The Scottish Government

OFFICE INSPECTION - PERTH

23 AUGUST 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 Perth. The Perth office is part of the Tayside 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 of 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 wee 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 reasons 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 return 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 Perth Fiscal Office, 2003-04 and 2004-05

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

• 4 Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported
• 42 Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
• 27 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported

And in FY 2004-05:

• 7 Section 50A(1) (a) charges were reported
• 45 Section 50A(1) (b) charges were reported
• 44 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported

A total of 8 charges (7 case papers) were automatically requested for inspection. These consisted of:

• 2 charges marked to receive a warning letter, reported in FY 2004-05
• 2 charges recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings' (the coding system employed by the National Database does not allow for recording of reasons for a marking of 'no proceedings' at charge level), reported in FY 2004-05
• 3 charges with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against them, marked to receive warning letters, reported in FY 2004-05

• 1 charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it, marked for 'no proceedings', reported in FY 2004-05

A sample of 25 Section 50A(1) charges and 19 charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them was drawn in addition to the 8 charges which were automatically selected. Resulting from the sampling exercise, therefore, a total of 35 case papers (52 charges) were 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.

Note also that a case can contain one or more charges that are specifically requested for inspection (for whatever reason) and one or more charges selected simply as part of the sampling procedure.

In respect of the 8 charges that were automatically selected (as detailed above) we found that:

Of the 2 charges marked to receive a warning letter:

• In respect of the first charge a warning letter had indeed been issued. However, the charge was reported to the fiscal (and hence marked) after 23 June 2004 and the marking and subsequent issue of a warning letter was found to be appropriate.

• The office advised that the other case papers requested, containing the charge of interest, had been disposed of.

Of the 2 charges recorded as being marked for 'no proceedings':

• In respect of the first charge, the Section 50 charge was indeed marked for no proceedings but was substituted with a Section 96 aggravation. However, the reason for changing the charge was unclear as there was corroboration in respect of the Section 50 charge (lack of corroboration would be a common reason for such substitution).

• In respect of the other charge, the decision to take no proceedings was correct.

Of the 3 charges with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against them, marked to receive warning letters:

· In respect of the first charge a warning letter had indeed been issued. However, the charge was reported to the fiscal (and hence marked) after 23 June 2004 and the marking and subsequent issue of a warning letter was found to be appropriate.

· In respect of the second charge a warning letter had indeed been issued. However, again the charge was reported to the fiscal (and hence marked) after 23 June 2004 and the marking and subsequent issue of a warning letter was found to be appropriate.

· In respect of the third charge a warning letter had indeed been issued. This was in apparent contravention of the policy as it was prior to 23 June 2004. However, inspection revealed that the issue of a warning letter was appropriate in the circumstances.

Of the charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it, marked for 'no proceedings':

· The office could not find the case papers requested.

The office was unable to find a further 2 case papers (containing 3 charges) which we requested - note that the case noted in the last bullet point above also contained a charge which was selected as part of the 'random' sampling procedure.

In respect of the remaining 27 cases (40 charges), we found that the office complied with Departmental policy on marking in 26 cases (39 charges). In the remaining case the statutory charge was not for some unknown reason used and the common law breach of the peace was libelled instead. This however contained the racial element and a plea of guilty was obtained to this charge. The office complied with conduct of court proceedings in all relevant cases (20 out of 27).

With regard to 11 relevant cases all had been referred to Victim Information and Advice Division (VIA) appropriately.

Interpreters

In respect of the cases that we inspected the interpretation and translation needs of witnesses were met in all relevant cases, of which there were only two.

It was noted that in these two cases the police report did not address the issue of language needs - it was brought to the attention of fiscal staff at a later date that there was in fact a requirement for an interpreter and the matter was duly attended to by staff.

The office reported ordering an interpreter on only six occasions over the past twelve months. No problems were reported in relation to this.

Deaths

There were no deaths reported to the Perth office in the period concerned (1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005) where racial and/or cultural considerations were a feature.

Employment

Latest data [1] shows that 99 per cent of the population in the Perth Sheriff Court District area is from a white background. Other ethnic groups, of which Chinese is the largest at 0.2 per cent, account for one per cent.

As at 1st May 2005, Perth had a staff of 24, consisting of:

Legal staff

• 1 member of the Senior Civil Service
• 1 Principal Depute
• 6 Procurator Fiscal Deputes
• 2 Precognition Officers

Administrative staff

• 1 Band D Manager
• 1 Personal Assistant
• 1 Band C staff
• 11 Band B staff

Small numbers (less than 5) prevent disclosure of the exact number of staff who are from a minority ethnic background (as self-reported to Human Resources Division in COPFS via survey) in the Perth office. However, we concluded that minority ethnic representation in the office was in line with minority ethnic representation in the local population.

As at 1 June 2005, 84 per cent of staff in the Perth office had attended the Departmental Diversity Awareness Programme; all remaining members of staff have re-scheduled.

Consultation

The Perth office has a Multi-Agency Racial Incident Monitoring Group (MARIM) which the District Fiscal states provides a useful networking connection. This was launched in October 2004 and meets quarterly. A former member of the Fiscal staff was the prime mover in setting up this group. The local Chinese, Sikh and Hindu communities are represented on the group.

In addition to the MARIM the Perth office is represented on the Tayside Area Diversity Team which is chaired by the Area Fiscal.

The District Fiscal informed us that as far as he was aware there was little serious racial harassment or violence in the area but incidents of name-calling, abuse and the like did take place. Typically, though not exclusively, these involved Asian staff in shop premises. There were also occasional incidents of anti-English abuse.

Conclusions

The Perth office has a high level of compliance by legal staff in complying with Departmental policy on dealing with race cases. The examples of the use of warning letters examined by us had been appropriate uses of this disposal. In only one case was the statutory charge not for some unknown reason used and the common law breach was libelled instead. This however contained the racial element and a plea of guilty was obtained to this charge.

On the question of monitoring the District Fiscal could not be absolutely sure that he got all the monitoring forms completed by the legal staff. These monitoring forms consist of Forms A and B. Form A being completed by the marking Depute when the case is first received by the Police. It is not the practice for Tayside Police to supply the usual racial incident monitoring forms supplied to other Fiscals but their reports carry the equivalent information. We recommend that in line with other inspections we have carried out that an IT "fix" should be adopted to ensure that all cases are being seen by the District Fiscal and thereafter complete information sent to the Area Fiscal for onward monitoring by Crown Office.

So far as outreach is concerned this is to some extent in its infancy but the infrastructure has been put in place to build various bridges.

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