Collaboration on Criminal Justice

Report: 12
Date: 2 April 2009
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report was commissioned by the Strategic and Operational Policing committee and briefly outlines key Criminal Justice projects where the MPA and partners are working in collaboration with particular reference to opportunities, emerging issues and risks arising.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Committee note the progress in respect of current Criminal Justice Projects specified within this report, namely Streamlined Process, Integrated Prosecution Teams, Virtual Courts and Diamond Districts, and youth pilot operating at Lewisham and Greenwich; and
2. the proposal for collaborative working with partners to roll out Streamlined Forensic Reports, Evidential Drugs Identification Tests and the Bichard 7 project.

B. Supporting information

1. The London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) works to ensure that London’s Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Courts Service, Probation Service, Youth Offending Teams and Prison Service, with Victim Support London, work together to co-ordinate activity and share responsibility for delivering a quicker, simpler, safer and supportive criminal justice service (CJS) in London. To achieve this aim, the LCJB has unique governance arrangements, holding it accountable to London Ministers and the National Criminal Justice Board and its own Board membership includes MPA representation. As part of its overall work programme the LCJB is responsible for a wide portfolio of projects in support of Public Service Agreements 23 (reducing re-offending) and 24 (delivering a more effective, transparent and responsive Criminal Justice System). Within the LCJB, MPS staff work with colleagues from other Criminal Justice Agencies (CJAs) to develop individual projects as listed in this following report. Additionally, a delivery team drawn from all the CJAs works with local staff across all boroughs to manage the implementation of these projects and associated business change for all partners.

Streamlined Process (SP)

2. Streamlined Process is a national initiative that introduces a new approach to the creation of prosecution case files. The principle is that a more proportionate file is produced to process straight forward guilty plea cases suitable for sentencing in the Magistrates’ Court; and for producing a file sufficient for the first court hearing in likely contested or more complex cases to enable the court to make effective case management decisions.

3. London is one of the national pilot sites and SP was rolled out to all MPS boroughs during 2008 by a joint agency delivery team under the auspices of the LCJB.

4. Key benefits include: an increase in effective first hearings with more appropriate pleas being entered first time and a reduction in adjournments; fewer occasions when police officers need to attend court; and reduction in requirements placed on police to build full case files. Recent dip sampling by the LCJB indicate that the reduction in case file build as a result of SP equates to a saving of approximately 98 minutes officer time per guilty plea case and 158 minutes per not guilty plea case. Although there is still work to do to ensure full benefits realisation, this equates to a potential non-cashable saving of £8.6 Million in officer time on an annual basis.

5. In the first three months of 2009 the LCJB team are undertaking a review of SP processes across the MPS with particular emphasis on issues such as case file overbuild in order to maximise benefits expected from SP.

Integrated Prosecution Teams (IPTs)

6. The IPT concept involves the co-location of MPS and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff in police stations in order to deliver a more effective service, efficiency savings, performance improvement and improved citizen focus. The principal methods of delivery will be the elimination of the substantial duplication that currently occurs between police and CPS, and improvements in the initial case-build that reduces the need for post charge remedial work.

7. The business process introduced within IPTs utilises a single case file. This, combined with the co-location of MPS and CPS staff, enables the creation of a more effective single ‘prosecution team’. The CPS manage all post-charge matters relating to prosecutions and MPS staff move to roles building pre-charge case files or to post-prosecution administrative functions. This rationalisation of functions, together with use of shared accommodation enables the MPS to achieve savings in respect of staff reductions whilst also enabling the CPS to re-invest savings made from reduced property rental costs into additional staff resources to improve efficiency of CPS processes.

8. A full report outlining the case for IPTs was brought before the MPA Co-ordination of Policing Committee on 7 February 2008 when authority was granted to roll out IPTs across the MPS. A further report was put before the MPA Finance Committee on 18 September 2008 to provide an update on costs and savings in relation to the full delivery of IPTs.

9. To date IPTs have been established in seven boroughs (Waltham Forest, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Bexley, Camden and Islington). Work is well advanced towards introduction of IPTs on a further 20 boroughs with a target date of roll out by 31 March 2010. An integral part of this preparation is early engagement with local MPS and CPS staff whose roles are affected by the introduction of IPT to ensure that the IPT concept is fully understood and any impact on individuals minimised.

10. The creation of an IPT on each borough is dependent upon suitable accommodation being obtained to house both the necessary MPS and CPS staff, and involves significant co-ordinated activity between the IPT project team, MPS Property Services and individual boroughs. Solutions have been identified for all boroughs with the exception of Wandsworth. A further review of MPA estate within Wandsworth borough is currently being undertaken to identify a suitable location. Should this prove unsuccessful the potential long-term solution is the provision of accommodation in a proposed new Borough Based Custody Centre but this will not be available by 2010 when the IPT roll out is due to complete. During February and March 2009 the IPT project team worked closely with MPS Property Services to identify sites potentially impacted by changes in procurement processes from 1 April 2009 and an intensive programme of feasibility studies and costings was undertaken to ensure there was no consequent delay in delivery of IPT accommodation. Westminster borough is however subject to a full procurement process due the cost of the required building works and consequently it is anticipated that IPT accommodation will be available for CPS occupation from April 2010 with full business processes in place by August 2010.

11. The introduction of IPTs alongside Streamlined Process has presented a challenge both to boroughs and the LCJB delivery team in terms of managing the impact and inter-relationship of these significant and linked change processes. Close collaboration between all agencies involved at both a corporate and local level has ensured that these challenges are being successfully managed without long-term detriment to IPTs or SP.

Virtual Courts

12. The concept of a Virtual Court is that once a defendant is charged with an offence the initial court hearing is held within three to four hours using video conferencing technology. The defendant is situated in a dedicated room at the police station whilst the video conferencing technology is used to conduct the hearing from a nominated Magistrates’ Court. In addition, Web-based technology, referred to as the ‘collaborative space’, is used to enable the police, court and CPS to share key evidence in real time for the purpose of conducting the hearing.

13. Following an initial proof of concept held in the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, the MPS Finance Committee gave approval in July 2008 for a Virtual Courts pilot across 15 custody suites in Westminster and South East London all feeding into Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court. This MPS pilot forms a major part of a wider national Virtual Courts pilot being managed by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR).

14. Subject to final delivery of the necessary technology, it is anticipated that the first site at Charing Cross will be live in May 2009 and that the remaining 14 sites will go live within the following four months.

15. The Virtual Court offers significant potential benefits to all the agencies participating in terms of:

• Reduced instances where defendants fail to appear.
• Reduced numbers of warrants issued for failing to appear, thus reducing police workload in this area both in terms of arrest activity, further detention and court appearances.
• Shorter bail periods with detainees returning to custody later the same day rather being sent to court 14 days later.
• Reduced opportunity for defendants to commit further offences whilst on bail.
  
• Earlier guilty pleas enabling cases to be processed by the court on day of charge.
• Reduced cracked trials and collapsed cases.

16. In order to maximise the volumes of cases that can be dealt with under the VC process, HM Government propose to remove the requirement for a detainee to consent to the hearing being conducted by this means. Legislation incorporating this removal of consent is currently at the Parliamentary Committee stage and would be enacted later this year if approved.

17. Some file and defendant handling functions will be undertaken by Dedicated Detention Officers (DDOs). Not all VC pilot locations have DDOs within custody suites and three are Private Finance Initiative (PFI) sites where gaoler staff are provided by Laings. While only Bexley amongst the VC pilot sites is currently an IPT location, other boroughs will move to the IPT model during the life of the VC pilot. This provides an opportunity to assess the VC model in the context of the move to IPTs, as well as against existing custody staffing models, to determine the most effective and efficient means by which to manage the VC case file and detainee handling processes.

18. The VC concept is innovative and offers the potential to provide quicker, more efficient and effective justice through the courts with related benefits for victims and witnesses, and the potential to impact positively on confidence in the Criminal Justice System overall.

Youth Triage and Youth Safety Assessment Toolkit (YSAT)

19. Youth Triage and YSAT are two elements of the seven strand Youth Crime Action Plan. Youth Triage was initially run as a pilot in Lewisham and Greenwich whilst a YSAT pilot was run in Havering and Waltham Forest. Funding has been provided through the Home Office’s Youth Task Force to deliver these schemes across 13 London boroughs in 2009-10.

20. Youth Triage utilises Youth Offending Team (YOT) workers who are either available in the custody suite or via the telephone, dependent on the number of custody suites in use in that area. When a young person is brought into custody the YOT worker is informed immediately and will then make enquiries into whether the young person is known to the YOT, Children’s Services or other intervention or prevention programmes. The YOT worker also undertakes a rapid assessment of the young person and liaises with the police and CPS to make a decision on the next steps.

21. There are three levels of Triage activity based on the gravity factors in relation to the offence(s) in question

• Triage 1 where offences are graded as Gravity 1 or 2 and the young person admits the offence(s) in question. Here a restorative justice intervention would be the most likely outcome unless other risk factors came to light.
• Triage 2 relates to Gravity 1, 2 or 3 offences where the young person has a previous reprimand or final warning and admits the offence. In this case the disposal decision would be made jointly by Police, CPS and YOT staff.
• Triage 3 where the offence is Gravity 4 or 5 (most serious), or regardless of gravity, the young person has denied the offence. In these cases a restorative justice intervention is not applicable and a Criminal Justice disposal (reprimand, final warning or charge) will be instigated.

22. Restorative Justice options under Triage 1 and 2 may include an element of Reparation in The Community whereby the young person is required to undertake some form of reparative activity in their leisure time to the benefit of the local community.

23. Triage improves information sharing between the YOTs, Police and CPS and successful use of Triage will reduce the numbers of first time entrants to the CJS, reduce the number of low level, low risk cases going to court and improve the speed and quality of responses to more serious youth cases at the point of charge.

24. YSAT is a process whereby YOTs, Local Authority Youth services and Primary Care Trusts pool information on young persons who have come to their notice in order to identify those who may be most at risk of becoming engaged in crime. A joint agency panel then reviews cases to decide on the appropriate intervention and tasks this out on a single or joint agency basis for delivery. Triage and YSAT will be evaluated by the LCJB and Youth Justice Board.

Evidential Drugs Identification Testing (EDIT)

25. EDIT makes use of Home Office approved drug testing kits and a CPS approved Staged Reporting Process to allow a case disposal decision to be made in simple drug possession cases without the need to bail the person to return to a police station pending forensic analysis. This allows cost savings to be made in police time and forensic analysis. It also simplifies and significantly speeds up the summary justice process
26. Whilst the operational roll out of EDIT is being managed within the MPS by the Drugs Directorate (SCD6) and TP Emerald, additional collaborative work will be undertaken with the LCJB and with local criminal justice implementation teams to ensure that the courts, CPS and defence solicitors are fully engaged in support of this process. It is anticipated that EDIT will be fully rolled out across the MPS by May 2009.

Streamlined Forensic Reports (SFR)

27. SFR is a new approach to the presentation of forensic evidence in court cases and builds upon previous work in respect of staged forensic reports in support of prosecutions. Under this process a simple, succinct summary of the key forensic evidence is initially provided as part of the case file. In the event that the defence contest the forensic evidence, a proportionate forensic report will be completed addressing the specific points raised.

28. It is anticipated that SFR will reduce costs to the MPS in terms of provision of forensic evidence and will enable cases to be dealt with in a timelier manner.

29. This work is being led by the MPS Forensic Services (SCD4) with support from the LCJB. An initial pilot is currently under way in Lewisham and Greenwich to examine the benefits provided by SFR and to review whether it should be recommended for roll out across the MPS.

Bichard 7 (BR7)

30. Recommendation 7 of the report by Sir Michael Bichard into the Soham murders addressed the issue of the accuracy and timeliness of data held on systems such as the Police National Computer (PNC). As a consequence of these recommendations, a national BR7 project team was established by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) to deliver an electronic solution to enable court results to be directly updated to PNC once validated by the court.

31. Within London, a joint agency team has been formed under the auspices of the LCJB to work with the national BR7 project team to deliver the necessary business changes needed to enable the BR7 solution to be implemented. This involves the transition from primarily paper based manual processes to a solution that is designed to transfer court results automatically from court computer systems to PNC.

32. Where any result fails to update PNC it will be diverted into an ‘error portal' to be reconciled. This reconciliation activity will be undertaken by police staff within the MPS PNC Bureau (SCD26) who would previously have carried out manual updates of PNC on receipt of paper court results.

33. The BR7 solution is currently live in ’early adopter' areas (Wiltshire and Durham) and it is anticipated that London will commence roll out in June 2009.

London Diamond Initiative

34. The London Diamond Initiative will be piloted in six London sites over two years. The boroughs chosen – Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Croydon, Southwark, and Hackney – were chosen as strong multi-agency partnerships where a commitment to reducing re-offending is already in place. To help tackle the cycle of re-offending in London, the initiative will bring together officers from police, probation and local authorities. These teams will help resettle a wide range of offenders following their release from prison, with a focus on those subject to less than 12 months who are not subject to statutory supervision. This increased level of support will provide offenders with an opportunity to resettle and start a new life after prison.

