OFFICE INSPECTION - GLASGOW G DIVISION
22 JUNE - 4 JULY 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 Glasgow, G Division. The Glasgow office is divided into four Divisions, A, C, E and G, which correspond to the Police divisions covering the city. G Division is the largest of the four Glasgow divisions.
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 2002-03 and 2003-04. 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 January 2005.
A sample of Section 50 racial charges and charges with Section 96 racial aggravations recorded against them was drawn from the data for 2003-04 and the related case papers were requested from the office and examined by the team (excluding cases marked for referral to the Children's Reporter). 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 2002-03 and 2003-04.
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 2003-04 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 for cases that were included in in-house statistical returns (covering the 3-month period from September - November 2004) on racist crime to the Crown Office Legal and Policy Forum meeting in January 2005 were also requested for examination.
Case papers were also requested to be made available on the day of inspection, regarding any deaths which
were reported and investigated in the offices during the period 1 Feb 2004 to 31 Jan 2005 where:
- special consideration was required, as defined in Annex 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, grade) 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. Staff ethnicity information in this instance was obtained for G Division within the Glasgow office, in addition to information for the office as a whole.
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 (in the Glasgow office this is the Divisional 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. (A Crown Office Group consisting of the Crown Agent, Area Fiscals and others)
Table 1 - Racial charges and racial aggravations reported to Glasgow G Division 2002-03 and 2003-04
| 2002-03 | 2003-04 |
Section 50A(1) (a) charges | 27 | 14 |
Section 50A(1) (b) charges | 178 | 191 |
Section 96 aggravations | 84 | 71 |
The data extracted from the National Database revealed that in respect of Glasgow G Division in financial year (FY) 2002-03:
27 section 50A(1) (a)charges were reported
178 section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
84 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported.
And in FY 2003-04:
14 section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported
191 section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
71 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported.
A total of 36 charges (24 case papers) were automatically requested for inspection. These were:
a) 4 charges (4 cases) recorded as being marked to receive a warning letter, 2 reported in FY 2002-03 and 2 reported in 2003-04.
b) 7 charges (3 cases) recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2002-03.
c) 8 charges (4 cases) recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2003-04.
d) 10 charges (9 cases) recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings' (the coding system employed by the National Database does not allow for recording of reason for a marking of 'no proceedings' at charge level), reported in FY 2003-04.
e) 2 charges with a Section 96 aggravation attached (these charges were part of one of the cases requested re bullet point (c) above), recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2003-04.
f) One charge with a Section 96 aggravation attached, recorded as being marked initially for a fiscal fine, which was subsequently not paid, reported in FY 2003-04.
g) 4 charges (3 cases; one of these charges was part of one of the cases requested re bullet point (d) above) with section 96 aggravations attached, recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings', reported in FY 2003-04.
A sample of 37 Section 50A(1) charges and 26 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them was drawn in addition to the 36 charges which were automatically selected. Resulting from the sampling exercise therefore a total of 81 case papers was subsequently requested for inspection.
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.
The cases that had been recorded in the statistical return to the Legal & Policy Forum meeting in January 2005 were also requested. However the office was unable to identify these cases for our inspection visit and hence these case papers were not audited.
In respect of the 36 charges (24 cases) that were automatically selected as detailed above, we found that:
Of the 4 charges (4 cases) marked to receive a warning letter
In respect of the 2 charges reported in FY 2002-03, warning letters were indeed issued (in apparent contravention of the policy since they were issued prior to 24 June 2004). However, in both cases, the Fiscal had sought instructions from Crown Counsel as to how to proceed and had been directed to issue warning letters.
In respect of one of the charges reported in FY 2003-04, a warning letter had indeed been issued. However, this occurred after 24 June 2004, and inspection revealed that the Area Fiscal had duly considered the case and the issue of a warning letter had been approved.
Of the 7 charges (3 cases) recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2002-03
Of the 8 charges (4 cases) recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2003-04
Of the 10 charges (9 cases) recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings' (the coding system employed by the National Database does not allow for recording of reason for a marking of 'no proceedings' at charge level), reported in FY 2003-2004.
In respect of 5 of the charges (6 cases), the decision to take no proceedings was either correct or unavoidable (reasons included insufficient evidence, lack of corroboration, witnesses failing to appear and refusal by sheriff to adjourn the case).
