OFFICE INSPECTION - FORT WILLIAM

27 SEPTEMBER 2005

Background

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 Fort William. The Fort William office is part of the Highlands and Islands Area.

Methodology

Our approach to the office inspections 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.

The following measures were taken to inform the inspection process.

Sampling of Race Charges

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 was 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 2003-04 and 2004-05. 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 was a 'snapshot' as at June 2005.

A sample of Section 50 racial charges and charges with Section 96 racial aggravations recorded against them was drawn from the data for 2004-05 and the related case papers were requested from the office and examined by the team. The charges in the sample drawn were charges that appeared, 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).

Additionally all case papers containing any charges which appeared, as recorded on the database, to have been dealt with in contravention to the guidelines, were specifically requested for examination. Since these charges were of particular interest to us, we requested the relevant case papers in relation any such charges from both 2003-04 and 2004-05.

The contraventions of policy that can be identified from examination of the data extract from the database are charges in respect of which a fiscal fine had been issued, or a warning letter. (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 were also automatically requested which contained any charges that were recorded on the database as being unmarked, or any charges where no proceedings had been taken due to a delay by any agency.

Similarly, charges reported to the Fiscal Office in 2004-05 that were recorded as being marked for no proceedings were specifically requested for examination, because the way in which the coding system employed by the National Database operates does not allow for recording of reason for a marking of 'no proceedings' at charge level.

Case papers were also requested to be made available on the day of inspection, regarding any deaths which were reported and investigated over a 12 month period where:

• special consideration was required, as defined in Annexe 3 in Chapter 12 of the Book of Regulations (racial and cultural awareness)
• the ethnicity of the deceased was in some way related to the cause of death (eg the murder of someone from a minority ethnic background).

A questionnaire covering a number of issues related to the areas for consideration (as outlined above) was sent to the office in advance of the inspection and returns were analysed to allow exploration of any issues raised in the returns, on the day of the inspection.

The composition of staff in post (numbers, grades and ethnicity) in the office was considered prior to the inspection visit. Similarly considered was the proportion of staff that had 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 racist 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 Legal and Policy Forum.

Table 1 - Racial Charges and Racial Aggravations reported to Fort William Fiscal Office, 2003-04 and 2004-05

The data extracted from the National Database revealed that in respect of the Fort William Office, in financial year (FY) 2003-04:

• No Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported

• 4 Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported

• 3 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported

And in FY 2004-05:

• No Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported

• 7 Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported

• 5 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported

A total of 5 charges (5 case papers) were automatically requested for inspection. These consisted of:

• 1 charge recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings', reported in FY 2004-05

• 1 charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it, marked to receive a warning letter, reported in FY 2004-05

• 3 charges with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against them, recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings', reported in FY 2004-05

The remaining number of charges reported to the Fort William office was sufficiently small as to allow selection of all for inspection - no sampling procedure as such, was required. Hence, the remaining Section 50A(1) (b) charges (of which there were six) and the one remaining charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it were selected for inspection, in addition to the 5 charges which were automatically selected. A total of 10 case papers (12 charges) therefore were subsequently requested.

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 was conducted at charge level, in some instances, more than one charge from a single case was selected into the sample. This meant that the number of case papers requested was lower than the number of individual charges selected.

In respect of the 5 charges that were automatically selected (as detailed above) we found that:

Of the charge recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings':

• The complainer was a 'New Age Traveller' and on Crown Office advice the race charge was marked 'no proceedings' as new age travellers are not regarded as ethnic minority in Crown Office guidance. This was found to be appropriate given the current guidance available.

Of the charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it, marked to receive warning letter:

• A review of the case showed the crime to be a non-racial incident.

Of the 3 charges with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against them, marked for no proceedings:

• One did not have a clear minute or explanation although the PF advised that the case had been amalgamated with other cases with the same accused to which a global plea was accepted.

• One was found not to be a racial incident.

• A review of the remaining charge found the marking to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In respect of the remaining 7 charges (5 cases), we found that the office complied with Departmental policy on marking and conduct of court proceedings in all cases.

All had been referred to Victim Information and Advice Division (VIA) appropriately.

Monitoring of race crime

The Fort William office is not asked to supply any information or papers to the Area office for monitoring purposes. Papers used to be sent for this purpose but this practice has not been done for some time. Instead monitoring takes place at the area office at Inverness. We discuss this in our report on Inverness.

Interpreters

None of the cases we evaluated required any sort of interpretation or translation needs of victims and witnesses.

Deaths

There were no deaths reported in Fort William within the period concerned (1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005) where racial and cultural considerations were a feature.

Employment

Latest data [1] shows that over 99 per cent of the population in the Fort William Sheriff Court District area is from a white background. Other ethnic groups, of which Bangladeshi and Chinese together make 0.3 per cent, account for less than one per cent.

As at 1 May 2005, Fort William had a staff of 3, consisting of:

Legal staff

• 1 Procurator Fiscal

Administrative staff

• 2 Band B staff

There are no members of staff who are from a minority ethnic background (as self-reported to Human Resources Division in COPFS via survey) in the Fort William office. Given the low representation of minority ethnic persons living in the area and the small number of staff in the office, we concluded that it was not untoward that none of the staff were from a minority ethnic background.

As at 1 June 2005, all staff in the Fort William office had attended the Departmental Diversity Awareness Programme.

Consultation

The PF has access to the Highland Area Race Equality Group (HARE) to raise and discuss race matters through the Area Business Manager who is a member of the group.

The PF advised that local persons with an ethnic minority background (e.g. a local Doctor) were asked if they would like to be involved in a group in the Fort William area but this offer was declined. As a result there is no local group dealing with multicultural issues. However, the Police Sergeant responsible for race issues and the PF often discuss race matters.

Fort William is very much a tourist area with people from many countries working in the hotel business. In addition there are Poles working in the fish processing industry. Racial offences are often committed against these persons as well as against police officers. An initiative undertaken by the Highland Council to try and integrate these persons was put together and resulted in a 'Welcome Pack' to provide information about the local community.

Conclusions

The Fort William office has a very high level of compliance with Departmental policy relating to case marking and court proceedings regarding race crime. The use of warning letters and no proceedings markings were all found to be appropriate given the circumstances of each case. All cases that should have been referred to VIA were done so in accordance with Departmental guidelines thus allowing victims and witnesses to obtain additional support and information.

The PF keeps in touch with multicultural issues through HARE and discussions with the police and council.

The Fort William office has only one member of legal staff (the PF) who marks cases therefore there is no opportunity at that office for a senior member of staff to monitor compliance with case marking policy. As stated above the monitoring takes place at the area office at Inverness.

[1] General Register Office for Scotland 2001 Census of Population