases (those tried before a jury in either the Sheriff Court or the High Court) we found generally that these were well handled although there was some adverse comment on the extent of the precognition (or interviewing) of witnesses and again Disclosure although made was made later than policy would dictate. All the Aberdeen Sheriff and Jury cases were custody cases and appropriate bail decisions had been made.
In Aberdeen High Court cases we found again that appropriate bail decisions had been made and indeed in 3 of the 5 cases bail had been blocked by the Crown. Consideration had been given to special measures for vulnerable witnesses and there was good practice in "rolling up" outstanding cases against a single accused.
In Disclosure this was done on time in 3 of the 5 cases examined.
Banff:
In Banff in the categories of No Proceedings, Warnings and Fiscal Fines we found that all cases were quickly and appropriately marked and good use had been made of alternatives to prosecution.
In the category of No Further Proceedings the decisions taken were all reasonable although there was a minor data integrity issue in one case.
In cases in the District Court we found that all were appropriately marked and processed to a conclusion. There was slightly late Disclosure in one case but plea negotiation was strong reducing inconvenience to witnesses.
In Sheriff Court summary cases generally all were appropriately marked and processed. Bail decisions were appropriate and Disclosure requirements met in all cases.
One Sheriff and Jury case was examined for Banff. We found that appropriate bail decisions had been made in the case and ultimately a plea was negotiated with the defence. Disclosure was made but slightly later than the target date. We do comment that perhaps more could have been done to interview the essential witnesses in the case.
Elgin:
In Elgin in the categories of No Proceedings and Warnings we found very high adherence to policy and practice in this area with cases being quickly marked. Similarly in the area of Fiscal Fines cases were quickly processed although we did have slight reservations about one particular case.
In the category of No Further Proceedings we found that all decisions were appropriate although there were data integrity issues regarding the recording of the wrong reasons for discontinuing the prosecution.
In the District Court all the cases examined were appropriately dealt with some being cases in which a Fiscal Fine had been offered and not paid leading to the prosecution in court. Preparation for court appeared to be good and the only issue was slightly late Disclosure in one case.
In Sheriff summary cases we found that bail decisions were appropriate and sensible and full preparation for trials was carried out at an early stage. The various pleas which were negotiated were appropriate and sensible. The only reservation we had in relation to Sheriff summary cases was the lateness of Disclosure which was in itself due to the lateness by the police in submitting statements in the case.
In Sheriff and Jury cases we found that Elgin gave careful consideration to the issues and appropriate pleas were adjusted. There was again a slight problem with lateness of Disclosure to the defence and we made some comment on the extent of the precognition process which had taken place.
We also looked at Diversion Cases in Elgin and 10 cases were selected for inspection.
We found that each case individually was suitable for diversion and there seemed to be good contact between the Social Work Department and the Elgin Procurator Fiscal's Office to discuss such cases.
Peterhead:
In the category of No Proceedings we found general compliance with policy but there were data integrity issues. In the category of Earnings we did comment on the use of a warning for a domestic assault situation which was on the face of it a breach of policy. All the Fiscal Fines were appropriate and speedily processed.
In the category of No Further Proceedings we found that generally decisions taken were sound although in one case there was no reference to Crown Office for instructions which would normally be the case.
In the District Court there was generally full compliance with Crown Office policy in the cases examined and full Disclosure was made in all cases within the recognised time limits. Pleas which were accepted were reasonable and efforts were made to reduce the attendance of witnesses.
In Sheriff summary cases appropriate bail decisions would appear to have been made and there was evidence of good preparation for trial and intermediate diets.
Areas where evidence could be agreed with the defence were highlighted to try and reduce unnecessary attendance of witnesses and special measures were duly considered in appropriate cases. Disclosure appeared to be met in all the cases examined by us. Pleas which had been negotiated by the defence were all appropriate.
In Sheriff and Jury cases our examination was somewhat limited but considerable good practice was found in that the office made considerable efforts to keep witnesses informed about progress and there was good communication with the police about appropriate lines of enquiry in order to anticipate possible defences.
Stonehaven:
Stonehaven cases are processed by the Aberdeen office and Deputes go to the Sheriff and District Courts in Stonehaven on court days.
In the category of No Proceedings we found that decisions were reasonable although there was a minor data integrity issue.
In the category of Warning letters we found that all the cases examined had been appropriately dealt with.
In the category of No Further Proceedings and as far as we were able to examine the papers we had no comment on the decisions made but we did notice that there were data integrity issues in that we considered a wrong reason had been recorded for discontinuing proceedings.
Disclosure
Disclosure has been and continues to be a major problem for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which at very short notice imposed considerable additional burdens on staff.
We had been advised in advance that it was a particular problem in Aberdeen (and by extension at Stonehaven).
Our review of cases although not statistically relevant being a snapshot did not entirely bear out this concern. Disclosure we found was nearly always done albeit it might have been later than current policy indicated (namely 28 days before an intermediate diet).
The overall problem appeared to be limited to Aberdeen and Stonehaven and was not really found to be a problem at Banff, Elgin or Peterhead.
Bail
We try to take a risk based approach to inspection and bail is a high risk area for any prosecution service and seldom out of the news.
As part of the case review referred to we deliberately sought out examples of cases where bail would be an issue.
Overall we found very high compliance with policy and guidelines on bail in all of the offices inspected.
Managing Performance and Achievement of Targets
Key targets are identified in the Grampian Area Management Plan and closely monitored.
At the time of our inspection only one key central Crown Office target (closing 90% of complaints against the police within 12 weeks) was not met and this only narrowly missed the performance at the time of inspection being 89%.
Staffing Issues
By far the biggest challenge to the management of the Grampian Area is the shortage of staff in the Aberdeen office itself.
This problem is not confined to the Procurator Fiscal's Office in Aberdeen and affects other public sector organisations which have to compete against high paying oil and gas related companies and compounded by a buoyant housing market.
At the time of our inspection approximately 25% of the Depute Fiscal posts were vacant and it is to the extreme credit of the staff in Grampian that they managed to achieve their performance against targets despite this handicap.
Shortage of staff inevitably causes some strain with criminal justice partners (which was acknowledged in face to face meetings with several of them) but the Area Management Team is using every device at its disposal to encourage staff into the Area and make arrangements for the processing of work if necessary better staff but remoter offices in the Area.
Feedback from Criminal Justice Partners
We contacted and obtained feedback from a large number of criminal justice partners in the Grampian Area and this included Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, Court Clerks, Police, Victim Support, Witness Service, Women's Aid and several others.
Generally feedback was good although inevitably some issues were highlighted by various partners. These issues were usually accompanied by the acknowledgement that shortage of staff was seen as the difficulty for the Procurator Fiscal.
Sheriffs were in some Areas particularly concerned with the issue of Disclosure and also the lack of experience of Deputes who appeared before them.
Stonehaven was singled out by a number of partners as being a court where the standard of service had deteriorated since the local Fiscal's Office had been closed and the work processed from Aberdeen.
With the help of the Witness Service we were able to obtain "real world" experience of witnesses at various courts and questionnaires were used to obtain feedback from people who attended court.
The results are contained in Appendix 3 and are generally very positive including on such vital questions as when citations were received to attend court (the majority receiving the citation more than a month before the court date) and information supplied on being a witness and getting updated information while attending at the court itself.
Recommendations
1. In Aberdeen (and by extension Stonehaven) consideration be given to the employment of an Ad Hoc Team to carry out the Disclosure task. Disclosure is being done but frequently late and this would enable the timing of Disclosure to be brought back within the desired time limits.
2. Efforts should be made across the Area to remind both administrative and legal staff of the importance of correctly recording various categories of information as this will otherwise distort the data.
3. We appreciate that increases in solemn work place extremely high demands on staff particularly where there are vacancies but in serious cases more consideration should be given to interviewing at least essential witnesses. This is not a Grampian only comment and applies to all Areas currently being inspected by the Inspectorate.
4. Giving concerns over the knock-on effect of the closure of Stonehaven Fiscal's Office that reassurance be given to criminal justice partners that the Fiscal's Office in Banff will continue to be permanently manned.
5. We commend the model of monitoring police performance against agreed targets and protocols used in Aberdeen as a useful performance tool for adoption elsewhere.
« Previous | Contents | Next »