Of the 2 charges with a section 96 aggravation attached, recorded as requiring to be marked, reported in FY 2003-04
Of the one charge with a section 96 aggravation attached, recorded as being marked initially for a fiscal fine, which was subsequently not paid, reported in FY 2003-04
Of the 4 charges (3 cases; one of these charges was part of one of the cases requested re bullet point (d) above) with section 96 aggravations attached, recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings', reported in FY 2003-04
The office, therefore, could not find a total of 7 case papers (15 charges) specifically requested for inspection.
In summary, of the 21 charges (17 cases) specifically requested for inspection that we did see we found that the office complied with Departmental policy on marking in 13 cases (16 charges). In 2 cases (2 charges), Departmental policy on marking was not complied with. In one case (containing 2 charges), marking policy had been complied with in that the case had been marked for proceedings but was not progressed thereafter. The reason was not clear. In the remaining case there had been a delay in marking however the race element was pursued via a common law (i.e. non statutory) charge. The office complied with Departmental policy on conduct of court proceedings in 8 cases (9 charges). Conduct of court proceedings was not a relevant issue in a further 8 cases (11 charges) and details could not be obtained in one further case as it was a High Court case (no Court minutes are attached to HC case papers). We found that 7 cases were correctly referred to Victim Information and Advice (VIA). In a further 6 cases, referral to VIA was not a relevant issue, while it could not be ascertained whether the case had been referred to VIA in another 4 cases. Referral to VIA can, however, be assumed.
Of the remaining 63 charges (59 cases - 2 of these cases were part of the specific request sample as they contained charges of specific interest, in addition to charges that were selected as part of the 'normal' sample) that we had requested, the office was unable to find 18 case papers (20 charges). In respect, therefore of the remaining 43 charges (41 cases) we found that the office complied with Departmental policy on marking in 40 cases (42 charges). In the remaining case, marking was complied with at the initial stage of marking ('first mark') but a delay in processing led to no proceedings being taken on the charge. There was compliance with Departmental policy in respect of conduct of court proceedings in 27 cases (28 charges). Of the other 14 cases, compliance during court proceedings was not a relevant issue in 5 cases (6 charges) - in 2 cases no proceedings were taken and 3 cases (4 charges) were referred to the Children's Reporter. The remaining 8 cases were High Court cases; hence compliance during court proceedings could not be ascertained due to the absence of minutes in the case papers.
We found that 17 out of 41 cases were correctly referred to Victim Information and Advice Division (VIA). In a further 5 cases it had not been appropriate to refer the case to VIA (in 2 cases no proceedings were taken and 3 cases were referred to the Children's Reporter), while no details were available again for the 8 High Court cases - however, High Court cases should automatically be referred to VIA as with all race cases. In the remaining 11 cases, it could not be ascertained from the information available whether referral to VIA had taken place but again can be presumed.
Due to the fact that 25 cases requested could not be found a second sample of charges was selected and duly requested. This was done to reinstate the sample size. For the second sampling exercise, a sample of 16 section 50 charges and 14 charges with section 96 aggravations recorded against them was drawn (total of 29 case papers).
Of the 29 cases requested, the office was unable to find 4 cases. In respect, therefore, of the 25 cases we inspected, we found that the office complied with Departmental policy on marking in respect of 24 cases (25 charges). In the other case, a plea of 'Not Guilty' had been accepted by the court depute, but it was not clear why - the case had been marked for a copy to go to the Area Fiscal. There was compliance with Departmental policy in respect of conduct of court proceedings in 19 cases (20 charges) - a further 4 cases were High Court cases hence insufficient information was available to ascertain. Conduct of court proceedings was not a relevant issue in the remaining 2 cases.
A total of 12 cases were correctly referred to VIA - again, insufficient information was available in respect of the 4 High Court (HC) cases to ascertain whether appropriate referral to VIA had taken place (although referral to VIA should be automatic in HC cases). There were a further 6 cases (non-HC) in which insufficient information meant it was not possible to tell if referral to VIA had taken place but could be reasonably assumed. In the remaining 3 cases, referral to VIA was not a relevant issue.
Monitoring of race crime
At the time of our inspection, the Divisional Fiscal was unable to confirm that she saw (as required) all race charges/cases being reported to the division; indeed it was likely she did not, as return of monitoring forms A and B to her was inconsistent.
Since our inspection steps have been taken to remedy this situation and improve internal monitoring of race crime, which should in turn improve the quality and reliability of information being fed back to Crown Office (returns to Legal and Policy Forum meetings). The planned changes are to be adopted by the Glasgow office as a whole.
The office intends to adopt a monitoring system based on the Hamilton office model, details of which are available in the Hamilton office report: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/ipis/hamilton-report.
Basically, this will involve the creation and maintenance of a database holding details of all race charges reported, for each Glasgow division. Regular inspection of this database will allow checks on progress of cases to be made and appropriate action to be taken (depending on status of cases eg pursuance of forms A and B). Liaison is ongoing between the Glasgow and Hamilton office re the set-up and efficient operation of such a system.
The concern re monitoring has been raised with the Department which shares the concern and has asked its software developer to develop an audit function on the IT system (FOS). This will automatically route all cases with a racist charge to senior managers for checking. It is hoped this will be operational by spring 2006.
We are encouraged by these developments and the ready acceptance of the office to tighten its procedures and will examine the functioning of the planned monitoring system when we next visit the Glasgow office for further inspection.
Interpreters
We audited a total of 81 case papers. When considering if the interpretation and translation needs of witnesses were met there were no such needs in 70 out of the 81 cases. In the remaining 11 cases, attempts had been made to meet the interpretation and language needs of victims and witnesses in 9 cases and in 2 cases it could not be ascertained from the information available.
There is a high demand in the Glasgow office for interpreting services - most likely the highest in the country - with the office reporting that interpreters had been ordered a total of 521 times over the period 1 February 2004 to 31 January 2005. The ordering of interpreters for the Glasgow office became a centralised function as of March 2004 - one member of staff who works in the cash room, is responsible for ordering interpreters for all Divisions. We spoke to the member of staff involved and learned that he maintains a comprehensive electronic record (in spreadsheet form) and a hard-copy diary in respect of interpreters that are requested and subsequently ordered for the office. It was felt that the centralisation of ordering interpreters had facilitated better records keeping and that the system functioned very well. No problems were reported with the supply of interpreters despite the wide range of languages that are requested.
The interpreter monitoring forms issued by Crown Office consist of two sections, part one of which is to be completed by the interpreter and part two which is to be completed by the Court Depute. The office reported that since a note has been included to explain that payment will be withheld until part one of the form is completed they now have a 100 per cent return rate in respect of that part of the form. However part two is not always returned from court but is more usually completed and returned by precognition officers after precognition and returns are seldom made by anyone from the District Court. However, no problems re quality of interpreters provided had been orally reported to the member of staff who collates the forms.
Deaths
The Deaths Unit in Glasgow does not record separately the number of reported deaths where racial and cultural considerations are a feature. We were told that it regularly deals with routine deaths where representations are made re the holding/timing of post mortems made on behalf of the family due to religious considerations and that every effort is made by staff to accommodate such considerations where possible.
The office reported that as part of the interface with WSREC (The West Of Scotland Racial Equality Council) and, through attendance at the Scottish Executive Committee, booklets explaining the role of the Procurator Fiscal in connection with deaths were handed out and there had been discussions on the sensitive handling of such deaths with an invitation to answer any further queries. Staff made the point that COPFS are aware of the concern and impact deaths procedures have on the ethnic minority communities.
Complaints against the police
G Division staff reported that they had received/dealt with 7 complaints made by a member of a minority ethnic community against the police over the period 1 Feb 2004 to 31 Jan 2005. We obtained and audited these cases for compliance with Departmental race policy - decisions made by the fiscal in respect of the complaint - and found all decisions made were in line with policy.
Employment
Latest data [1] shows that just over 95 per cent of the population in the Glasgow Sheriff Court District area is from a white background. Other ethnic groups, of which Pakistani is the largest at 2.3 per cent, account for slightly less than 5 per cent.
As at 1 May 2005, Glasgow G Division had a staff of 85 (79 permanent and 6 temporary staff), consisting of:
Legal staff
· 1 member of the Senior Civil Service
· 6 Principal Deputes
· 16 Procurator Fiscal Deputes
· 9 Precognition Officers
Administrative staff
· 1 Band E manager
· 1 Band D manager
· 5 Band C managers
· 40 Band B staff
Casual staff
· 6 Band B staff
There are a total of 12 staff from a minority ethnic background (as self-reported to Human Resources Division in COPFS via survey) in the Glasgow office as a whole. Small numbers (less than 5) prevent disclosure of the number of staff who are from a minority ethnic background specifically in G Division. However, when comparing minority ethnic representation in the Glasgow Sheriff Court District area with that in the Glasgow fiscal office we found that the fiscal office compared very favourably - 5 per cent of the population in the area being from a minority ethnic background compared with 14 per cent of staff in the Glasgow office.
As at 1 June 2005, 76 per cent of staff in the Glasgow office had attended the Departmental Diversity Awareness Programme. 21 per cent of staff had re-scheduled dates to attend while 3 per cent were either absent or ill long term. However, we are aware that all staff who had rescheduled have now completed the course. One member of staff is a presenter on the Diversity Awareness course hence attendance on the course is not applicable.
Two members of G Division staff are on the Glasgow Area Resource Team (ART). Two members of staff have also completed the Introduction to Professional Practice course at the University of Paisley course. Three members of staff also participate in a Race Implementation Group - a spin-off from the ART (one of these members is the Divisional Procurator Fiscal who chairs the group).
Consultation
Glasgow G Division has made and continues to make significant efforts to reach into the community.
G Division is the largest of the 4 Glasgow Divisions (sub-divisions of the Glasgow Fiscal's Office) and has within its jurisdiction a considerably large concentration of residents from an ethnic minority. The Divisional Fiscal for G Division is in charge of the overall Glasgow race portfolio and is therefore involved in outreach activities across the whole city.
In relation to MARIM Groups (Multi Agency Racial Incident Monitoring) due to the size of the Division there are 2 such groups, which meet every 2 months. The first one is the South East MARIM which takes place at Aikenhead Road Police Office. Representatives from all of the agencies serving the community regularly attend this meeting and there is the opportunity to report on the progress of racist incidents which have been reported to the Fiscal's Office for consideration as criminal cases. There is the opportunity to discuss particular problems and perceptions of how the Procurator Fiscal has been dealing with cases and to underline the Office's commitment to the robust prosecution of racist cases laid down by the Lord Advocate's guidelines.
It also provides an opportunity for mutual training. Information and support is provided where appropriate and meetings have been arranged with other agencies in particular representative organizations from Muslim Women's Aid and asylum seekers.
The second MARIM is the South West MARIM which takes place at Helen Street Police Office. This does not meet quite as frequently as the South East one but similar issues are discussed at this forum. It is proposed within the next 12 months to arrange for a black and minority ethnic women's group to be convened in order to explain the function of the Domestic Abuse Court (this is a Glasgow Sheriff Court pilot). It is the intention to look at additional issues faced by black and minority ethnic women who experience domestic abuse. Working in conjunction with the West of Scotland Racial Equality Council (WSREC) secondee it is hoped that some form of session will be arranged whereby a greater understanding of the shame, guilt, duty and honour cycle linked to domestic abuse can be achieved. It is hoped that as well as gaining a greater appreciation of the impact that fear, racism and both family and community pressures can bring to bear on women from ethnic minorities that it would also be the ideal opportunity to explain the great benefits which are now being derived from the Domestic Abuse Court.
In addition to these two MARIMS the Divisional Fiscal for G Division is the Area representative for Glasgow and the Strathclyde wide MARIM Steering Group. This met fairly infrequently until July 2004 since when it has met monthly to revamp itself and the MARIMs. There has been considerable effort made to improve 3rd party reporting, one of the goals of the Steering Group. Currently this group is looking at the overall strategy for MARIM Groups and finding ways of encouraging other members apart from the Police to chair the meetings of MARIMs (historically the Police have been the main driver and chairs of MARIM Groups). This re-evaluation is likely to impact on the operation and composition of MARIM Groups.
In addition the G Division Fiscal represents the Glasgow area on the West of Scotland Race Equality Executive Committee which meets on a monthly basis. This provides her with an opportunity to provide an update and report on the work of the Glasgow office including the co-operation between the Glasgow office and the West of Scotland Racial Equality Council secondees. These are members of WESREC`s staff on secondment working in the Glasgow (and some other) fiscal offices. It also gives members of the Committee an opportunity to express concerns and raise questions. One example of concerns and questions being raised has been in relation to the role of the Procurator Fiscal in the investigation of sudden deaths. As a result of this copies of the guidance to Fiscals on the investigation of sudden deaths have been circulated to members of the group. Also in that capacity the Divisional Fiscal attends the Annual General Meeting of the West of Scotland Racial Equality Council.
The Glasgow office continues with the policy of employing secondees (currently one) from the West of Scotland Racial Equality Council. This has been running for some years now and the work of the secondees varies from year to year but has as its mainstay the ability to organize trips to broaden the knowledge and understanding of other minority groups and religions and places of worship. This has resulted in very popular and regular visits to the Mosque, the Sikh Gurdwara, the Hindu Mandir and to the Synagogue. The office attempts an evaluation of these visits to try and gain an insight into what benefits the staff obtain from them.
On the social front a number of initiatives have taken place. Female members of the Glasgow staff were invited to join female Muslim worshippers at the Mosque to celebrate Iftar at the end of Ramadan.
In conjunction with criminal justice partners in particular the Sheriff Clerk's Office an open evening was organized for members of the ethnic minority communities to attend. Sixteen people from the Glasgow Fiscal's Office volunteered to attend and a series of talks were given on the role of COPFS and those attending had the opportunity of getting information on the role of the COPFS and its response to racist crime.
On the topic of recruitment the office has taken part in several careers fairs manning a stall with information in several languages encouraging recruitment into all levels of the organization.
The Divisional Fiscal attends meetings of the Public Authorities Racial Equality Forum (PAREF) which is an organization giving members from the main public authorities and criminal justice agencies a chance to come together to discuss their approach to diversity and anti-racism. It is a useful forum for the exchange of information especially on the approach for other large organizations on dealing with staff and members of the public whom they are serving from minority backgrounds.
The Divisional Fiscal has addressed the Ethnic Minority Enterprise Council (EMEC) on the role of the Procurator Fiscal and on recruitment policy. She has been asked and will speak to the Scottish Refugee Council (SRC) and to the Glasgow Against Racism Alliance (GARA). Dates for this have still to be arranged.
A race implementation group has been set up in the Glasgow office to take forward a diversity events programme within Glasgow. The first of these events is due to take place on 28 September 2005 and is a welcome event for asylum seekers and refugees new to the Glasgow community. It is planned as a two-hour event with a short series of presentations from COPFS staff explaining the main roles of the Procurator Fiscal and their admin staff and the recruitment policy of the Department. It will then be followed by a question and answer session and a light buffet. It is scheduled to take place in Stow College.
On the question of staff awareness following the virtual complete rollout of the Department's diversity training the Glasgow office has decided in order to ensure continued awareness and understanding of the Department's response that there should be events for this purpose. Two events have been planned for September 2005 with presentations from the Diversity Team from Crown Office and the current WESREC secondee in the Glasgow office. It is intended that these will cover core functions and the future for the Department regarding diversity and topical issues such as disability discrimination.
In addition to this the Glasgow office (in keeping with other Areas) has an Area Resource Team, which meets on a quarterly basis and includes other criminal justice partners. The office feels that as a result of the full and forthright discussions that take place at these meetings that many of the ideas and initiatives referred to above have been drawn up.
In particular in relation to community liaison following the investigation into the death of Kriss Donald and heightened tension particularly in G Division close liaison was kept with the Police to ensure that all parties were aware of any likely difficulties, flashpoints or concerns during the time of the investigation and subsequent trial.
The WESREC secondees referred to above have also been utilised on a one-to-one basis in particular cases and have been used as a contact point for next-of-kin etc. In addition these secondees have been helpful in dealing with either Muslim accused or Muslim witnesses and have covered issues such as the use of the Koran, how to present evidence and the wearing of the hajib with possible subsequent difficulties of identification.
A Depute in the office has delivered a large amount of training at the Cardonald College Interpreting course on the best practice and advice on court work. Together with a Fiscal officer, they have delivered 'Dealing with Interpreters' training to Deputes.
Conclusion
On the prosecution of racist crime G Division in the Glasgow office has by far the biggest number of cases and our analysis and audit showed an overall high compliance with Departmental policy. The few exceptions we found had largely been dealt with at the time of the inspection.
The concern regarding the monitoring of race cases has been willingly taken on board and a new system is being put in place to ensure that all race cases will be seen by the Divisional Fiscal and monitored in accordance with Departmental policy.
On the question of outreach G Division both for its own area and for the Glasgow Fiscal's area generally has in conjunction with partners and on its own initiative made considerable effort and is to be commended for the amount of work largely done on employees' own time in this area.
On the employment front from an ethnic minority population in Glasgow Sheriff Court area of 5% the office has currently a recruitment figure from the minority ethnic community of 14% and is again to be commended on the success of the various initiatives which have led to this position.
[1] General Register Office for Scotland 2001 Census of Population