Emerging MPS response to criminal justice white paper

Report: 7b
Date: 19 September 2002
By: Commissioner and Clerk

Summary

The emerging MPS view of the White Paper on Criminal Justice is that the broad thrust of the proposals, which are intended to place the needs of victims, witnesses and communities at the heart of the system and deliver justice for all, should be supported. There are however, some areas that the MPS feels are in need of considerable clarification before an informed judgement can be made. This paper represents the results only of an initial round of consultation within the MPS and should not be seen as representative of the ultimate viewpoint or reply of the MPS. That final response is still under development, and will be subject to significant changes as the MPS view matures. This interim paper is intended only to serve as a possible indicator of a likely final draft and has been prepared at this early stage at the request of the MPA. Appendix 1 lists the key dates for continuing development of the MPS response.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the emerging views of the MPS that are contained in the following report.

Supporting information

1. The White Paper on Criminal Justice, ‘Justice for All’ was published in July, and the stated aim of the proposed reforms is to modernise and improve the criminal justice system in order to meet the needs of victims, witnesses and communities. The White Paper is long and contains a great deal of detail on a wide range of proposals covering the whole of the system from evidence gathering to rehabilitation after sentencing.

2. Within the main body of the White Paper there are five separate issues on which the Home Office asked for responses. These are covered by paragraphs 4 to 8 below.

3. Judges sitting alone. The MPS supports the proposal for trials to be heard by a judge sitting alone in complex fraud or organised crime cases. The issue of judges sitting alone in complex cases has caused much controversy outside the MPS, although it is not anticipated by the Home Office that it would affect more than 15-20 trials in a year across the country. The emerging MPS view is that it would serve the interests of justice for this proposal to go through. While recognising the important issue of principle that lies behind this issue, The MPS does not feel that it undermines the Criminal Justice System. Complex trials spanning months of evidence, which may involve the most convoluted and intricate of modern financial dealings may be beyond the grasp of many jurors, in spite of the view that they are essentially asked to decide on an issue of honesty. Therefore, provided the interests of justice are served it should be supported.

4. Jury Intimidation. The MPS supports the proposal that trials be heard by judges sitting alone in cases where a serious risk exists that the jury could be bribed or intimidated. Trials where judges sit alone due to the risk of jury intimidation may affect only 5-10 trials per year in London. While an issue of principle, for the MPS the subject may revolve more around the cost of jury protection and the concomitant risk of prejudicing a trial. It is already clear that the Bar Council and Law Society would prefer to see strengthened jury protection. The early MPS view is that it is a key plank of the proposed reforms that should be supported.

5. Trial Venue for Juvenile Suspects. The MPS accepts that the Crown Court should have discretion to retain “serious” cases involving 16 and 17 year old defendants. The issues of the venues for the trials of young offenders have yet to elicit a strong response from the MPS. The White Paper proposals would, at this stage, appear logical and do not represent a risk to current MPS practices and policies.

6. Trial Venue for Juvenile Suspects. The MPS agrees that the Crown Court should have the right to decide the venue of the trial when juveniles must be tried with adult co-defendants. The issues of the venues for the trials of young offenders have yet to elicit a strong response from the MPS. The White Paper proposals would, at this stage, appear logical and do not represent a risk to current MPS practices and policies.

7. Domestic Violence. The Domestic Violence proposals are, as yet, insufficiently clear for the MPS to be able to comment upon them with authority. Further clarity is being sought from the Home Office team. Granting anonymity to victims of domestic violence in order to encourage reporting, and enhancing their confidence in the system as a whole is seen as a welcome proposal by the MPS. Criminalising the offence of Breach of a Non-molestation order would enhance community confidence.

8. There are many other topics in the White Paper upon which the Home Office have not asked for specific responses. Nevertheless it is the intention of the MPS to submit views on these issues, the most critical of which are mentioned in the following paragraphs. The final MPS submission may differ from the draft views shown below, and will be in greater detail.

9. Previous Convictions and Allegations of Misconduct. While The MPS considers that courts and juries should be regarded as responsible enough to make judgements based on evidence, it would not necessarily support the routine use of all previous convictions. The MPS is likely to give support to the proposal to allow courts access to information about previous convictions prior to a trial as their admissibility may serve to balance the scales which currently favour the defence. The MPS would seek clarification on the admissibility of previous unproven allegations of misconduct.

10. Double Jeopardy. The emerging MPS view clearly supports those proposals. However, the MPS would also endorse the numerous and robust safeguards which are also proposed to ensure that rights are protected. The MPS does not in any way subscribe to the view expressed elsewhere, that this proposal would serve to undermine the quality of any initial investigation due to the knowledge that a second trial was possible. Therefore the MPS would support the proposal to allow defendants be tried a second time for the same offence.

11. Disclosure and Case Management. Perhaps one of the biggest opportunities for the MPS lies in the procedural and evidential change in the White Paper. Alterations to the rules of disclosure, which place much greater emphasis on the responsibilities of the defence, are clearly welcome. The recommendation that pre-trial case management be under the control of a judge or magistrate may result in much more efficient case preparation although with a risk of sanctions for failing to comply, which may include financial penalties. The emerging view is that the MPS supports the proposed changes to the disclosure provisions and those around case preparation and pre-trial management.

12. Review of PACE Codes of Practice. The White Paper poses the question of whether the detention time limits are adequate and whether the detail of PACE is too great. This is an opportunity for the MPS to make strong representations over certain aspects of the Codes including the exclusion from the 24-hour detention time clock of periods of time while asleep, unfit or consulting a solicitor, aiming to make the period of time in custody assertive and investigative. In addition the emerging MPS view is that PACE may be too complex and should not be allowed to remain as a tactical weapon in the armoury of a lawyer during a trial. The MPS should endorse the review of the PACE Codes of Practice and seek to have its views incorporated into any future changes.

13. CPS to Determine Charges in all but Routine Cases. The MPS regards this as an interesting proposal at this stage, although it would seek greater clarity on the detail of what is being considered. There may be a need for built-in safeguards to avoid additional costs and delays. Clarity on the definition of routine will be crucial, as will the need for clearly defined decision making processes. However, it would not be in the interests of speedy justice for charging to be delayed pending a decision by the CPS, nor would it appear that the Bail Act allows for this course of action to be adopted. There are risks that, were some sort of advice file to be required, police could invest time and resources unnecessarily if the case was not seen as viable by the CPS. This would not be needed if immediate CPS advice were on hand.

14. Police Power to Impose Conditions on Pre-Charge Bail. While this also has been initially seen as a positive measure, there may be a conflict with the Human Rights Act. The early MPS view is that this is desirable in serious cases where it is not possible to charge before a thorough investigation is complete, and even that it should be imposed upon prolific or serious offenders in order to prevent them re-offending and to protect the public. The MPS intends to seek further information on what the suggested “judicial safeguards” may be.

15. Glidewell and Co-Location of Police and CPS. There are mentions throughout the White Paper on the need for co-location to be progressed in order that the proposed reforms be successful. Much of §3, “ Getting the Process Right at the Start”, will depend on the successful integration of the functions of police, CPS and other agencies, in terms of witness care, court warnings and case preparation. The joint site at Holborn is to be evaluated, and the results of that evaluation will inform the next stage of the process. The MPS endorses the concept that all of the agencies involved in the Criminal Justice System have a strong role to play in the creation and support of stronger, safer communities in the long term.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no equality and diversity implications.

D. Financial implications

1. Case Management. There may be a risk of costs being incurred at the stage of case management. The proposal allows for ‘strengthened sanctions’ to encourage parties to comply with disclosure requirements. Better case preparation and pre-trial management under the direction of a judge or magistrate may serve to minimise the occasions when this occurs. Using the most appropriate charges on the advice of the CPS will also cut down on the number of cases that are subject to sanction.

2. Victims’ Code of Practice. This code is to be binding on all services that deal with victims. Victims who feel they have not been treated according to the code have the right to possible compensation through the office of the Ombudsman. This may have an impact on the MPS financially.

E. Background papers

Criminal Justice White Paper: Justice for All, July 2002

F. Contact details

Report author: Perry Gwillim

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Criminal Justice Reform - Key dates and targets

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback