Delivering Justice

Legitimacy

An acknowledgement by the public that the public have the authority to exercise power in order to police

The police force, March 2024

147,746 FTE police officers (+0.2% from previous year)

43 forces (inc: MET; the City and British Transport Police)

8 Metropolitan Forces account for 48.3% of the Force

Total workforce – 236,588 (+ 1.2 %)

122,249 Frontline officers (-1%)

81,303 Police Staff (+3.4%)

7539 Police Community Support officers (- 3.4%)

6118 Special Constables (-10.6%)

52,331 Female officers (35.4%)

10,046 BME officers (8.4%)

Other Government Agencies

• HMRC

• Child services

• Mental health service

Non-governmental agencies

• Employers

• Journalists

• Crime stoppers/ neighbourhood watch

Contributions of law enforcements by non-police

20% of all contributions were made by people other than the police

Role of the police

• problem solving

• peace keeping

• crime control and investigation(crime-fighters/sleuthing)

• apprehending offenders(arresting people)

• social service(regulation of social conflict)

• crime prevention

• emergency management

• order maintenance

Unique characteristics of the police

• capacity to wield non-negotiable force

  • ‘a mechanism for the distribution of non-negotiable coercive force, employed in accordance with the dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies’ (Bittner, 1970)

• Discretion→ can do what they have to do in order to keep peace

• allowed to use force or conversation

What did Bittner mean by ‘grasp of situational exigencies’?

the situation and context changes what force is used→ discretion

Discretion

• denotes the freedom of the individual officer to act according to their own judgement in particular situations

• central feature of criminal justice at every stage of administration

• legal authority of police is a critical element of discretionary justice

• [within police organisations] increases as one moves down the organisation

• low visibility

National powers(PACE)

• stop and search a person/vehicle in a public space

• enter private property, search premises and seize material(with or without a warrent)

• arrest

• take fingerprints and non-intimate samples

• detain a person in custody

Police powers

• stop and search

• arrest

• detention

• questioning

Themes linked to police powers

discretion

discrimination

regulation

Stop and Search

• any person/vehicle if reasonable grounds to do so

• reasonable suspicion(PACE 1984, code of practice A)

• appearance/description can also be reasonable grounds

• anyone s+s must be told the reason for the s+s and the outcome(esp. if negative)

• if a police officer isn’t in uniform, they must show their warrant card

• during a search, police can ask you to take off a coat/jacket/gloves

  • if further items are required then it must be out of public view- officer must be the same sex as the person

• PCSO’s cant s+s under section 1, however can s+s for alcohol and tobacco only

• specific police change leading to new legislation like the Terrorism Act 2000, means s+s can be done without the need for reasonable grounds(section 47a and 60)

Stop and search statistics

• in past approx. 1 million s+s conducted a year (Pover,2011)

• in recent years, has dropped significantly, but still fluctuates

• large disparities between ethnicities being s+s

Stop and search statistics, home office 2024

• in england and wales between April 2022 and March 2023, there were 529,474 s+s

• 9 s+s for every 1000 people nationally, down from 24.8 per 1000 people in year ending March 2010

• 24.5 s+s for every 1000 black people, and 5.9 for every 1000 white people

• 92 s+s for every 1000 people in the ‘black other’ ethnic group, the highest rate out of all ethnic groups- this includes people who don’t identify as black african or black caribbean, or weren’t recorded as such

• the majority(89%) of searches were of men and 11% women

Police power on the streets- PNDs

• penalty notice for disorder

• introduced in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

• fixed penalty notices, similar to motoring offences, for ‘fairly serious’ public order offences→ criminal damage, possession of cannabis or theft(low value)- lower scale offences that means arrest isn’t necessary

  • £80 fine to be paid within 21 days

  • no prosecution/conviction recorded(if paid on time)

• 129,018 PNDs issued(2007-08), 86,076(2010-11), 121,900(2011-12)→ is irregular in pattern (Sanders and Young 2012)

• by 2018/19, 20,400 issued, -7% from previous year

• as of 2022, only 12,700 issued

• form of summary justice (Cohen 1995)- quick and east justice, can help keep courts free for more serious offences

Police may arrest anyone they…

• ‘know’ to be or ‘suspect’ to be about to commit an offence

• ‘find’ in the process of committing an offence already

• ‘know’ somebody is guilty of having committed an offence already

  • all subject to PACE 1984

Arrests statistics

• 2007-08 police arrested 1,427,387 people

• 2014-15 police arrested 919,121 people→ downward trend

• 2022-23 police arrested 677,261 people→ over 52% less than 2007-08

Reasons for arrests statistics

• lack of police officers after cuts→ less police to arrest people

• more and better use of out of court disposals- OOCDs

• introduction and use of voluntary interviews→ doesn’t necessitate arrests initially

public response to arrest statistics

• arrest is just one of the powers police possess to tackle crime, and the number of arrests fails to capture trends such as the increase in voluntary attendance at police stations and use of community resolutions→ Home Office 2018

• Police are reluctant to arrest people because of the amount of paprwork, so officers are encouraged to give warnings rather than arrest, this means that people are on the street who otherwise might be prosecuted and ‘sends a signal that reverberates very quickly, which will lead criminals to think they can get away with it’→ Lord Blunkett, former Home Secretary

• crime has gone up in the last year, at a time when investigations are increasingly being discontinued.. this doesn’t inspire confidence in the justice system for victims who increasingly feel they’re being marginalized by the police and justice process→ Harry Fletcher, chair, Voice 4 Victims

Discretion pt2

• discretion denotes the freedom of the individual officer to act according to own judgement in particular situations(Jones 2009)

• the police are rquired to enforce the law but..

  • discretion is created as a consequence to how laws are defined→ actus reus(the action or conduct element to committing a crime) with mens rea(a guilty or criminal mind) both required

• laws can be general- open to interpretation and ambiguity(e.g. covid-19)

• the police can’t enforce all laws, all of the time

• they have to operate within the bounds of financial budgets

• some offences/crime has to be prioritised over others

• the police are often left to respond to external pressures(government, etc)

• the police must use their discretion when deciding to act, how to and when to use their powers

What can affect discretion?

• ‘cop culture’→ racism, stereotyping, sexism(Chan, 2009, Loftus, 2009, Reiner, 2010)

• socio-demographics→ the police aren’t socially representative.. “the homogeneity of this group coupled with police training and socialisation processes regurgitates ‘cop culture’“ (Sanders and Young 2012)

  • evidence: approx. 34.7% of police officers in England and Wales are female(all ranks), approx. 8.4% are BAME(all ranks)

Prejudice and bias in policing

critical analysis

• prior to the inro of PACE 1984, s+s and arrests were commonly based on stereotypes regarding age, gender and race- whether PACE 1984 reduced prejudice and bias is debatable

  • police powers have become more intrusive in effect since PACE 1984→ opens up the debate again about if the police have too much power and their authority is open to abuse of those powers

Evidence of prejudice and bias

particularly in the USA

exists with officers using racist and abusive language, or even brutality

→ Rodney King 1991- LAPD officers brutally beat black male, King, during a routine traffic stop

→ George Floyd 2020- died after prolonged brutal restraint by an officer over a fake $20 bill

→ Brixton riots 1981- over-policing and robust tactics against black communities in south london

→ Mark Duggan shooting 2011- let to widespread riots after Duggan was shot dead by police

→ Stephen Lawrence murder 1993- failings underpinned by institutional racism by Met Police during the investigation of Stephen’s murder led to MacPherson Report 1999

→ Stop and Search or arrest as a ‘flashpoint’- ‘policing the crisis’, Stuart Hall et al (1978)

detention

• from point of arrest: clear time limits to max. of 24 hours, which can be extended to 36(senior officer can extend this) or 96 hours(authorised by a magistrate), if you’re suspected of a serious crime, such as murder

• you can be held without charge for up to 14 days, if the suspect is arrested under the terrorism act 2000, and for up to 28 days under the terrorism act 2006

• All PACE 1984 codes of practice must be adhered to throughout

• the ‘custody officer’ is very important in this(Sergeant or Inspector) who decides whether the suspect should/can be detained and oversees their treatment and welfare

The custody officer’s roles

• assessing

  • assessing evidence- must not be involved in the process of securing evidence from it about suspects (PACE, s36(5))

• Ensuring- all codes of practice are adhered to strictly

• monitoring- treatment and welfare of detainees

• facilitating- access of free legal aid upon request

• arranging- special requirements for vulnerable

Custody officer discretion

• in addition to duties under PACE 1984

• Decide whether to change/caution the suspect(if enough evidence)

• assess whether continued detention is needed and if bail considered

• allow visits from family/friends/others with an interest in the detainee’s welfare

• allow multiple attempts to be made until a preferred solicitor has been contacted and agreed to provide advice

• isolate a person until clinical directions have been made, if there are welfare concerns

• consider options if detainee is vulnerable to self-harm or injury

Interrogation/questioning

• interviewed under caution

  • “you don’t have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. anything you do say may be given in evidence“

• suspects have the right to remain silent, or can use ‘no comment’ defence in interview- neither silence or ‘no comment’ constitutes an admission of guilt

• all interviews are audio recorded, some are now visually recorded(mostly for serious crimes)

The codes- PACE 1984

• 8 codes

• code A-H

Code A (PACE 1984)

exercised by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest and the need for a police officer to make a record of a stop or encounter

Code B (PACE 1984)

police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons

Code C (PACE 1984)

requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects no related to terrorism in police custody

includes the requirement to explain a person’s rights while detained and the requirement to explain the rights of a person who hasn’t been arrested that apply to a voluntary interview

Code D (PACE 1984)

Main methods used by the police to identify people in connection of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records

Code E (PACE 1984)

Audio recording of interviews with suspects in the police station

Code F (PACE 1984)

Visual recoding with sound of suspects- there is no statutory requirement on police officers to visually record interviews, but the contents of this code should be considered if an interviewing officer decides to make a visual recording with sound of an interview

Code G (PACE 1984)

Powers of arrest under Section 24 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984, as amended by section 110 of the serious and organised crime act 2005

Code H (PACE 1984)

requirements for the detention, treatment, and questioning of suspects related to terrorism in police custody by police officers

included the requirement to explain a person’s rights while detained in connection with terrorism

Why PACE 1984 is important

• prior to PACE, there were abuses and ‘tactics’ used to secure confessions or fabrication of evidence to secure prosecutions, this led to miscarriages of justice, which can have devastating effects of those wrongly accused

Cases of miscarriages of justice prior to PACE 1984

→ Guildford four(1974) and Birmingham six(1975)- wrongly imprisoned for IRA terrorist bombings of pubs

→ Derek Bentley(1952)- ‘mentally handicapped’ man who ‘shot’ a police officer dead during a burglary

→ Stefan Kiszko(1975)- convicted of murder and rape of an 11 year old girl, spent 16 years in prison before being exonerated. Died a year after release. The real killer was convicted on DNA evidence in 2007

→ Barry George(2001)- convicted of the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando on weak evidence because he fitted the profile due to his celebrity stalking etc.

Prosecution

The police and crown prosecution service relationship

historical context→ police had traditionally been responsible for bringing prosecutions before the courts of suspects, the prosecution of offences act 1985 introduced and the CPS was established in 1986

• PACE 1984 and CPS 1986 showed big changes in criminal justice and policing

Considerations at the police station when charging/prosecuting

• release without charge or bail

• release without charge but on bail- further enquiries needed etc

• release without charge but on bail for police to take legal advice from the CPS

• charge with an offence- can be remanded in custody to appear before a magistrate’s court which will lead to a remand period in prison (not police custody) until going to trial (guilty/not guilty plea)

Charging and prosecution

• relationship between the police and CPS is vital (although awkward at times)

• the police have key roles in the prosecution process

• police also retain or perform other tasks integral to the conduct of prosecutions

  • obtaining further witness statements

  • ‘warning’ witnesses of attendance at court

  • keeping victims informed regarding the process and progress of the case

Principle areas of crime control+prevention

1. how the CJS tries to control and prevent crime

2. introduction of and growth in crime prevention

3. theoretical perspectives on crime prevention

Herbert Packer

• influential legal scholar who developed 2 important models for understanding how CJS operates

  • crime control model and the due process model

• Crime control model views the CJS as an efficient ‘assembly line’ focused on quickly processing cases and punishing offenders

• Due process model prioritises protecting individual rights through careful legal procedures even if it reduces efficiency

• packer argued that real CJS doesn’t purely follow either midel, but rather operate on a spectrum between the two poles

• saw these models as useful analytical tools for understanding tensions within CJS, particularly between values like efficiency and individual rights

the crime control model

• repression of criminal conduct as the most important function of criminal justice

• high conviction rates and swift processing of cases

• informal fact-finding processes and administrative efficiency

• the presumption that police screening is reliable

• the view that the criminal process is like an assembly line where cases move quickly through standardised procedures

the due process model

• the possibility of error in informal fact-finding processes

• the importance of formal, adjudicative adversarial fact-finding

• need for barriers and obstacles to prevent cases from moving easily through the system

• the primacy of individual rights over efficiency

• principle that the power of the state must be limited to protect individual autonomy

defining crime control and prevention

• Hughes(2001:63)→ “any action taken or technique employed by private individuals or public agencies aimed at the reduction of damage caused ny acts defined as criminal by the state“

• crime prevention means any action- by both individuals and organisations- that help reduce criminal damage in society

• preventions isn’t just the government’s job- individual citizens need to take responsibility for their own security measures

• while crime prevention is a core goal of the CJS, it can’t prevent crime by itself

• effective prevention requires teamwork between many different sectors- inc. health, education, housing, and private businesses like banks

• this shared responsibility approach(responsibilisation) means everyone in society has a role to play in preventing crime, rather than relying solely on the state

Policy initiatives from 2011

• the serious and organised crime strategy(2015): “the UK government have a new approach to fighting crime that involves a shift of power frome Whitehall to local communities. The police have been given far greater freedom to do their jobs, and the public more power to hold them to account“

• this shifted the power from central government to local communities, promoting shared responsibility

Key local initiatives of policy initiatives from 2011

• community triggers- a mechanism that allows victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to request a formal case review if they feel their complaints have not been adequately addressed by local authorities- to address persistent anti-social behaviour

• community safety partnerships(CSPs)

• police and crime commissioners(PCCs)

main focus areas of policy initiatives from 2011

• human trafficking

• drug trafficking

• fraud

• cybercrime

strategy of policy initiatives from 2011

• multiple connected levels

• micro level(local communities)

• macro level (regional/national)

• these levels interact and influence each other- not a one-way process

the national referral mechanism(NRM)- policy initiatives from 2011

• a system designed to help agencies share information about trafficking victims

• covers cases like country lines and child criminal exploration

• agencies have a legal duty to report potential victims

• helps coordinate victim support, accommodation, and service

street-level crime maps- policy initiatives from 2011

• provide public access to up-to-date local crime information

• allow people to see what crimes are happening in their area

• help increase transparency and public awareness

disclosure schemes- policy initiatives from 2011

• pivotal in changing UK child protection and domestic violence laws, created off the back of tragic cases that exposed critical gaps in the system

• these cases all share a common theme: they reveal dangerous gaps in information sharing and reporting requirements that, when fixed, could help prevent future tragedies.

  • each resulted in significant legal changes that prioritise prevention through better information access and mandatory reporting

disclosure schemes- Sarah’s law

• Sarah Payne case(2000)(Sarah’s Law)

  • 8y.o. Sarah was abduced and murdered by Roy Whiting, a known sex offender

  • her mother, Sara campaigned for parents’ rights to know about sec offenders

  • the case revealed the dangerous gap in public knowledge about convicted offenders living locally

  • led to the child sex offender disclosure scheme in 2010, allowing parents to check if someone with access to their children has relevant convictions

  • fundamentally changed how we approach children protection in communities

disclosure schemes- Clare’s law

• Clare Wood case (2009)(Clare’s law)

  • clare was murdered by her ex-partner, George Appleton, who had a history of violence against women

• she had no way of knowing about his violent past before entering the relationship

• her father, Michael Brown, campaigned for change, leading to the domestic violence disclosure scheme in 2014

• highlighted how lack of information about previous domestic violence puts new partners at risk

• changes how we approach domestic violence prevention by enabling informed choices

disclosure schemes- Daniel’s law

• Daniel Pelka(2012)(Daniel’s Law)

  • 4y.o. Daniel died from abuse and starvation by his mother and stepfather

  • multiple agencies had contact with Daniel but failed to act decisively

  • school staff noticed signs but didn’t have clear reporting requirements

  • led to mandatory reporting requirements and better inter-agency communication

  • exposed critical failures in how agencies work together to protect vulnerable children

Community safety partnerships(CSPs)- policy initiatives from 2011

• involve multiple agencies working together

• police, local authorities, fire and rescue

• probation services, health, education

• charities and community organisation

Anti-social behaviour(ASB)- policy initiative from 2011

• defined as behaviour causing harassment, alarm, or distress

• seen as potential gateway to more serious crime

• includes aggressive, intimidating, and destructive behaviour

• damages others’ quality of life

hate crime legislation- policy initiative from 2011

• protects against violence motivated by

  • disability

  • gender identity

  • race/ethnicity

  • religion/faith

  • sexual orientation

banning orders- policy initiatives from 2011

• primarily used in football to prevent known troublemakers from attending matches

• also used in night time economy(e.g. PubWatch schemes)

• restricts access to venues for previous offenders

scrap metal industry reform- policy initiatives from 2011

• banned cash payments for scrap metal

• aims to reduce theft of metals from buildings

• helps prevent criminal damage to property

process of crime prevention and control

How crime control and prevention started

• 1965- cornish committee

  • proposed dedicated crime prevention officers in every police force

  • based on Packers criminal justice theories

• 1970s

  • crime prevention cont. but crime rates kept rising

  • law and order because a key political issue

• Thatcher era

  • first politician to make law and order central to election campaign

  • campaigned on being ‘tough on crime’

  • crime was public’s number 1 priority

• Tony Blair approach

  • introduced ‘tough on crime, tough on causes of crime’

  • focused on prevention methods

  • created police community support officers

• Austerity period(2010 onward)

  • significant cuts under Cameron gov

  • loss of over 20,000 police officers

  • police warned abut impact on crime prevention

  • cuts affect multiple agencies

• Boris Johnson’s response

  • acknowledged impact of cuts on crime prevention

  • pledged to replace 20,000 lost PO

  • note: replacement, not additional positions

the growth of crime prevention

• evelved significantly over the last 4 decades through community engagement and technological advancement

• key developments include:

  • neighbourhood watch

  • CCTV implementation

  • partnership programs- evolution from crime and disorder reduction partnerships to today’s violence reduction partnerships, focusing specifically on issues like street gangs and youth crimes

• the consistent thread throughout these developments has been

  • strong political emphasis on community-police collaboration

  • growth of public participation in crime prevention

  • increasing use of technology for surveillance and deterrence

Issues with growth of crime prevention

community safety partnerships(2010 onwards)- rebranded from crime and disorder reduction partnerships, designed to promote multi-agency collaboration in crime prevention

• key challenges

  • partnership quality→ questions about strength and effectiveness of inter-agency relationships

  • leadership issues→ unclear hierarchies and responsibilities among participating organisations

  • resource distributions→ conflicts over budget allocation and policy implementation

  • communication→ persistent issues with info sharing and coordination between agencies

core problem with growth of crime prevention

• despite the ‘partnership’ label, police often end up leading initiatives by default due to the crime prevention focus

• this undermines the intended collaborative nature of the program and creates an imbalanced power dynamic

classifying crime prevention

two main approaches to classifying crime prevention

• primary, secondary and tertiary activities

• situational vs social prevention activities

summarised as what exists and how they might work (or not)

Brantingham and Faust 1976- conceptual model of crime prevention

primary crime control strategies

• focus on preventing crime before it occurs by addressing root causes and environment factors

  • e.g. neighbourhood design improvements, early childhood education programs, community development initiatives, public awareness campaigns about crime prevention, youth engagement programs, after-school activities

secondary crime control strategies

• target specific groups or areas identified as high-risk for criminal activity

  • e.g. youth intervention, targeted police patrols in crime hotspots, CCTV installation in high-crime areas, gang intervention programs, drug abuse prevention programs in vulnerable communities, school-based conflict resolution training

tertiary crime control strategies

• focus on preventing repeat offending and managing known offenders

  • e.g. rehabilitation programs in prison, drug treatment courts, electronic monitoring, probation supervision programs, victim support services, offender reintegration programs

situational crime prevention activities

• aim: to reduce opportunities for crime

• theoretical basis: ‘opportunity theory’- manipulating the environment to reduce or change opportunities for crime by:

  • target hardening- locks, fences etc.

  • increase surveillance- CCTV, ring etc.

  • reduce rewards- phone locking etc

  • reduce provocation- segregate football fans

  • remove opportunities for mitigation/excuses- litter bins/dog bins, breathalysers in pubs

  • removing the means- physically stop offender

  • reduce the pay off

  • access control- ticket barriers

  • environmental design- seats, street furniture→ design out crime

  • rule setting- prohibitive(no smoking/trespassing etc), consequences signage, designated public places orders for alcohol

criticisms of situational crime prevention

• only treat symptoms, not the cause

• short lived benefits as offenders can adapt and overcome

• displacement

• culture of victim blaming- ‘why didn’t you..?’

• can create ‘gated communities’- inequality

• restricts/threatens civil liberties

• becomes a ‘blunt’ instrument- ignores ‘social’ aspect that often underpin criminality and deviance

social crime prevention

focused on preventing criminality from developing within individuals, consisting of the following key elements:

• core purpose

  • prevent crim. behaviour from developing within individuals

  • focus on changing people rather than spaces

  • takes a proactive approach to crime prevention

• main methods

  • manipulate social conditions that influence behaviour

  • address psychological factors of criminality

  • work with individual and community-level interventions

• theoretical foundations

  • based on identifying ‘at risk’ individuals and communities

  • consider potential offenders and victims

  • use risk assess. as fundamental tool

• process implementation

  • identify specific risk factor in ind./comm.

  • assess level and type of risk present

  • develop targeted measures to counter this

  • implement preventive interventions

  • minor and adjust interventions

• key distinction→ human behaviour rather than environmental design

• target outcomes

  • reduce likelihood of crim. behaviour developing

  • improve social conditions in at-risk comm.

  • better psychological support for vulnerable

key criticism of social crime prevention

time and complexity issues

• requires long-term monitoring and complex approaches

• takes significant time to see real result

• difficult to maintain consistent monitoring over extended periods

problems with risk assessment

• risk factors don’t necessarily cause criminal behaviour

• many identified risks may never lead to crime

• risk predictions can be unreliable/misleading

implementation challenges

• finding effective solutions takes a long time

• rushed interventions often prove ineffective

  • similar to rushed covid measures that didn’t work

data and measurement problems

• stats can be manipulated

• success rates may be artificially inflated

• hard to accurately measure prevention effectiveness

• long timeframes make evaluation difficult

ethical concerns

• questions about appropriate levels of intervention in people’s lives

• unclear boundaries for behavioural modification

• risk of excessive social control

• no clear limits on intervention extent

program assessment issues

• difficult to track long-term success

• hard to prove prevention effectiveness

• challenging to measure what didn’t happen

crime and disorder act 1998

• doll incapax- the age of criminal responsibility

  • changed to 10y.o (in response to Jamie Bulger case and treatment of Thompson and Venables)

• before the new labour gov. introduced the CDA 1998, responses to crime were uncoordinated

• different agencies responded in a haphazard and often overlapping manner, or let some people fall through the gaps in provision

prior to crime and disorder act 1998

juvenile justice 1979-97

• police, probation, education, substance misuse, rehabilitation, victim support, careers guidance, housing and social work were all working separately

• CDA 1998 attempted to create coordination of all of these→ multi-agency cooperation

  • forced disparate agencies to work together

  • youth justice was one area where this was practiced, and based on restorative justice principles- in contrast to retributive/ just deserts

the youth system post 1998

• new laws for those 10-17y.o

• plead guilty for first time offence

• at completion= spent conviction(never spent)

• referral panel

  • comprise of 2 volunteers, offender, social worker, victim, supporters as appropriate

  • victim centred

  • replaced caution- caution didn’t result in spent conviction→ most weren’t recorded

  • review the system

reducing reoffending

• final warning

• referral order

• youth rehabilitation order

• YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance

• detention and training order

referral order

• criminal court order that lasts between 3-12 months, is given to most young people for a first conviction that they admitted in court

• available for all youth

• must be imposed on a youth with no previous convictions who pleads guilty to an imprisonable offence, unless court is considering an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, mental health act order or custody

• runs from date the contract is signed, not the court date

• court must order a parent/guardian to attend meetings of the youth offender panel, where the youth is 10-15y.o. and may order parental attendance for those aged 16-17y.o.

  • failure to attend may result in parent being brought back before the court

is referral orders restorative justice?

RJ is an approach to justice that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime

• problematising ‘crime’

• problematising the criminal justice process

• restoring community

• beyond the bipolarity of welfare and justice

criticisms of referral orders

• representative panel members?

• lack of clarity→ do young people understand the process? or the language?

• victim-awareness issues→ who are the victims?

• lack of focus→ too many or too few organisations

• welfare wrapped in a punitive shell→ labelled for life?

• went from a variety of sanctions to the referral order and now back to a variety

• Cohen(1985)- in visions of social control referred to this as ‘net widening and mesh thinning’

  • smaller fish get caught with the bigger ones, overall, more in the YJS

current ‘child first’ policy: 2009-present

• decision to prosecute is open to judicial review if that decision was made regardless of, or contrary to a policy of the DPP

• the court held that an application for judicial review could be successful if the decision to prosecute was made without any/ sufficient inquiry into the circumstances and general character accused

  • this highlights the importance of obtaining sufficient info about the youth’s home circumstances and background from sources such as the police, youth offending service, children’s services etc before making a decision whether to prosecute

diversion from CJS? or expansion?

“a prosecution is less likely to be required if.. the seriousness and the consequences of the offending can be approximately dealt with by an out-of-court disposal which the suspect accepts and with which he or she complies“

• this is a factor which will always carry a special weight in the case of youths who are at a very early stage of their offending, and can be traced back to historic police practice (as set out, for example, in Home Office Circular 18/1994) of starting from a presumption of diverting youths away from courts where possible

youth rehabilitation order

• intended to provide a proportionate and effective response to offending behaviour and can be used for an offence provided that the statutory criteria are satisfied

  • the police are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to charge the youth with an offence

  • the youth admits the offence to the police

• can’t be issued for an offence that is indictable only in the case of an adult without the authority of the CPS

  • offences under treason act 1939

  • murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder

  • piracy

  • rape

  • aggravated sexual assault

• must be a persistent offender

persistent offender

• “in determining whether an offender is a persistent offender for these purposes, a court should consider the simple test of whether the young person is one who persists in offending“

  • in most circumstances, the normal expectation is that the offender will have had some contact with authority in which the offending conduct was challenged before being classified as persistent

what is a youth rehabilitation order?

• a community sentence which may include one or more of the following requirement, which must be completed within a period of 3 years

  • activity requirement

  • supervision requirement

  • in a case where the offender is aged 16-17y.o at the time of conviction, an unpaid work requirement

  • programme requirement

  • attendance centre requirement

  • curfew requirement

  • exclusion requirement

  • residence requirement

  • local authority residence requirement

  • mental health treatment requirement

  • drug treatment requirement

  • drug testing requirement

  • intoxicating substance treatment requirement

  • education requirement

who are the youth offenders?

• overrepresented groups- black, muslim and white working class boys, many are in care, and mental and other health problems, and learning difficulties are common

  • these groups are particularly overrepresented in custody→ a large proportion have previously been in care (38% in young offender institutions, 52% in secure training centres), and more than a third have a diagnosed mental health disorder

• figures show that black children account for 4% of the 10-17y.o population(census data,2011) but:

  • 18% of s+s- where ethnicity was known

  • 15% of arrests

  • 12% of children cautioned/sentenced

  • 34% of children in custody on remand

  • 29% of youth custody population(+18% from 10 years ago )

who are youth offenders?(graphic)

the structure of the courts

summary offences

• 6 month maximum sentence

  • e.g. driving, common assault, public (dis)order

indictable offence

• magistrates’ courts always pass the most serious crimes to the crown court

  • e.g. murder, rape, robbery

triable either way

• can be indictable or summary, therefore can be tried at magistrates or crown court

jury decision making

• virtually no juroes present in civil cases

• juries decide less than 1% of criminal cases annually in the UK→ approx. 15,000 of 1 million

• used predominantly in crown court

• usually the most serious cases

• in crown court, approx. 12% of charges settled by jury

make up of juries

• 12 people(8 in civil cases)

• act as ‘triers of fact’

• 1967 criminal justice act= majority verdict act(10:2)

• 1972 criminal justice act abolished the requirement to be a property owner to be a part of the jury

why do we have juries?

• protect from the state- i.e. judge, police etc→ all paid by the state

• acceptance of the decision

• unbiased decision

who can be a jury member?

generally anyone who is on the electoral register, and aged 18 to 70 is eligible to be called for jury service

who is exempt from jury service?

• mental health

  • if you’re receiving ongoing and regular treatment for a MH condition, or are residing in a medical institution for treatment

  • you don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions of a juror→ mental capacity act 2005

  • in a guardianship under the mental health act 1983

  • nature of these conditions means that a prior mental disorder won’t necessarily excuse you from jury service

• recent convictions and sentences

  • automatically disqualified from serving on a jury- however, if your conviction is recent enough depends on sentence you were given

    • sentenced to prison, youth custody or community service within last 10 years

    • on probation/bail in the last 5 years

    • a stint in prison/youth custody that lasted longer than 5 years

• certain jobs make it unlikely- being member of armed forces, medical profession, MPs, a job that requires specific interest in the law, such as solicitor/police officer/judge

jury decision making- based on evidence, or just subjective?

Devine et al. (2001: 699-701)

• exhaustive literature review of studies on jury decision making over 45 years between 1955 and 1999 summarised the research on the decision making of juries around 4 themes

Devine et al. Theme 1

• jurors don’t often make decisions in the manner intended by the courts, regardless of how they’re instructed

  • it matters little what evidence the judge instructs the jury to focus on or the warnings given that the jury shouldn’t take a certain piece of evidence into account

  • jurors tend to make their mind up quickly and the evidence tends to change this opinion only minimally

Devine et al. Theme 2

• dispositional characteristics may predicts jury outcomes better than juror verdict preferences

  • at the jury level of decision making, there is good evidence of favouritism when the defendant shares social demographic characteristics with the jury

  • Devine et al (2001) point out that this finding pertains to mock jury experiments and such homogeneity of jury composition is less likely to occur in real trials

Devine et al (2001) Theme 3

• Kalven and Ziesel’s(1966) ‘liberation’ hypothesis is alive and well

  • argued that bias was more likely to occur when the evidence against a defendant was weak or ambiguous

  • this ‘liberated’ the jury from the evidence, which takes on less importance and allows bias to impact the deliberation process