MPA response to the criminal justice white paper

Report: 7a
Date: 19 September 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

The white paper for reform of the criminal justice system, ‘Justice for All’, was published in July 2002. A response is required by 10 October 2002. The APA requires a response from Authorities by 27 September. This paper outlines some emerging MPA and MPS views, invites members to contribute their views on the white paper, and seeks approval for the process for an MPA response.

A. Recommendations

1. Members note the emerging views from the MPS on the white paper and provide any comments;
2. Members discuss the white paper and give views on the recommendations made; and
3. Members agree the proposed process for providing an MPA response.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The white paper for reform of the criminal justice system (CJS), entitled Justice for All, was published in July 2002. The paper is fairly detailed and includes over 80 recommendations for change. The areas for change are under 8 headings:

• A better deal for victims and witnesses
• Getting the process right at the start
• Delivering justice – fairer, more effective trials
• Putting the sense back into sentencing
• Punishment and rehabilitation
• Enhancing the public’s engagement
• Focusing the CJS on fighting and reducing crime and delivering justice
• Joining up the CJS

2. The MPS and MPA both intend to respond separately to the white paper, as well as responding through the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Police Authorities (APA) respectively.

MPS emerging views

3. The emerging views from the MPS on the white paper are in the attached paper. As the white paper is fairly detailed, only the high-level issues are highlighted. The team responsible for co-ordinating the MPS response still have some internal consultation to carry out hence the final response may differ from the views given in the attached paper.

4. Members are asked to consider, and provide comments on, the MPS emerging views of the recommendations included in the white paper.

MPA emerging views and consultation

5. The lead MPA officer for criminal justice issues is Johanna Gillians. On receipt of the white paper, all MPA members were notified of where to find the full report on the internet (www.cjsonline.gov.uk) and were provided with a summary of the recommendations. Views on the recommendations made were requested by 6 September 2002. Responses were received from the chair and deputy chair of the Planning, Performance and Review Committee (PPRC) by this date.

6. External to the MPA, several meetings have been held with the MPS as well as meetings with the APA and GLA regarding responses to the white paper. The executive summary of the paper has been sent to Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs) and Independent Custody Visiting (ICV) Panels, inviting the groups to provide feedback.

7. As PPRC leads on criminal justice issues, the chair and deputy chair have been leading on the MPA response to the white paper. The emerging views from the chair and deputy chair are that they generally agree with most of the content of the white paper and with the comments made by the MPS.

8. Although many MPA members will not want to comment upon the details of the white paper, three high profile recommendations have been brought to the attention of members for comment, as discussed below.

9. Trial by judge alone - The white paper proposes to allow trial by judge alone in three specific types of case:

1. Serious and complex fraud cases – where a jury may not be able to understand all the evidence involved
2. Other complex and lengthy trials – e.g. organised crime cases with complex financial issues
3. Cases where there may be jury tampering/intimidation

10. The chair and deputy chair are generally in support of this recommendation and the comments made by the MPS, although may wish to make representation that two ‘expert’ advisors or jurors should also be involved in hearing trials in these cases. Replies from ICV panels indicate that they would prefer an option of a smaller number of well informed or expert jurors sitting in these and that they are not in favour of trial by judge alone. The MPA may also want to make a point that there should be a right of appeal by the defence against any decision to trial by a judge alone (or with two others) in these instances. The MPA may also wish to suggest that the original decision about whether a trial should be by judge alone should be to a higher court to whom the CPS would apply.

11. Double jeopardy - the double jeopardy rule means that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same offence. The white paper proposes that there is a change to this rule to allow one re-trial if:

• Fresh evidence emerges that could not have reasonably been available for the first trial and which strongly suggests that a previously acquitted defendant is guilty.
• The Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there is new and compelling evidence and that an application is in the public interest and fully justified.
• The Court of Appeal is also satisfied of the new evidence and that it is right that there be a re-trail.

This is to apply retrospectively – i.e. also to acquittals if the judge decides that they are sufficiently relevant to the case. A number of examples are given in the place before the law is changed.

12. The chair and deputy chair of PPRC are generally in favour of this recommendation, as long as the proper controls are in place.

13. Previous convictions - the white paper proposes that evidence of previous convictions, or anything else suggesting a criminal tendency, should be heard by the jury if the judge decides that they are sufficiently relevant to the case. A number of examples are given in the white paper.

14. The chair and deputy chair of PPRC felt that the white paper was not clear enough on this recommendation. The white paper is ambiguous over whether previous allegations resulting in acquittals will also be taken into account and clarification over this issue will be sought in the MPA response.

15. In addition to the three high profile areas highlighted above, the MPA response is also likely to highlight the following issues:

• A better deal for victims and witnesses – although many of the changes recommended in the report (chapter 2) are welcomed, the MPA may wish to make representation that the recommendations do not go far enough to provide a better deal for victims and witnesses.
• CJS accountability – the MPA response is likely to comment on the lack of APA representation on the proposed new National Criminal Justice Board and lack of MPA representation on the proposed Local Criminal Justice Boards. There will also be a need to ensure that each of these new bodies has defined responsibilities for monitoring performance of the CJS and that duplication with the work of police authorities is avoided.

16. Members are asked to comment upon the issues raised in paragraphs 5 to 16 of this paper and to provide comment on any other issues contained within the white paper.

Process for providing an MPA response

17. MPA officers are still gathering views from members, the MPS and other groups before drafting a response. It is suggested that once a response has been drafted that all members of the MPA are sent the draft response for any further comments they have before submission. There will however, be a limited time for comments.

18. As a response for the APA is required for 27 September, it is recommended that the chair and deputy chair of the PPRC are responsible for discussing the draft response in detail and then submitting a response on behalf of the authority.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. The white paper includes a number of recommendations that impact on equalities for communities, such as research to look at improving public confidence for all sections of the communities, representation of minority ethnic people in CJS statistics and improving support for vulnerable victims, e.g. disabled, children and victims of sexual offences. There are also specific recommendations for domestic violence offences.

2. The MPA response will ensure that it covers these issues, co-ordinating with lead members and officers where appropriate. A response will be provided that reflects the MPA commitment to equalities and diversity in policing and the CJS.

D. Financial implications

There are likely to be some large financial implications from the white paper, some of which are detailed in the attached MPS report. More detailed estimates will be carried out once the content of the CJS bill(s) are know.

E. Background papers

Criminal Justice White Paper: Justice for All, July 2002

F. Contact details

Report author: Johanna Gillians

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback