OFFICE INSPECTION - PORTREE
27 MARCH 2007
Background
In accordance with our Business Plan, we are committed to regular audits of District and Area Offices to ensure compliance with race relations, policies and strategies.
This is our report of the Procurator Fiscal's Office at Portree. The Portree office is part of the Highlands & Islands Area.
Methodology
Our approach to the office inspection involved consideration of the following areas:
- Adherence to policy guidelines in relation to prosecution of racist crime
- Use of interpreters and translation issues
- Employment issues
- Consultation with communities
- Deaths involving racial and/or cultural awareness issues.
- Complaints against the Police which are of a criminal nature.
The following measures are taken to inform the inspection process.
Sampling of Race Charges
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has a single corporate database (herein referred to as the National Database) that connects all Procurator Fiscal Offices and Crown Office units, and facilitates the transfer of legal casework. An extract of data from the National Database is obtained from Management Information Division in Crown Office, containing details of all charges with a racial element reported to Fiscal Offices over the course of financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 [1]. It is worth noting that the database is an operational one, not statistical, and hence is 'live', being constantly updated as cases progress. As such the extract is a 'snapshot' as at date of extraction (current extract relates to 'as at' August 2006). Data relating to earlier years (2003-04 and 2004-05) that has been obtained previously is also used to supplement the risk-assessment part of our inspection process (see section below 'The Risk-Assessed Sample' for more details).
The General Sample
We are concerned with the statutory race charges as created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. A sample of Section 50 racial charges and charges with Section 96 racial aggravations recorded against them was drawn from the most recent 12 months' worth of data contained in the extract and the related case papers were requested from the office and examined by the team. Those charges are those that appear, as recorded on the database, to have been dealt with in accordance with the guidelines - this part of the sampling exercise was designed simply to be an independent check on compliance with policy.
The charges were drawn using a stratified random sampling method. For details on the sampling methodology employed, please contact Kirsty MacLean (e-mail Kirsty.maclean@scotland.gsi.gov.uk) or telephone 0141 229 6203).
The Risk-Assessed Sample
Our inspection process is partly based on risk assessment. Therefore, in addition to the general sample referred to above, all case papers containing any charges which appear, as recorded on the database, to have been dealt with in contravention of the guidelines, are specifically requested for examination. Given the potential importance of such cases and since these charges are of particular interest to us, we request the relevant case papers in relation to all such charges over a longer time period than that for the general sample (a minimum of 29 months as compared to 12 months).
The contraventions of policy that can be identified from examination of the data extract are charges in respect of which a fiscal fine or warning letter have been issued or proceedings taken in the District Court. (Note however that revised guidance from Crown Office was issued to staff on 23 June 2004, which thereafter made it possible to issue a warning letter in exceptional circumstances, with the agreement of the Area Fiscal).
Case papers are also requested which contain any charges that are recorded on the database as being unmarked (ie no decision yet taken as to how to proceed) or any charges where no proceedings have been taken (given the policy to always proceed where there is sufficient evidence). Case papers are also requested which contain any charges marked for 'merge' (this is where the marking Depute has decided to amalgamate one or more charges reported by the police, usually for sound legal reasons). Any other charges that appear to have been marked and/or dealt with in an unusual or unexpected manner (eg charges/cases which have been deserted) are also requested for inspection.
Case papers are also requested to be made available for inspection, regarding any deaths which were reported and investigated over the previous 12 month period where:
A questionnaire covering a number of issues related to the areas for consideration (as outlined above) is sent to the office in advance of the inspection and returns are analysed to allow exploration of any issues raised in the returns, at the time of the inspection.
The composition of staff in post (numbers, grades and ethnicity) in the office is considered prior to the inspection visit. Similarly considered is the proportion of staff who have attended the Diversity Awareness Programme.
2001 Census data was obtained from the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) showing Sheriff Court Districts (which equate to Fiscal Office area) by ethnic group, to allow us to consider the staff ethnicity information in the context of local population ethnic mix.
Race Crime
Crown Office policy on the prosecution of race crime is a robust one and the execution of the policy is closely monitored by the Department. A member of legal staff decides what course of action to take in each case, this is then checked by the District Fiscal for compliance with the Departmental policy and a copy of the case is then sent to the Area Fiscal. Responsibility for the monitoring of compliance in such cases lies with the Area Fiscal. Three-monthly reports from the Areas are considered at the Area Fiscals Group [3].
Table 1 - Racial Charges and Racial Aggravations reported to Portree Fiscal Office, 2005-06 and 2006-07[4]
| 2005-06 | 2006-07 |
Section 50A(1) (a) charges | 0 | 0 |
Section 50A(1) (b) charges | 1 | 0 |
Section 96 aggravations | 1 | 0 |
The data extracted from the National Database revealed that in respect of the Portree office, in financial year (FY) 2005-06:
No Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported
One Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
One charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it was reported
And in FY 2006-074:
No Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported
No Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
No charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported
In relation to the following discussion of the sampling that is carried out, please note that the number of case papers requested is not the same as number of charges drawn for sampling because a case can (and frequently does) contain more than one charge. Since the sampling is conducted at charge level, in some instances, more than one charge from a single case is selected into the sample. This meant that the number of case papers requested is lower than the number of individual charges selected.
The General Sample
Due to the very small numbers involved, all Section 50A charges reported within FY 2005-06 were requested (a total of one charge). Likewise, all charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them; a total of one charge was requested for inspection. Resulting from the general sample, therefore, a total of 2 cases (2 charges) were requested.
In respect of the Section 50A charge, we found that: -
This case was not proceeded with (correctly) in line with policy, advice having been taken from Crown Office Diversity Team.
- In respect of the charge with a Section 96 aggravation attached, we found that: -
This case was marked in line with policy but when the complaint was printed the racial aggravation was missing from the complaint. The Fiscal in court did not comply with policy as a plea of not guilty was accepted.
The Risk Assessed Sample
A total of one charge was automatically requested for inspection. This consisted of:
- One charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it, recorded as being marked for proceedings to be taken in the District Court, reported in FY 2003-04
In respect of this case we found that:
- It was unavailable for inspection. The office at Dingwall only keeps cases for the current year and the 2 previous. On the face of the IT record this would be a breach of policy as race cases must not be prosecuted in the District Court. However, without seeing the papers it is impossible to be sure as some cases are wrongly recorded as racial when they are not.
Monitoring of Race Crime
All work for Portree is processed at Dingwall. The newly appointed District Fiscal [5] at Dingwall will review race crime cases marked by the Depute to ensure that Crown Office policy is complied with.
The District Fiscal at Inverness monitors race crime cases for the whole Area. He receives information from the police on all race cases and interrogates the computerised system to check what happened to them. This ensures that all relevant cases are checked and monitored.
The Area Business Manager at Inverness is responsible for collating and forwarding race crime figures to the Area Fiscals Group. The Office Manager at Dingwall advised that she provides information twice a year for this purpose.
Interpreters
The Office Manager at Dingwall makes requests for interpreters to attend court in Portree based on instructions written on case papers. No interpreters have been ordered and no documents have been translated over the past twelve months.
None of the cases that were inspected required interpreting services and no documents appeared to require translation.
Deaths
There was one death reported within the past twelve months where racial and cultural considerations were a feature. The papers were not available for review as they had been taken to court in connection with another case. The Office Manager advised that there has been contact with the nearest relative and a German interpreter was ordered to translate although it turned out that the relative spoke fluent English.
Complaints Against The Police
The Procurator Fiscal deals with complaints against Police Officers of a criminal nature and we seek to monitor those with a minority ethnic dimension.
In the relevant period we were advised that there were no such complaints.
Employment
Latest data [6] shows that 99.5 per cent of the population in the Portree Sheriff Court District area is from a white background. Other ethnic groups, of which 'any mixed background' is the largest at 0.1 per cent, account for 0.5 per cent.
There are no staff based at Portree. All business for Portree cases is processed in Dingwall by staff based there.
Conclusions
On the face of it, in two out of the three cases we examined, Crown Office policy on the investigation and prosecution of race crime was not complied with (subject to a dearth of information on the case we mention).
On the other hand Crown Office expertise had been sought in the third case before a decision was taken.
A new District Fiscal will have the opportunity to address this issue.
[1] At time of extraction data was only available for the first five months of FY 2006/07 ie April to August 2006
[2] The Book of Regulations provides guidance and instruction to members of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on the way Procurators Fiscal should be carry out their duties
[3] The remit of the Area Fiscals Group is:
- To meet regularly with the Management Board in order to discuss operational policy and business issues in the COPFS;
- To provide Area Fiscals and Crown Office Heads with opportunities to consider and advice on wider Departmental management matters, where possible, before Management Board takes the decision;
- To ensure that members accept a shared and collegiate achievement of its business goals and strategic priorities; and
- To maintain ownership of and to keep the risk register under review.
[4] At time of extraction data was only available for the first five months of FY 2006-07 ie April to August 2006
[5] Due to officially start in April 2007 but was present at the office on the day of the review
[6] General Register Office for Scotland 2001 Census of Population