35. The London Diamond Initiative builds upon work undertaken in the USA in the area of Justice Reinvestment that has demonstrated the potential to move money from the penal system into early intervention community initiatives. The initiative also draws upon the ‘Million Dollar Blocks’ concept, which has used data analysis to demonstrate the significant potential for targeting resources on areas with high resident offender populations.

36. The three early adopter boroughs of Newham, Lewisham and Lambeth are now operational, researching data to identify offenders within the target groups and undertaking the most appropriate interventions. All three teams are fully resourced with the police officer, PCSO and probation posts and some local authority team members; however they still await additional local authority resource. Work continues in each area to engage with local service providers and Safer Neighbourhood Teams in support of the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) processes.

37. The boroughs of Croydon, Southwark and Hackney are now in the ‘set-up’ stage having completed their week’s training. This involves making contact with local service providers and searching the data sets to identify offenders from within the primary evaluation groups. All three boroughs now have project leads responsible for the local programme delivery. All three teams are fully resourced with the police officer and PCSO posts; the teams still await the full allocation of resource from probation and the local authority and this is being put in place.

38. All six teams will undertake a range of offender interventions which are detailed in the initiative’s toolkit of operational interventions. This will include meeting with the offender in prison to offer assistance under the initiative, meeting the offender at the prison gates on release, engaging with the offender’s family to encourage them to support their resettlement, and providing assistance to the offender in accessing suitable housing and in securing drug and alcohol abuse intervention.

39. The teams are currently supporting a small number of offenders, this was expected as the work with each offender is intensive and the volumes will build over time as the teams complete their development activity. Volumes are being kept under close review.

C. Legal implications

There are no direct legal implications arising from this report.

D. Race and equality impact

1. Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) have been undertaken in respect of the projects detailed in this report.

2. The EIA undertaken for the IPT project identified potential equality impacts in respect of MPS staff impacted by the re-design of CJU processes and new IPT roles. Activity was subsequently undertaken by the project team to fully engage with trades unions and HR Business Partners to ensure that issues in respect of staff redeployment were managed, and a transparent staff preference exercise implemented on all boroughs to ensure fairness and equality in respect of allocation to roles.

3. The VC project is currently subject to an EIA review process. A particular area for consideration and monitoring will be whether there is any disproportionality in terms of the gender or ethnicity of detainees subject to the VC scheme.

4. Youth Triage will shortly be subject of an EIA review process. A key area to be monitored is the opportunity that this scheme may offer to address the existing disproportionality in terms of the representation of young black youths within the CJS by offering an early diversion option.

5. The London Diamond Initiative has a detailed Equality Impact Assessment that has been presented and agreed at the London Criminal Justice Equalities Board, which includes representatives from the MPA. The Operational Toolkit used by the teams to initially assess offenders’ suitability for the scheme has a detailed process that staff must follow to ensure all the diversity issues relating to the individual are met. These will be recorded on a new case management system and will be available for scrutiny as part of management reports generated by the database.

E. Financial implications

1. The projects relating to recommendation 1 above have been subject to previous MPA reports. In relation to virtual Courts, a benefits analysis is being undertaken to revisit both financial and non-financial savings, in view of the need to identify cashable savings of £1.3m by 2011/12.

2. The rollout of IPTs is also the subject of continuing review, as any delays do impact on the level of savings, which have already been built into the medium term financial plan. Any shortfalls before full rollout is achieved will be managed within the current criminal justice reserve held for this project.

3. The original report to MPA covering the original three Diamond District sites, included an assumption that additional Ministry of justice (MOJ) and Home Office (HO) funding (total of £1.5m) would be provided for 2009/10 and 2010/11. There has still been no confirmation of that funding. However, as the previous report stated, any shortfall would be managed within the deferred income brought forward (£3.2m) from 2007/08. For the three additional sites, £600k has been made available from within the reserve set up for ‘Improving Prevention and Reassurance in reducing Serious Youth Violence’, and the remaining funding from the deferred income. TP have requested a further earmarked reserve be set up, to cover pressures in 2009/10, including Diamond Districts, to ensure that the full project costs can be met.

4. In terms of recommendation 2 the financial implications will be reviewed as part of the ongoing project work.

5. Youth Triage and YSAT is funded by the Youth Task Force (Home Office) with funding allocated to Local Authorities as part of the programme of initiatives led by the Department for Children Schools and Families.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Commander Paul Minton, MPS.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback