OFFICE INSPECTION - STONEHAVEN

13 SEPTEMBER 2006

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 Stonehaven. The Stonehaven office is part of the Grampian Area. It no longer has a separate District Procurator Fiscal and is run remotely from Aberdeen. The court at Stonehaven is covered when necessary by staff travelling to it.

Methodology

Our approach to office inspections involves 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 2004-05 and 2005-06 [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' December 2005).

The General Sample

We are concerned with the statutory race charges, as created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. A sample of Section 50A racial charges and charges with Section 96 racial aggravations recorded against them is 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 are 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 all such charges over a longer time period than that for the general sample (a minimum of 21 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 (i.e. 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 contained 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 (e.g. 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:

• special consideration was required, as defined in Annex 3 in Chapter 12 of the Book of Regulations [2] (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) 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 Legal and Policy Forum [3].

Table 1 - Racial Charges and Racial Aggravations reported to Stonehaven Fiscal Office in financial year (FY) 2004/05 and 2005/06[1]

The data extracted from the National Database revealed that in respect of the Stonehaven office, in FY year 2004/05:

• No Section 50A (1) (a) charges were reported
• 4 Section 50A (1) (b) charges were reported
• No charges with Section 96 aggravations recorded against them were reported

And in 2005/06 [1]:

• No Section 50A (1) (a) charges were reported
• 5 Section 50A (1) (b) charges were reported
• One charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it was 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 small number of cases involved, all 3 Section 50A charges (3 cases) reported in 2005 were requested for inspection; likewise the one charge (one case) with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it was requested. Therefore a total of 4 charges (4 cases papers) were requested for inspection.

In respect of the 3 Section 50A charges we found that policy had been complied with in respect of all charges.

In respect of the one charge with a Section 96 aggravation recorded against it we were of the view that there was in fact corroboration of the race element and that the correct charge to be proceeded with would have been a Section 50 A (1)(b) charge. Ultimately, a plea of guilty was accepted under deletion of the racial abuse and aggravation. The depute in court had, however, made full notes on the papers setting out the reason for accepting this plea. There were only two witnesses who could speak to the racial abuse, one of whom was the complainer who had learning difficulties. It was initially thought that the complainer would be a competent witness but a social worker accompanying the complainer to court was of the view that this was not the case. Additionally, the complainer's brother had passed away earlier that morning and it was not thought appropriate to seek to continue with the case.

The Risk Assessed Cases Request

A total of 2 charges (2 cases) were selected for inspection. The charges selected consisted of:

• One Section 50A charge marked to receive a fiscal fine, reported in FY 2005-06
• One Section 50A charge marked to receive a warning letter, reported in FY 2005-06

In respect of the charge marked to receive a fiscal fine we found that this had occurred as a result of an administrative error and was a duplicate of one of the cases inspected as part of the general sample which had correctly proceeded through the Sheriff Court and the accused had pled guilty.

In respect of the charge marked to receive a warning letter we found that the circumstances justified the decision which was made post the policy relaxation regarding warning letters. We were not able to ascertain from the papers whether the decision had been approved by the Area Procurator Fiscal.

Monitoring of Race Crime

Stonehaven cases are marked and processed by staff in Aberdeen. With regard to race crime cases a depute will mark cases and complete form A of the 'Racial Incident Monitoring Form'. This is then checked by a Principal Depute for compliance with Crown Office policy on race crime. At the conclusion of proceedings form B is completed by the court depute and again checked by a Principal Depute.

The Area Fiscal, also based in Aberdeen, is responsible for monitoring race crime figures and the Area Team is responsible for collating and forwarding the quarterly return to the Legal and Policy Forum.

The Area Fiscal provides feedback to the District Fiscals on the office's compliance with Crown Office race policy. In this case as narrated there is no District Fiscal

Interpreters

Fiscal officers preparing court papers are responsible for ordering interpreters on instructions written on minute sheets or the initial instruction FOS sheet. The office reports that there are no known problems with the use of interpreters.

The office was unable to advise how many times an interpreter was ordered for Stonehaven cases in the past twelve months, However, they were able to indicate that there was no need for documents to be translated.

None of the cases reviewed required the services of an interpreter.

Deaths

There were no deaths reported in Stonehaven within the past twelve months where racial and cultural considerations were a feature.

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.

No such complaints had been received in the relevant period.

Employment

Latest data [4] shows that over 99 per cent of the population in the Stonehaven Sheriff Court District area is from a white background. Other ethnic groups, of which a mixed background is the largest at 0.3 per cent, account for just less than one per cent of the population in the area.

Stonehaven work is absorbed into the Aberdeen business and no one single member of staff is solely dedicated to processing Stonehaven cases.

Diversity Awareness

All bar 4 staff at Aberdeen (which as stated now covers Stonehaven) have attended the Departmental Diversity Awareness Programme.

Consultation

The District PF in Aberdeen is a member of the Area Diversity Team where race issues are discussed.

The Grampian Racial Equality Council (GREC) is the main consultation contact point for the Aberdeen office. A member of staff attends the meetings of GREC.

Conclusions

The size of the sample of race cases examined was small (6 charges) and we took issue with 1 of these as narrated above although in the event there were evidential difficulties with that charge.

As Stonehaven is now for all practical purposes part of the Aberdeen office the comments relating to Aberdeen apply here as well. We inspected Aberdeen in October 2005.

[1] At time of extraction data was only available for the first nine months of FY 2005/06 ie April to December 2005

[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 Legal and Policy Forum is: To take the lead in the development of prosecution policy and consider legal and operational issues within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Forum also acts as sounding board for wider management issues and a means for all Area Fiscals to have an input into the overall management of the COPFS

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