Sussex Criminal Justice Board Meeting
9am - 11 am
Wednesday 22nd May 2013
Lewes Crown Court
Training Room
Agenda
ITEM
LEAD
1. Welcome and Apologies
2. Previous Minutes & Rolling Actions
TIME
Chair
Chair
5 mins
3. Pre-sentence RJ
NS
15 mins
4. Defence Representation on SCJB
RW
10 mins
5. Information Sharing
BT
10 mins
JC
LR
MS
10 mins
15 mins
15 mins
-
21st March 2013
6. Reports from Delivery Groups
-
CJS Efficiencies Programme
Crime Reduction
Victims and Witnesses
7. Organisational Updates
All
8. AOB
All
Date and time of next meeting:
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 at 10am, Training Room, Lewes Crown Court
Backing Papers
For Discussion
Agenda
Item Paper
Presenter
Attached
1
None
2
Minutes and Actions from 210313
NS
Yes
3
Pre-sentence RJ - Pathfinders Outline
NS
Yes
4.
Defence Representation on SCJB
RW
Yes
5
SCJB Information Sharing Agreement
BT
Yes
6
CJS Efficiencies Programme Report
Crime Reduction Group Report
Victim and Witness Group Report/TOR
JC
LR
MS
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
None
8
None
For Information
Victims Code of Practice - MoJ Questionnaire response
Victim and Witness Activity Plan
Efficiencies Board Statement of Intent
Sussex Criminal Justice Board Meeting
10am 21st March 2013
Lewes Crown Court Conference Room
Present:
Nick Smart (Chair)
Jaswant Narwal
Rob McCauley
Robin Eldridge
Tessa Szagun
Lucy Ivankovic
Rodney Warren
Peter Cowlett
Leighe Rogers
Emily King
Sam Williams
Maralyn Smith
Steve Waight
Chief Executive, Surrey & Sussex Probation Trust
Deputy CCP, CPS South East
Manager, LSC/CDS
Governor, HMP Lewes
Clerk to the Justices, Surrey and Sussex, HMCTS
Manager, West Sussex YOT
Rodney Warren & Co
Insp, Young Offenders, CJB, Sussex Police
Director, Surrey & Sussex Probation Trust
Safer Communities, WSCC
Director, ESCC
Divisional Manager, Victim Support
Deputy Police & Crime Commissioner, Sussex
Bruce Tippen
Kate Hook
SCJB Business Manager
SCJB Business Support
1. Welcome and Apologies
NS welcomed Steve Waight to the SCJB and congratulated him on his appointment as Deputy
PCC. NS also welcomed Ch/Insp Jayne Dando
Apologies: Giles York, Di Roskilly, Joy Coles, Katy Bourne, Dan Steadman, Linda Beanlands
2. Previous Actions
NS to issue formal invitation to Sussex Partnership Trust to attend future meetings.
NS has spoken with Lisa Rodrigues (Chief Executive) SPT who is willing to attend SCJB meetings.
NS has subsequently spoken with Vanessa Fowler who is responsible for offender health
commissioning as part of the new national commissioning structure for offender services. VF is
also seeking an invitation.
It was agreed to formally invite both LR and VF to future SCJB meetings and should there be any
sensitivity issues regarding commissioner/provider relationships the appropriate partner would
need to vacate the meeting at that stage.
New Action: NS to progress formal invitations.
All other actions discharged or on agenda.
3. Serving Sussex 2015 - future technology
Jayne Dando delivered a power-point presentation on the future working programme (Serving
Sussex 2015) for Sussex Police focusing on the NICHE product. Handouts were provided. This is
the first such presentation to external partners identifying the benefits and timelines of
implementing the NICHE product. Giles York is the Force lead on the programme which aims to
reduce the need to repeat information into a variety of current IT systems that do not talk to eachother. Over time, all information will be available in one place and can be accessed from any
location including mobile devices. 15 police forces use NICHE. Sussex will introduce the crime
reporting and intelligence packages from 1st May 2013 followed by case preparation and custody
from November 2013. There will be concentrated training programmes over six week periods to
introduce the seven aspects of the software.
A discussion followed where it was agreed that JD would utilise the SCJB Efficiencies Programme
to provide further interaction and consultation regarding partner needs and benefits. It was noted
that Ch/Insp Steve Boniface is already a member of the SCJB programme in respect of the case
and custody elements. Partner interest was expressed in relation to IOM, VISOR, RJ and victims
and witnesses.
RW asked if the presentation could be provided at the next Defence Forum. This was agreed.
Action: JD to note business risks to partners with changeover to new system and consult
through SCJB Efficiencies Group.
Action: JD to take the presentation to the next Defence Forum (September 2013).
NS thanked JD for her presentation.
4. Court Scheduling
TS provided an updated position and summarised the forthcoming changes to court scheduling
from April and July 2013. Handouts were provided to members detailing the proposals which will
go ahead as directed by the Justices Issues Group, having discussed the feedback, on 19th March
2013. TS made reference to the programme of consultation with partners from September 2012
through to the current day, accepting that this programme has not satisfied all partners and there
have been difficulties attracting defence participation.
RW summarised his viewpoint on behalf of defence colleagues highlighting that the depth and
detail of the changes had not been made clear during the early part of the process and when
schedules had been provided it did not leave time for proper consultation.
TS confirmed that alternative proposals put forward by RW were taken into account and there has
been some movement in the west area with a second remand court at Worthing on Monday’s but
the proposals for East Sussex would need to remain on schedule.
TS invited continuous feedback from partners during the changes and will review at an evaluation
and productivity workshop in September.
TS re-stated that the changes are being introduced to reduce trial backlogs over time, reduce
delays for victims, witnesses and offenders, with a focus on directing specific business through
certain courthouses. The JIG is aware of concerns expressed in relation to remand hearings, youth
and DV cases.
RW pointed out that court work is directed by the LSC which dictates office locations for defence
firms. The proposed changes will impact on defence travel and time costs. The defence community
are quite vocal about this and want to discuss further. RW acknowledges that difficulties must be
overcome and we need to move forward but re-iterated his request to defer changes in the east or
at least have an earlier review than September.
TS clarified the consultation process with defence and her disappointment that so few firms had
engaged with the invitations. The JIG has ultimate responsibility and has directed that the timetable
for implementation will continue. The September workshop will assess progress to date and any
earlier review would not allow for any benefits to be assessed properly. The workshop would
consider such things as ‘flipping’ work between Eastbourne and Hastings if this is desirable.
TS also clarified that Eastbourne MC is not closing. It will deal with different work than it does
currently.
NS noted that there had been difficulties communicating with partners on this matter and that the
SCJB is there to assist such communication. The decisions are the domain of the JIG not the
SCJB but we should encourage the JIG to use us as a forum.
TS noted that increased use of video technology will help partners deal with some of the changes.
RW and TS will further discuss the detail of the updated schedules, RW noting that the changes at
Worthing are very helpful.
RM welcomed the September review but noted that the LSC would have supported an earlier
review.
RW stated that he has offered three alternative proposals, none of which have been fully accepted
and is now in a difficult position having representative accountability for the defence.
NS closed the discussion stating that the SCJB would formally note the concerns of the
defence from RW and that the role of the SCJB is to pass our views on to the JIG but we do
not have a review role of their decision making.
Action: To be recorded in the minutes and passed to HMCTS for the JIG to note the
concerns.
BT asked if there was anything that the SCJB could do to assist RW in improving the
representative role of the defence on the SCJB. It was noted that since the local criminal justice
groups had been disbanded the defence representation now rests solely with RW and his firm on
the SCJB and the Efficiencies Group and the SCJB should consider wider representation to assist
RW with communications.
Action: BT to liaise with RW and RM and bring back proposals to the SCJB.
5. Updates from Delivery Groups
CJS Efficiencies
BT had prepared a highlight report documenting progress to date. A revised matrix has been
issued by the national programme office with a focus on digital remand hearings, increased digital
case preparation for Crown Court cases and traffic cases, defence use of secure email and
increased use of the video estate. This revised matrix will be taken into use from April 2013 and we
will be reviewed on progress against the targets by April 2014.
BT confirmed that he had taken the video guidance for Live Links, police witnesses at court
protocol and use of shared video services guide to the defence forum on 6th March. The items
were well received.
Crime Reduction
LR will chair the first consolidated meeting of the CR group that will follow this SCJB meeting,
bringing together IOM, Restorative Justice and other strands of offender management.
Sheffield Hallam are now processing the PNC data released from the MoJ and we should have a
final report linking IOM with re-offending rates at our June meeting.
KH had prepared an update report. The RJ work is progressing well to achieve our objectives of
increasing capacity for RJ in the CJS and utilising volunteers. Training for the NOMS pilot begins in
May with further courses for facilitators and managers in June and July. This training is being
delivered to staff in the police, probation and prisons and involves volunteers from Victim Support,
Sussex Pathways and PACT.
The Arun Safer Communities Partnership is leading on the Neighbourhood Resolution Panels for
West Sussex with a launch event taking place at the Bognor Regis campus of the University of
Chichester at 6.30 pm on 5th June 2013. There will be speakers from Restorative Solutions, Arun
District Council and the PCC. There has been a press release and coverage on local BBC Radio.
NS asked if SCJB members would receive an invite to the launch event.
Action: BT to liaise with the Arun project team to issue formal invitations to Board Members
SW added that ESCC are looking towards Registered Social Landlords to consider a pilot to test
panels in the housing sector.
LR mentioned the workshop on Pre-Sentence RJ having been very useful. This would develop RJ
interventions following guilty pleas. Victim Support would have a lead role in providing volunteer
facilitators. NS has received a joint letter from Restorative Solutions and Victim Support to
Probation Trusts seeking expressions of interest. NS will not commit SCJB time to this until he has
heard more. Correspondence is included with SCJB papers.
TS mentioned that Surrey might be better placed to engage with this work.
TS stated that the Community Resolution Scrutiny Panel has been well received by Justices.
Perceptions have changed as a result of this process.
LR concluded by mentioning the need to review the LAC (Looked After Children) Protocol. This will
be taken forward by the Crime Reduction Group.
Victims and Witnesses
BT summarised the current situation with integrated working between Victim Support and Sussex
Police and the work of the SDVC Steering Group.
The SDVC Group proposed that SDVCs become Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts (SDACs) to
better reflect the broader definition of domestic abuse. The revised protocol has been re-titled in its
draft form awaiting final revisions following the introduction of the court scheduling changes from
April and July 2013.
The proposed changes to court scheduling has raised concerns with commissioners and providers
of IDVA support and the police in respect of increased charge to court timescales.
The Steering Group also recommended that the specialist nature of SDACs should focus on
sentencing and trial hearings rather than the current SDVC definition that focuses on initial
hearings. The SCJB is asked to agree the current direction of travel of the SDVC group, noting the
name change to SDAC group and its intention to look at opportunities to support the clustering of
domestic abuse trials in liaison with HMCTS. This was agreed.
SCJB was also asked to note the response sent to the MoJ regarding Youth SDVCs. Following a
review of the limited number of youth DV cases in Sussex and consultation with the YOTs there
was limited scope for considering Youth SDVCs in Sussex.
NS asked if the SCJB was happy to endorse that view. Response agreed.
6. Organisational Updates
TS has covered most of her HMCTS update earlier under court re-scheduling.
LI - Youth Conditional Cautions will start in April 2013. YOTs are working closely with the police to
introduce the changes. YOTs also engaged in work looking at child exploitation looking across
Sussex at private children’s homes.
EK - WSCC has engaged in peer review process for adult safeguarding which has been beneficial.
This will help connect robustly with criminal justice and wider groups. EK will share the results.
RE stated that Lewes Prison is beginning to feel the impact of other prison closures such as Camp
Hill, Isle of Wight. Hampshire prisoners are coming to Sussex and in turn we are losing some of
our local offenders to Kent and Surrey. There will also be an increase in immigration related
detainees where the UKBA are requesting additional places. The NOMS ‘Keep Out’ crime
diversion scheme will be resourced for a further year.
JN - CPS refocus is continuing. Homicides will go to the Complex Case Unit at Maidstone as well
as fatal road crash cases. The national CPS charging team has taken responsibility from local
areas and the Rape and Sexual Offence Unit (RASO) may be centralised. Historical Child Abuse
Panels will be established following the ‘Savile’ cases. The CPS office at Chichester has now
closed and the re-focus will look at hubs dealing with Magistrates and Crown Court work.
TS/JN confirmed that committal hearings will stop with a change in law from 28th May 2013 with the
introduction of the allocation process to expedite cases.
MS - Victim Support resources will need to increase with additional demand from referrals. The
Victim Care Unit at Shoreham will be re-branded ‘First Response.’ In May a Channel 4
documentary on VS will include their National Homicide Service under the title ‘murder workers’.
VS has raised £75,000 with an all ladies team climbing Mount Kilamanjaro.
RM updated that as from 1.4.13 the LSC will become known as the Legal Aid Agency. There will
be scope changes on the civil side and competitive tendering will be introduced following
consultation.
NS confirmed that nearly 600 responses had been submitted to the government in respect of the
proposed changes to offender management. The government position can be expected mid May
but major changes to the proposals are not anticipated. This will be a massive change programme
in a small time frame. The establishment of a reserved national probation service to oversee high
risk offenders is expected.
SSPT will implement NDelius, the national case management system from May onwards.
7. AOB
Presentations were made by NS to Jaswant Narwal and Kate Hook following their success at
gaining new jobs with the CPS National Fraud Team and Restorative Solutions respectively.
NS thanked Jaswant and Kate for their enthusiastic contributions to the SCJB over recent years
and wished them both well for the future.
NS noted that with the departure of JN there would be a need to identify a lead for the SCJB work
on victims and witnesses. MS offered to take the lead and this was acknowledged by NS and
supported by all.
BT advised that the role of SCJB Support Officer would be advertised internally with all partners as
a secondment until the end of March 2014.
Date of next meeting: 9am to 11am Wednesday 22nd May 2013.
Sussex Criminal Justice Board Meeting
22nd May 2013
Rolling Actions
ACTION
NS to progress formal invitations for Vanessa
Fowler and Lisa Rodrigues.
Jayne Dando to note business risks to
partners with changeover to new system and
consult through SCJB Efficiencies Group.
JD to take the presentation to the next
Defence Forum (September 2013).
PROGRESS REPORT
LR has responded that she will attend SCJB
meetings from July 2013.
NS seeking confirmation from VF.
Noted by JD at SCJB meeting and JD copied
in to minutes. Prompt action taken to resolve
issue with victim referrals from Sussex Police
to Victim Support.
Future action.
Defence representations regarding court rescheduling. To be recorded in the minutes
and passed to HMCTS for the JIG to note the
concerns.
Recorded in SCJB minutes and circulated to
JC and TS (HMCTS).
HMCTS are running a workshop on 30.9.13
to review progress and performance.
BT to liaise with RW and RM and bring back
proposals to the SCJB.
Agenda item 22.5.13.
BT to liaise with the Arun Neighbourhood
Resolution Panels project team to issue
formal invitations to Board Members
Invitations sent to SCJB Members on 14.5.13.
Also sent to SCJB Crime Reduction Group.
1
Restorative Solutions& Victim Support
Pre-Sentence Restorative Justice Pathfinder Programme
Background
The Government’s intention, demonstrated through enabling legislation which has
recently gained royal assent and which will be enacted later this year, is clear:
•
•
•
•
•
To make Restorative Justice (RJ) available at all stages of the CJS;
To create a service that is demand led by,& focussed on, victims;
To deliver a safe and high quality RJ service through accredited organisations
and practitioners;
To deliver RJ largely from within existing resources; and
To ensure that RJ is seen as complementary to the CJS & not as an alternative.
Programme Outline
Restorative Solutions have secured a grant of £1m, from the Underwood Trust, to
develop models of a victim focussed Pre Sentence Service in ten pilot locations, in
partnership with Victim Support.
With the support of the MoJ, NOMS and HMCTS, and to run in parallel with 3 MoJ Pre
Sentence RJ Pathfinder sites, the Restorative Solutions & Victim Support proposal is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To work in ten Crown Court catchment areas, proactively seeking deferral of
sentencing for a target period of 6 weeks for RJ interventions following a guilty
plea and where the victim has agreed;
With, at first, the victims of serious acquisitive and violent crimes, who will be
invited to take part in restorative interventions by Victim Support/Restorative
Solutions trained RJ volunteers;
To ask Probation Trusts in each area to work alongside Victim Support staff and
volunteers, in particular to provide offender details, to facilitate the attendance of
offenders at RJ meetings, and to provide reports to courts pre and post RJ
interventions;
To recruit and train, initially, 10 volunteers in each Crown Court area, each of
whom will aim to deliver 10+ restorative justice interventions per year, of which 5
or more will be full conferences;
To run the programme for 18 months from April 2013;
To evaluate the results in terms of the victim take-up, referrals, conferences and
other interventions delivered, impact on re-offending, sentencing and criminal
justice costs and to assess whether trained volunteers can sustain the initiative;
To create a Pre Sentence RJ Practitioners Manual, complete with process
documentation, and to work on the development of a common RJ case
management system and information sharing protocol; and
To gather data to enable a more qualitative approach to assessing victims’
satisfaction with restorative justice interventions at a later date.
1
Key Objectives of the Pathfinders are to work with local, and national, CJS
partners:
•
•
•
•
•
•
To assess whether volunteers can be recruited, retained & trained to scale to
deliver a reliable and valued RJ service;
To develop effective processes for Pre Sentence RJ within the CJS;
To create a common RJ information sharing protocol;
To create a common RJ case management system;
To develop a tried, tested & costed Pre Sentence RJ unit capable of being
expanded into an area end-to-end RJ Hub; and
To create a model attractive to Police and Crime, and other, Commissioners.
Pathfinder areas will be asked to:
•
•
•
•
•
Police – refer victims to Victim Support when offences are reported, provide a
report to Victim Support about in scope cases where an offender has been
identified and charged, via CPS and/or Probation provide offender details to
Victim Support;
CPS – to provide, via Probation, offender details to Victim Support;
Victim Support – work with Probation to identify in scope cases, recruit and
support volunteer RJ facilitators who will make initial contact with victims and
offenders and who will prepare for and facilitate RJ interventions, work with
Probation to follow up outcomes;
Probation – work with Victim Support to identify in scope cases, provide offender
details and risk factors to volunteer RJ facilitators, provide reports to courts pre
and post RJ interventions, collate data for programme evaluators;
Courts – support and facilitate deferrals for RJ interventions for in scope cases
following a guilty plea and where both victim and offender agree.
The offer to Pathfinder sites is:
•
•
To work with Restorative Solutions and Victim Support to develop and test a
model which works, including a common RJ case management system and
common standards for RJ intervention;
To be part of developing RJ Hubs of practitioners and volunteers for all RJ
interventions – introducing economies of scale and likely to be attractive to PCCs
and other commissioners.
The offer presents an opportunity for Pathfinder sites to embed legislation with
significant support in the first instance, and the MoJ have indicated that funding might be
forthcoming to support Pathfinder sites build on and roll out early work.
Progress to date
A national Executive Group has been established for this programme, which includes
representatives from Restorative Solutions, Victim Support, NOMS, the MoJ, HMCTS
the Institute for Criminal Policy Research (who have been commissioned to evaluate the
programme), and the Restorative Justice Council.
2
HMCTS are currently in consultation with the Senior Presiding Judge, and it is hoped
that he will lend his support to this Programme, and will encourage the judiciary to do
likewise at the local level. HMCTS and the MoJ have also confirmed that local areas will
not be penalized for any additional delays which participation in this Programme might
introduce.
Initial approaches have been made to Probation Trusts in ten potential Pathfinder sites Devon and Cornwall, Greater Manchester, Humberside, Lancashire, London (where
there will be 2 sites), Surrey and Sussex, Wales, West Midlands and West Yorkshire and meetings have been held or are scheduled during May with all these Trusts.
The letters of invitation to Chief Executives of Probation Trusts were copied, for
information, to PCCs and to Chairs of Local CriminalJustice Boards or Partnerships.
Next steps
The ambition is to have Pathfinder areas up and running within 3 months.
If local CJS partnersagree to support participation in the Pathfinder programme as
outlined above, we will immediately begin to progress work in a number of ways:
•
More detailed discussions will be held with LPT and VS lead staff at each Court
site;
•
A wider, multi agency process mapping workshop will be scheduled to outline,
and begin the development of, all processes and procedures;
•
Victim Support will recruit 10 volunteer facilitators for each court site; and
•
Restorative Solutions will train those volunteer facilitators, together with a range
of local agency and partner staff and managers, and will work with the local
teams to prepare and run an awareness raising/launch event at each court site.
Kate Hook
Pre Sentence RJ Programme Manager, Restorative Solutions
[email protected] 378 8842
3
Sussex Criminal Justice Board - Defence Representation
This paper seeks to propose a fair and representative approach for the SCJB to engage with
defence firms across Sussex.
Background
Rodney Warren has been a SCJB Member for several years and has provided time and
consultation both personally and through his team members at SCJB meetings and CJS Efficiency
Group meetings. There is no current representation on the SCJB or any of its sub-groups from any
of the other private law firms in Sussex.
Local Criminal Justice Groups are no longer meeting and Court User Groups have been placed on
hold until decisions have been taken following the HMCTS re-organisation of their establishment.
Local defence firms are invited to the police hosted Defence Forum which is generally well
attended and sits at least twice a year. SCJB are present at these meetings and are able to
engage positively with the defence on new projects and where appropriate, respond to questions
about current performance.
This forum is probably the best current opportunity for the SCJB to engage widely with the
defence. The forum is organised through the Legal Aid Agency and hosted by Sussex Police.
Partner involvement has increased over recent years with HMCTS and CPS in regular attendance.
We need to look at ways of improving the representative aspect of this two-way dialogue so as to
respond to the changing landscape across East and West Sussex and to build in some resilience
and frequency. Engagement needs to be both fair and representative and the proposal below
should address these issues.
Proposal
The establishment of two localised committees, one for West Sussex (Crawley, Worthing and
Chichester) and one for East Sussex (Brighton, Eastbourne and Hastings) comprising duty
solicitors and law firms. These committees would need to be self-sufficient as there is no financial
support available.
Each committee would be useful for HMCTS and Legal Aid Agency purposes and also be a
representative body that could select and furnish representatives for the SCJB and its related
groups. Representatives would perform the role of receiving and disseminating information through
their committees.
Timescales
The process should aim to be running by September 2013 with appropriate selection of
representatives for the SCJB by the end of the year.
Rodney Warren
Robert McCauley
Information Sharing across the Sussex Criminal Justice System
In 2006 the Sussex Criminal Justice Board signed-up to its own Multi-Purpose Information Sharing
Agreement. SCJB Members agreed to sign the document so that CJS partners could see that
SCJB is committed to joined-up working and at the time to assist Local Community Safety
Partnerships to add their partner signatories to help improve the flow of data between Local
Authorities and Health Trusts.
In 2009 SCJB reviewed progress with the Agreement and found that several organisations were
still to commit to the agreement and that it was clear that not all partners would eventually sign-up.
The decision was taken to create guidance out of the Agreement which was circulated to all
partners and stakeholders as the SCJB Information Sharing Guidance. (ISG)
The 2009 ISG has been used frequently by partners to create individual Agreements in support of
specific projects or systems. Examples based on our ISG have been released as recently as 2012.
Both our original Agreement (still valid from 2006) and our ISG are in need of review and update.
Recent SCJB initiatives in relation to IOM, RJ, and SDVCs show that we are often needing to
create new bespoke agreements, often with the same partners.
SCJB may wish to consider its position in relation to information sharing and agree some updating.
Considerations:
1. Update our own SCJB Information Sharing Agreement to include all current SCJB
member organisations.
2. Update our SCJB Information Sharing Guidance.
3. Retain the current situation leaving specific agreements to be developed on a caseby-case basis.
SCJB is invited to discuss options and recommend way forward.
B.R. TIPPEN
15.5.13
Sussex CJS Efficiencies Programme
Progress Report - May 2013
1. The following key enablers are needed to move Sussex forward over the next 12 months:
•
•
•
•
•
Police system for building electronic files and storing same
A system for sharing large files between agencies
Courtrooms equipped with power and data points for all agencies
Defence use of SEM for casework
Police video capability
2. The current situation is as follows:
•
Sussex Police will implement the NICHE custody and case preparation system late
2013/early 2014 which will enhance file build and storage capability. Sussex Police remain
committed to reducing paper systems by April 2014. Digital interviews are now being
conducted at the custody centres following successful roll-out. The Blackberry Playbook
pilot at Lewes is being assessed for further implementation.
•
Following the collapse of the national DRS the PMO are now looking to increase secure
email capacity for sharing larger case files. Audio, video and photographic images remain
as hard media.
•
Further investment in the court estate to enable full digital working in the Magistrates’
Courts is awaited.
•
Ministerial support to pump-prime defence firms has not been forthcoming. Two firms in
Sussex are requesting digital case material but there has not been any further take-up.
There are still substantial concerns regarding set-up costs, information protection and
business benefits.
•
Live-Links have been successfully used for two cases at Eastbourne. Feedback from
practitioners has been positive with savings in police time and travel being realised. A
request has been sent to Tascor, who manage the police video links, to provide costs for
refreshing the video links at Brighton, Worthing and Chichester Custody Centres.
3. Situation at year-end 2012-13.
Component 1 - Police and CPS transfer digital prosecution file (DPF) electronically between
one another
Current grade and comments: Substantial
Crown Court files are paper based at present.
Component 2 - Police and CPS work together digitally to prepare the case
Current grade and comments: Substantial
Identification of key evidence and file overbuild identified as issues on the police side and CPS file
reviews and requests for ROTIs on the CPS side. Police have agreed to investigate file quality
sign-off by local supervisors who are responsible for initial file quality. CPS will be better placed to
review files once the changes to court scheduling have been introduced from April 2013.
1
Component 3 - Police transfer of traffic case information to Courts digitally eg SeM
Current grade and comments: None/Marginal
Updated comments:
PCR is in full use for road traffic work. Paper files are being sent to courts for specified hearings
and passed to CPS for proofs-in-absence. Digital traffic file pilot suspended pending the finding of
the national pilot sites and the release of the HMCTS Business Design Authority.
Component 4 - CPS transfer cases digitally to Courts and NOMS
Current grade and comments: Substantial (Magistrates Court)
To gain ‘full’ status we would need other means of sharing audio and video files.
Large files are still being created and sent by disc or paper.
Current grade and comments: Tentative (Crown Court)
This component needs increased capacity within HMCTS to receive and store digital case material
for the Crown Court. Case information is already sent to NOMS (SSPT and YOS) digitally via
secure email.
Component 5 - Digital file as the only file in the office for CPS, Police, Courts and NOMS
(Target set for CPS only)
Current grade and comments: Partial
Police (Partial) – Create paper file up to point of CJU, and then convert to digital for onward
transfer to CPS. CPS (Substantial)
Police have implemented digital detainee interviews. This will see a phasing out of audio cassettes
and provide digital storage capacity. Remaining police digitisation awaits implementation of NICHE
during 2013.
CPS has made substantial progress with this component aiming towards a paperless office.
Component 6 - Digital working in the court environment by all agencies/parties
Current grade and comments: None/Marginal
HMCTS receives most case material digitally from CPS. With the necessary investment, courts will
move towards a system of operation using the digital product both for Crown and Magistrates
Court cases. Current systems do not have capacity to retain case material for internal case
management purposes.
CPS is routinely presenting cases digitally at first hearings in Magistrates Courts. Probation
Officers have access to laptops for use in court. Legal advisors have access to digital IDPC and
PCR in the courtroom. Wider use of digital equipment is restricted by lack of power points, data
lines and Wi-Fi. Awaits national investment in the court estate.
Component 7- Increasing the use of Video Technology
PCVL current grade and comments: Substantial
PCVL is in full use at all Magistrates and Crown Courts in Sussex. HMPS has additional capacity
to increase usage by 50% and has not needed to submit a bid for further equipment. Courts are
monitoring use of PCVL to ensure maximum use where appropriate.
Offender Conferencing current grade and comments: Partial
SSPT has conducted an audit of its video conferencing equipment and utilisation. It has responded
to the audit by repairing or refreshing equipment for both internal use by SSPT staff and also
external use by other partners.
SSPT audit showed increased use of video during 2012 subject to ongoing issues regarding
serviceability of equipment.
2
Live Links current grade and comments: Tentative
Police witnesses are giving their evidence from Eastbourne Custody Centre to Eastbourne
Magistrates Court. Two trials have been successfully conducted and further cases are being
considered by CPS that have already been listed.
Virtual Courts current grade and comments: None/Marginal
Sussex Police and HMCTS have agreed a way forward for testing virtual courts between Hastings
and Brighton (or elsewhere). Once additional equipment has been installed at the court site at
Hastings and police have agreed a way to transfer remand files digitally this can proceed.
Component 8 - General correspondence and service of case papers with Defence
representatives all via SeM
Current grade and comments: Tentative
Digital communication with defence firms is regular practice. Service of case material is not and will
not increase until law firms are provided with an incentive to invest in IT systems that provide
appropriate safeguards for digital storage and sharing of information. This is a known national
issue. Two firms in Sussex are requesting digital case material.
Component 9 - Digital Archiving and Storage
Current grade and comments: Full
CPS are in receipt of over 80% of all cases digitally and these can be finalised and archived
electronically. Paper files will diminish once the outstanding trials have reduced that were initiated
under the paper system. Sussex Police will retain original investigation material, whether this is
sourced digitally or by hard media. The retention of exhibits and unused material means that full
digital archiving will be a long way off. An internal repository for digital storage is also necessary for
the police to successfully archive
Police and CPS are maximising digital storage and archiving opportunities using current systems.
Police implementation of NICHE will provide improved storage capacity. Partners receiving digital
material via secure email are also able to store and archive subject to capacity.
4. New approach for 2013-14
A revised matrix has been issued by the PMO for 2013-14 based around 7 of the current
components and removing digital working in the courtroom, offender conferencing and digital
archive and storage. The remaining components have been re-worded to reflect the national aims
of progressing digital remand files, digital traffic files and increased use of video for remand
hearings and witness evidence. All components have a target to reach full implementation by
April 2014 with the exception of the service of Crown Court material by CPS, where there is no
target, and digital traffic files.
It is proposed to tackle the new targets using a different approach. The CJS Efficiencies
Board will still meet bi-monthly but members will each lead on one or more of the
components in order to provide improved clarity and ownership over the previous method
using a multi-agency Local Implementation Team.
The new approach will provide improved accountability, reduced time spent by several
members attending both Board and LIT meetings and the ability for members with lead
responsibility for delivery to establish task and finish groups to deliver specific packages of
work.
SCJB is asked to note and approve the revised approach.
B. R. Tippen
SCJB Business Manager
14.5.13
3
Crime Reduction Group
Report to SCJB May 22nd 2013
Integrated Offender Management
Update on Research and Evaluation
Completion of this research project, which was originally scheduled for summer 2012, has
been substantially delayed whilst the research team have been awaiting the PNC Print from
the MOJ which will enable them to look at reoffending rates for the IOM cohort in the study.
The PNC Print has now been received but significant information was not included in relation
to local arrests for breach of licence or on warrant. This information is now being provided
through a new Data Collection Agreement between Sussex Police and Sheffield Hallam
University to allow the work to be completed.
This additional and unexpected delay has necessitated the final report being presented on 6th
August 2013. Sheffield Hallam has been asked to share the reports with the SCJB prior to the
presentations. The reports should cover IOM costs, re-offending rates and a recent piece of
work conducted for another area on PBR.
Restorative Justice
NOMS RJ project update
This project is progressing well, with the development of referral systems and paperwork well
under way. The Task & Finish Group, Chaired by Clive Windsor from HMP Lewes, is
scheduled to meet monthly until the work is embedded and is now looking at data sharing and
performance monitoring.
The project covers both Sussex and Surrey, and we are working closely with the Surrey CJB.
Agencies and partners directly involved in the project now include Surrey and Sussex
Probation Trust, Sussex Police, Surrey Police, HMP Lewes, HMP Highdown, Victim Support,
Sussex Pathways and Just People.
Three 3-day facilitator training courses have been scheduled, in May, June and July, for CJS
staff and volunteers from both Sussex and Surrey who will be facilitating conferences under
this programme. A range of managers and staff who will be working with these facilitators
and/or referring cases for conferencing will be attending the first day of each of these 3-day
sessions. In addition, 2 refresher days have been arranged for staff who were trained some
time ago to share learning and best practice. All courses are being delivered by Restorative
Solutions and hosted by SSPT at their training facility in Crawley.
Neighbourhood Resolution Panels project update
The NRP pilot group for West Sussex, hosted and resourced by Arun District Council and with
membership from Safer Arun Partnership, is also progressing well. Ten volunteer facilitators
have been recruited, and will be trained during May. A launch event is scheduled in Bognor
Regis on the evening of 5th June. SCJB Members have been included on the invitation.
Speakers include the PCC, Restorative Solutions and local police District Commander.
Key to the success of the training and subsequent implementation will be the supply of
referrals from partners. Restorative Arun Project Group met o 15th May 2013 and have
1
highlighted the risk of a current lack of referrals for initial training and development. Messages
have been raised with stakeholders to deliver information as a matter of urgency.
Restorative Arun are calling the panels ‘Neighbourhood Resolution Conferences (NRCs) and
these will operate at Barnham, Bersted (Bognor) and Angmering. Publicity is being arranged
and handled through Arun District Council.
East Sussex and Brighton & Hove have not yet been able to progress Panels. Brighton and
Hove considered this again at the recent Safe In The City meeting but the identification of
appropriate funding/resource to run the project and co-ordinate activity has been the main
barrier.
In East Sussex approaches are being made to registered social landlords to gauge their
interest in hosting a pilot - a model which is used successfully elsewhere. The next panSussex NJP Task and Finish Group is scheduled for 28th June 2013.
Pre Sentence RJ Workshop and Pilots
Victim Support and Restorative Solutions are now progressing their programme of Pre
Sentence RJ Pathfinders, and invitations to consider being one of those Pathfinders have
been issued to 10 probation trusts, including Surrey & Sussex.
A pre-sentence RJ Pathfinder Outline is attached for information and any resulting discussion
at the SCJB. Current funding for areas who have signed-up expires in the autumn of 2014
following a 12 month pilot. Areas wishing to engage in this year’s pilot will need to sign-up
before the summer.
The input and support of the Resident Judge is key to the success of this initiative. HH Judge
Richard Brown is retiring and it is not yet known who will replace him. This is an agenda item
for the SCJB on 22nd May 2013.
Bruce Tippen
15/05/13
2
Victim and Witness Delivery Group
Progress Report for SCJB - May 2013.
Integrated Working
Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses (VIW)
This pilot is on hold pending implementation of NICHE system and data sharing agreement
between Sussex Police and Victim Support. A separate paper is attached for the information of the
SCJB.
Patchwork
Meetings have been held with Brighton and Hove City Council who have developed a web-based
secure system that links partner agencies together who are working on cases involving victims,
witnesses or offenders. The aim is to use this system with criminal justice partners who are
supporting victims of domestic abuse. If successful, the pilot at Brighton and Hove could be
extended across West Sussex and East Sussex.
Video Links
The Victim and Witness Group are collating responses from public sector partners who possess
video equipment to assess viability of sharing use for victims and witnesses giving evidence at
court. Responses have been received from East Sussex. West Sussex and Brighton and Hove
have been sent reminders.
Review of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts Protocol
A revised SDVC Protocol is out with SDVC Steering Group Members for comment. Adjustments
have been included to cater for the court re-scheduling in April and July 2013.
Draft Terms of Reference and Activity Plan
SCJB Members are asked to note and approve the draft TOR and action plan. Both are living
documents subject to refreshment.
Draft Victims Code of Practice Questionnaire Response.
The Sussex response is attached for the information of Board Members. This collated response
was submitted by the Victim and Witness Delivery Group on behalf of the SCJB.
B.R. TIPPEN
SCJB Business manager
13.5.13
AREA: Sussex
U
Questionnaire
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Q1
Do you think that the approach taken to restructure the Code is the right one?
Yes, the current code is too process-driven and the new version explains
things from the victim or business perspective. It is helpful to have the
‘young persons’ section. The new document will bring uniformity and avoid
‘localisms’. On reading the code, it was felt there was little ambiguity. The
section on including charities should be extended to include the wider
Voluntary Community Sector.
Q2
Do you think that the categories of persons entitled to receive enhanced
services under the Code are appropriate?
Yes, there has to be a bench mark. Targeted and vulnerable victims need the
most support. This has been reflected in the Code.
Bereaved relatives can feel left out in the decision making processes.
Therefore, it is felt beneficial that CPS will have consultation with bereaved
relatives if there is a decision not to charge or an acquittal.
It was agreed that flexibility is included so that those not in these 3 categories
can receive enhanced services if it is deemed appropriate, but this will rely on
the correct questions being asked and services of Victim Support being
properly explained.
However, concern was expressed that identifying persons who fit into the
categories may be difficult to achieve at the outset of the process by officer or
call centre. If this is not properly handled, victims in need, are in danger of
falling through the net. By restricting automatic referral to a victim support
agency, to the 3 categories, this places most responsibility on police to
outline to other victims the services that can be received and encourage an
‘opt in’ process. A recent ACPO recommendation was to adopt ‘the
Leicestershire model’ of a more ‘opt out’ process for referral to Victim
Support; this agreement was signed in December 2012 by Sussex Police and
is replicated by all Police forces in the South East Region along with most
others across the country. In this way, many more victims can receive the
offer of support than previously with the ‘opt in’ process. The Code seems to
contradict the Leicestershire model and could prevent support offered to
those in most need.
Q3
Do you think that the duties imposed on the criminal justice agencies in the
revised Code are the right ones? Please provide comments.
Yes, the duties appear fair and relate well to agencies skills and knowledge
More specific timescales could be considered in some areas, eg in providing
LWAC to CJU in (number of days) rather than ‘when it is finalised and in
paragraph 10 mention is made that HMCTS must ensure WHENEVER possible
that WCUs are notified within 1 working day.
Q4
(a) Do you think that the Police and Crime Commissioners should be included
in the revised Code? Please give reasons
PCCs must be included in the Code. They have a duty to understand the
needs of victims and witnesses and this duty should be acknowledged in the
Code.
(b) If so, what duties should they fulfil and at which stages of the criminal
justice process should Police and Crime Commissioners be included?
PCCs should have their responsibilities towards victims and witnesses
outlined in the document. These should include a duty to consult with the
public and other stakeholders regarding needs and services and the role of
commissioning services and dealing with complaints against local providers
should the complaint not be properly dealt with by the provider.
Q5
Do you agree that the Victim Personal Statement should be included within a
revised Victims’ Code?
Yes, this is a key document and should be promoted throughout the Code from the opportunity to make a VPS, through to the way it should be used in
the courts.
Q6
Do you think that police forces should be encouraged to expand their use of
Community Impact Statements?
It is felt businesses are overlooked in some aspects of crime and impact on
businesses can affect a whole community.
Community Impact Statements tend to be reserved for serious cases and then
are at risk of falling out of date. A recent talk by Lord Justice Leveson
advocated increased use of CISs as a legitimate method of contributing to
Judicial decision making at the point of sentence. Useful for pre-sentence
reports.
However, there were mixed views on this as one comment is that they are
really only needed in critical incidents. Too many are written when not needed
and it becomes a paperwork exercise. Their effectiveness then becomes
diluted.
Q7
(a) Do you think community impact statements provide an effective way of
capturing the problems confronting communities?
They can sometimes be the opinions of the police as to how they perceive the
community might be or is affected. Need to make sure there is proper
consultation carried out with the community prior to these being written, but
can be good if well constructed and well used.
(b) If so, how might the wider roll out of the Community Impact Statement
be encouraged?
By advertising the beneficial use of CISs to the community and statement
takers. Social media can be key to consulting with the community and
assessing the impact of a critical incident. Need to be reviewed or updated as
become irrelevant after time.
(c) If not, how might community impact statements be improved?
Specific training on community impact statements should be given to Police
Officers and PCSO’s; more engagement projects in local communities to raise
the profile of the police within local business organisations. Publicity around
examples of when they have been used to encourage the role out.
Q8
Do you agree that all businesses should be entitled to make an impact
statement to explain how a crime has affected them?
Yes. Businesses can be both directly and indirectly affected by crime and
suffer without any recognition.
Q9
Do you think businesses will benefit from this scheme?
Yes. They should be provided with the same opportunities and protection as
victims.
Q10
Do you think that this statement should be extended to other organisations,
such as charities?
This should be extended to charities and other organisations who deal with
victims to include the Voluntary Community Sector. Such inclusion would
support other cultural/social groups in similar way to how victims of extended
hate crimes are being included at Manchester.
Q11
Do you agree that RJ should be included in the Victims’ Code where the
offender is over 18 years of age?
RJ should be included for all age-groups and the Code should be used to
promote end-to-end opportunities for RJ in the CJS.
Q12
Do you think that the section on RJ in the revised Code will help to support
wider work to improve victim awareness of RJ?
Yes. The Code could also be extended to include suitable safeguards for use
of RJ in tackling domestic abuse.
Q13
(a) How much do you think RJ uptake will increase as a result of the
reforms to the Code?
This will be difficult to assess as there are various drivers for increasing
the use of RJ. Creating a post-code lottery needs to be avoided.
(b) Which specific types of RJ intervention do you think will increase?
Pre-sentence RJ for those areas engaging in the process.
Also use in more serious cases as RJ becomes better understood.
Q14
Do you think that the complaints system in the revised Code will deliver a
better service for victims? Please give reasons.
It mentions in the code that the victim can discuss their complaint with the
person dealing with the case. This is initially better than speaking with a
supervisor or other person who has no knowledge of the investigation.
There should be a local role for the PCC here rather than MPs and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Q15
Q16
How do you think compliance and performance by agencies and
organisations under the Code can be best monitored? And by whom?
Should this be locally or nationally driven?
Locally, compliance and attrition rates could be monitored through Local
Criminal Justice Boards with public satisfaction or dissatisfaction
monitored by the PCC.
In addition to the improvements outlined in the Code, what reforms do you
think are needed to improve means of redress for victims?
Some national framework to set/indicate average time that victims can be
expected to wait for cases to progress through the CJS.
Failure for suspects to pay compensation to victims when required to by
the courts. The process of obtaining this compensation should be made
easier for the victim.
There should be some involvement by the Parole Boards and
consideration for victims attending these Boards.
Q17
Do you agree that there should be a dedicated section for children and
young people in the Code?
This is well supported.
Q18
Do you agree that the duties on the criminal justice agencies with regards
to children and young people are correct? Please give reasons.
Yes with regard to police but partner organisations recognise differing age
ranges.
The language in the Code may need to be more specific about whether
direct contact will be made with the young person or through an adult.
Q19
Do you consider that this section is appropriately user-friendly for children
and young people?
Overall it appears well-tailored to the requirements of young people
although there are still areas of mixed language within the text. The more
visually impactive and internet-based the better. Young people engage
well with visually stimulating on line material.
Q20
How can we ensure that the Code is communicated effectively?
The new Code needs to be communicated better than the current one. This
needs to be done through participating agencies using social media and
internet links in correspondence.
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Do you think we have correctly identified the range and extent of the
effects of these proposals on those with protected characteristics under
the Equality Act 2010?
Yes
If not, are you aware of any evidence that we have not considered as part
of our equality analysis? Please supply the evidence. What is the effect of
this evidence on our proposals?
N/A
Do you have any comments in relation to our impact assessment?
No
Could you provide any evidence or sources of information that will help us
to understand and assess those impacts further?
N/A
How long does it take to record a VPS from a victim of crime?
This will depend on the crime and the impact on the victim. So often it is
rushed. Time taken can be anywhere between 30 mins and 2 hours as
sometimes they are a form of therapy for the victim explaining exactly how
it has made them feel.
What is the additional burden on civil society organisations if they are
contracted to take the VPS on behalf of the police?
Additional burdens would include quality assuring the product (VPS) and
how this is commissioned and delivered by the Voluntary Community
Sector. Should victims have a say in who records their impact statement?.
Specific training must be given for this big responsibility and access to
victim at appropriate time.
Impact Assessment and Equality Statement
To inform responses to this consultation document we have published separate analyses of
the potential impacts of our proposals.
Impact Assessment: their purpose is to identify the main groups affected by our proposals
and the likely costs and benefits to those groups. The impact assessment can be found at
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/code-victims-crime
HU
UH
Equality Statement: in order to meet our obligations under the public sector equality duty in
section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. These consider the potential effects of our proposals
according to the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage
and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual
orientation. The Equality Statement can be found at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digitalcommunications/code-victims-crime
We welcome comments about the accuracy and extent of the effects identified. We
particularly welcome responses from those who identify themselves as sharing a protected
characteristic or from interest groups representing those with protected characteristics. The
responses received will be taken into account as the Government decides the best way
forward following the end of the consultation period.
Sussex Criminal Justice Board
‘Statement of Intent’ for Sussex CJS Efficiencies Programme
Sussex Criminal Justice Board is fully signed-up to delivering improvements for victims
and witnesses, suspects and offenders, and the general public of Sussex through
investments in modern technology and better ways of working.
SCJB is determined that technological improvements will drive up performance and
efficiency during investigations, case preparation, prosecutions, court hearings and
supervision of offenders where it is cost effective and in the interests of justice.
Following significant groundwork by partners during the period leading up to April 2013 it is
the intention of the SCJB to deliver the following improvements to the Sussex Criminal
Justice System by April 2014:
•
Initial evidence gathering will be sourced digitally wherever possible and cost
effective
•
Quality streamline digital files will be produced and shared in a timely manner
•
Video enabled courts will deal with more remand hearings using prison to
court links and court to court links
•
Digital prosecution of contested cases will have commenced
•
HMCTS will develop the necessary adaptation to support digital hearings at
the Crown Courts and Magistrates Courts.
•
Police and civilian witnesses will be able to give their evidence through video
links where they are available, both within and outside the CJS estate
•
We will explore the most efficient way of delivering cases through police to
court video links
•
Time taken for cases to be resolved at court will be reduced
SCJB
MAY 2013
SCJB VICTIM AND WITNESS ACTIVITY PLAN
2013
ACTIVITY/GOAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Deliver enhanced services to
vulnerable and intimidated
victims
Deliver enhanced services to
vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses
Review compliance with
Victims Code
Review performance against
Witness Charter
Review services for young
people - court process
Pre-court/diversion
Review SDVC protocol
Tackle delays in the Sussex
CJS
Provide increased
opportunities for victims and
witnesses to provide their
evidence through video link
Identify effective joint agency
case management systems
Work with the PCC to develop
a Directory of Services for
Sussex
Work with the Parole Board to
encourage victim participation
and attendance at Parole
PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR
% referrals to VS
No. of victims
referred
Satisfaction levels
No. of witnesses
referred
Satisfaction levels
RAG status
RAG status
CURRENT POSITION
ACTION REQUIRED
ACTION OWNER
Sussex has adopted the
Leicestershire Model.
Assess impact of new Code on
referral rates.
Maralyn Smith
Short-term prisoner release
notification and referral scheme
Integrated VIW Pilot awaiting signoff for information sharing
Finalise report and implement.
SueJanman/Andrea
Saunders
Di Roskilly/Jo Ball
Self assessment overdue. Sussex
has provided feedback to
consultation
Self assessment overdue
Benchmark ourselves with new
Code
Jez Prior
Conduct RAG assessment
against Witness Charter
Re-assess Nov 2013
Sue Janman
Agree information sharing and
report from NICHE to VS.
CJJI template
Review based on recent thematic
inspection conducted May 2013.
Attrition rates
SDVC data
Days from first
hearing to trial
Trial monitoring
Attendance rates
No. of suitable
locations with video
equipment
Utilisation rates
User surveys
Budgets
Protocol has been under review
since Nov 2012.
Unacceptable delays up to 6
months
Backlog of trials
Finalise protocol
Audit underway with local
authorities and other public sector
bodies
Creation of directory
Monitor use
OSPCC aware of proposal.
Agreement of Parole
Board.
Victims are not invited to attend.
Assessment of Patchwork and
Ecins underway.
Page 1 of 2
Clare Godfrey
REVIEW
DATE
Qtr
Aug 2013
Aug 2013
Nov 2013
Sep 2013
Nov 2013
Bev Mitchell
Bruce Tippen +
SDVC Group
Claire Mullarkey
Aug 2013
Follow-up requests for
information. Consider current
partner equipment. Develop
strategy.
Assess effectiveness and costs
and make a decision. Task and
finish approach.
Develop Directory - Task and
Finish approach.
Frances Amos and
LA Commissioners
Mar 2014
Commence dialogue with Parole
Board.
Andrea Saunders.
Collate information to feed into
workshop in September 2013
Bruce Tippen
Debbie Beck
Sep 2013
Nov 2013
Mar 2014
Nov 2013
SCJB
MAY 2013
ACTIVITY/GOAL
12
13
Hearings.
Remain sighted on RJ:
Panels
Pre-Sentence and
Post-Sentence
Increase take-up of Victim
Personal Statements at any
stage of the CJS process by
use of other agency staff and
volunteers.
PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR
CURRENT POSITION
Input into SCJB
Crime Reduction
Meeting and access
to CR minutes.
Number of VPS
recorded.
Number recorded by
other agencies and
volunteers.
Cross over on information
regarding panels and post sentence
pilots. Pre-sentence yet to be
progressed.
To be reviewed.
Page 2 of 2
ACTION REQUIRED
ACTION OWNER
Ensure V and W Group remain
involved and informed.
Maralyn Smith
Identify capacity and training
needs.
TBC
REVIEW
DATE
Mar 2014
Nov 2013
SCJB Victim & Witness Delivery Group 2013
Terms of Reference
•
Deliver the priorities as set out in the annual SCJB Delivery Plan (Victims and
Witnesses) in support of the Police and Crime Plan 2013-2017 through
effective joint working.
•
This will be achieved through a multi-agency activity plan setting out the
goals, timescales, relevant supporting indicators and ownership from within
the membership of the Group.
•
The activity plan will be a flexible document accommodating both long and
short term work as well as new initiatives that are directed by the SCJB or
proposed from within the Group.
•
Task and Finish Groups will be identified to deliver specific pieces of work.
•
Information on victim and witness related projects and initiatives, including
Specialist Domestic Violence Courts will be shared at the meetings.
•
Identify and resolve any blockages, agree and establish next steps. Report to
SCJB.
Meetings
Meetings will be held quarterly at Lewes Crown Court. Task and Finish Groups may
meet more frequently as required.
Membership of Group
To be chaired by Maralyn Smith (Victim Support), with representatives from each of:
Sussex Police (Di Roskilly; Jez Prior; Sue Janman),
Surrey & Sussex Probation Trust (Andrea Saunders),
CPS (Nigel Knight),
HMCTS (Dave Manning; Claire Mullarkey),
Sussex Area YOS (Bev Mitchell - East YOT),
Victim Support (Frances Amos; Clare Godfrey),
OSPCC (Debbie Beck),
Local Authority Commissioners (Corina Gibson; James Rowlands; Ben
Fitzpatrick)
IDVA Services (Carys Jenkins - Rise; Debbie King - CRI)
Other partners attend by invitation.
7.5.13
AREA: Sussex
U
Questionnaire
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Q1
Do you think that the approach taken to restructure the Code is the right one?
Yes, the current code is too process-driven and the new version explains
things from the victim or business perspective. It is helpful to have the
‘young persons’ section. The new document will bring uniformity and avoid
‘localisms’. On reading the code, it was felt there was little ambiguity. The
section on including charities should be extended to include the wider
Voluntary Community Sector.
Q2
Do you think that the categories of persons entitled to receive enhanced
services under the Code are appropriate?
Yes, there has to be a bench mark. Targeted and vulnerable victims need the
most support. This has been reflected in the Code.
Bereaved relatives can feel left out in the decision making processes.
Therefore, it is felt beneficial that CPS will have consultation with bereaved
relatives if there is a decision not to charge or an acquittal.
It was agreed that flexibility is included so that those not in these 3 categories
can receive enhanced services if it is deemed appropriate, but this will rely on
the correct questions being asked and services of Victim Support being
properly explained.
However, concern was expressed that identifying persons who fit into the
categories may be difficult to achieve at the outset of the process by officer or
call centre. If this is not properly handled, victims in need, are in danger of
falling through the net. By restricting automatic referral to a victim support
agency, to the 3 categories, this places most responsibility on police to
outline to other victims the services that can be received and encourage an
‘opt in’ process. A recent ACPO recommendation was to adopt ‘the
Leicestershire model’ of a more ‘opt out’ process for referral to Victim
Support; this agreement was signed in December 2012 by Sussex Police and
is replicated by all Police forces in the South East Region along with most
others across the country. In this way, many more victims can receive the
offer of support than previously with the ‘opt in’ process. The Code seems to
contradict the Leicestershire model and could prevent support offered to
those in most need.
Q3
Do you think that the duties imposed on the criminal justice agencies in the
revised Code are the right ones? Please provide comments.
Yes, the duties appear fair and relate well to agencies skills and knowledge
More specific timescales could be considered in some areas, eg in providing
LWAC to CJU in (number of days) rather than ‘when it is finalised and in
paragraph 10 mention is made that HMCTS must ensure WHENEVER possible
that WCUs are notified within 1 working day.
Q4
(a) Do you think that the Police and Crime Commissioners should be included
in the revised Code? Please give reasons
PCCs must be included in the Code. They have a duty to understand the
needs of victims and witnesses and this duty should be acknowledged in the
Code.
(b) If so, what duties should they fulfil and at which stages of the criminal
justice process should Police and Crime Commissioners be included?
PCCs should have their responsibilities towards victims and witnesses
outlined in the document. These should include a duty to consult with the
public and other stakeholders regarding needs and services and the role of
commissioning services and dealing with complaints against local providers
should the complaint not be properly dealt with by the provider.
Q5
Do you agree that the Victim Personal Statement should be included within a
revised Victims’ Code?
Yes, this is a key document and should be promoted throughout the Code from the opportunity to make a VPS, through to the way it should be used in
the courts.
Q6
Do you think that police forces should be encouraged to expand their use of
Community Impact Statements?
It is felt businesses are overlooked in some aspects of crime and impact on
businesses can affect a whole community.
Community Impact Statements tend to be reserved for serious cases and then
are at risk of falling out of date. A recent talk by Lord Justice Leveson
advocated increased use of CISs as a legitimate method of contributing to
Judicial decision making at the point of sentence. Useful for pre-sentence
reports.
However, there were mixed views on this as one comment is that they are
really only needed in critical incidents. Too many are written when not needed
and it becomes a paperwork exercise. Their effectiveness then becomes
diluted.
Q7
(a) Do you think community impact statements provide an effective way of
capturing the problems confronting communities?
They can sometimes be the opinions of the police as to how they perceive the
community might be or is affected. Need to make sure there is proper
consultation carried out with the community prior to these being written, but
can be good if well constructed and well used.
(b) If so, how might the wider roll out of the Community Impact Statement
be encouraged?
By advertising the beneficial use of CISs to the community and statement
takers. Social media can be key to consulting with the community and
assessing the impact of a critical incident. Need to be reviewed or updated as
become irrelevant after time.
(c) If not, how might community impact statements be improved?
Specific training on community impact statements should be given to Police
Officers and PCSO’s; more engagement projects in local communities to raise
the profile of the police within local business organisations. Publicity around
examples of when they have been used to encourage the role out.
Q8
Do you agree that all businesses should be entitled to make an impact
statement to explain how a crime has affected them?
Yes. Businesses can be both directly and indirectly affected by crime and
suffer without any recognition.
Q9
Do you think businesses will benefit from this scheme?
Yes. They should be provided with the same opportunities and protection as
victims.
Q10
Do you think that this statement should be extended to other organisations,
such as charities?
This should be extended to charities and other organisations who deal with
victims to include the Voluntary Community Sector. Such inclusion would
support other cultural/social groups in similar way to how victims of extended
hate crimes are being included at Manchester.
Q11
Do you agree that RJ should be included in the Victims’ Code where the
offender is over 18 years of age?
RJ should be included for all age-groups and the Code should be used to
promote end-to-end opportunities for RJ in the CJS.
Q12
Do you think that the section on RJ in the revised Code will help to support
wider work to improve victim awareness of RJ?
Yes. The Code could also be extended to include suitable safeguards for use
of RJ in tackling domestic abuse.
Q13
(a) How much do you think RJ uptake will increase as a result of the
reforms to the Code?
This will be difficult to assess as there are various drivers for increasing
the use of RJ. Creating a post-code lottery needs to be avoided.
(b) Which specific types of RJ intervention do you think will increase?
Pre-sentence RJ for those areas engaging in the process.
Also use in more serious cases as RJ becomes better understood.
Q14
Do you think that the complaints system in the revised Code will deliver a
better service for victims? Please give reasons.
It mentions in the code that the victim can discuss their complaint with the
person dealing with the case. This is initially better than speaking with a
supervisor or other person who has no knowledge of the investigation.
There should be a local role for the PCC here rather than MPs and the
Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Q15
Q16
How do you think compliance and performance by agencies and
organisations under the Code can be best monitored? And by whom?
Should this be locally or nationally driven?
Locally, compliance and attrition rates could be monitored through Local
Criminal Justice Boards with public satisfaction or dissatisfaction
monitored by the PCC.
In addition to the improvements outlined in the Code, what reforms do you
think are needed to improve means of redress for victims?
Some national framework to set/indicate average time that victims can be
expected to wait for cases to progress through the CJS.
Failure for suspects to pay compensation to victims when required to by
the courts. The process of obtaining this compensation should be made
easier for the victim.
There should be some involvement by the Parole Boards and
consideration for victims attending these Boards.
Q17
Do you agree that there should be a dedicated section for children and
young people in the Code?
This is well supported.
Q18
Do you agree that the duties on the criminal justice agencies with regards
to children and young people are correct? Please give reasons.
Yes with regard to police but partner organisations recognise differing age
ranges.
The language in the Code may need to be more specific about whether
direct contact will be made with the young person or through an adult.
Q19
Do you consider that this section is appropriately user-friendly for children
and young people?
Overall it appears well-tailored to the requirements of young people
although there are still areas of mixed language within the text. The more
visually impactive and internet-based the better. Young people engage
well with visually stimulating on line material.
Q20
How can we ensure that the Code is communicated effectively?
The new Code needs to be communicated better than the current one. This
needs to be done through participating agencies using social media and
internet links in correspondence.
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Do you think we have correctly identified the range and extent of the
effects of these proposals on those with protected characteristics under
the Equality Act 2010?
Yes
If not, are you aware of any evidence that we have not considered as part
of our equality analysis? Please supply the evidence. What is the effect of
this evidence on our proposals?
N/A
Do you have any comments in relation to our impact assessment?
No
Could you provide any evidence or sources of information that will help us
to understand and assess those impacts further?
N/A
How long does it take to record a VPS from a victim of crime?
This will depend on the crime and the impact on the victim. So often it is
rushed. Time taken can be anywhere between 30 mins and 2 hours as
sometimes they are a form of therapy for the victim explaining exactly how
it has made them feel.
What is the additional burden on civil society organisations if they are
contracted to take the VPS on behalf of the police?
Additional burdens would include quality assuring the product (VPS) and
how this is commissioned and delivered by the Voluntary Community
Sector. Should victims have a say in who records their impact statement?.
Specific training must be given for this big responsibility and access to
victim at appropriate time.
Impact Assessment and Equality Statement
To inform responses to this consultation document we have published separate analyses of
the potential impacts of our proposals.
Impact Assessment: their purpose is to identify the main groups affected by our proposals
and the likely costs and benefits to those groups. The impact assessment can be found at
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/code-victims-crime
HU
UH
Equality Statement: in order to meet our obligations under the public sector equality duty in
section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. These consider the potential effects of our proposals
according to the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage
and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual
orientation. The Equality Statement can be found at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digitalcommunications/code-victims-crime
We welcome comments about the accuracy and extent of the effects identified. We
particularly welcome responses from those who identify themselves as sharing a protected
characteristic or from interest groups representing those with protected characteristics. The
responses received will be taken into account as the Government decides the best way
forward following the end of the consultation period.
Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses (VIW) Referral Pilot
Background
There are nearly 100,000 crimes reported each year in Sussex and an unknown number of
incidents are reported by witnesses who may or may not need support.
Not all crimes and incidents have a victim but on average, for every crime that progresses through
the criminal justice system there are one or two witnesses.
Victims of crime are referred to Victim Support for a needs assessment and are supported where
appropriate. There is continued activity to raise the quantity of these referrals from Sussex Police
to Victim Support.
Those victims and witnesses whose cases progress to not guilty pleas at court receive an
additional service from police Witness Care Teams, who conduct their own needs assessment,
and the Witness Service, who provide support at court.
Witnesses, who are not victims of crime, involved in cases that do not result in a prosecution do
not receive needs assessments or routine consideration for referral to, either Victim Support, the
Witness Service or other support services.
Witnesses involved in cases resulting in guilty pleas receive limited support.
There is a gap in service provision for many witnesses to crimes and incidents who may
need support.
Recent guidance from ACPO recommending a targeted approach to victims and witnesses is being
considered by Sussex Police in respect of those victims and witnesses whose cases progress to
court. This supports feedback from the public through the Victims Advocate Report where it is felt
that a one size fits all approach is now neither welcomed nor sustainable.
Support for witnesses who are vulnerable, intimidated and in most need is the preferred approach.
This is similar to the current approach to assessing reports of anti-social behaviour where a
considered and appropriate response is provided.
Pilot
Witnesses to crime and incidents will be risk assessed for vulnerability and intimidation, in
a similar way to reports of ASB, their details recorded and, where appropriate, passed to the
relevant organisation to provide support in line with the approach taken with victims of
crime.
It has been agreed to restrict the scope of the initial pilot phase to crime matters and
consider extending to incidents and road crash later.
This pilot is supported by senior practitioners and managers in Victim Support and Sussex
Police and endorsed by the Sussex Criminal Justice Board.
From May 2013 Sussex Police will commence roll-out of the Niche Integrated IT system and Victim
Support will upgrade their Case Management System (CMS) to CMS 2. The new police integrated
approach will capture victim and witness details from the point of reporting into the Police Contact
Centre (PCC) and as incidents are investigated and progressed through the integrated crime
aspect of the system.
Information provided by witnesses will enable call handlers and investigators to assess their needs
using a ‘harm based approach’ and consider referral to Victim Support. Witnesses who are
vulnerable, intimidated and in most need will be able to access support from the voluntary sector
that is rarely used at present.
The period January to March 2013 has been used to progress data sharing agreements and future
processes using the new technology. Sussex Police call handlers will assess how witnesses
respond to the risk assessment and referral process, noting average time taken to provide this
extra service. Sussex Police will provide a daily business objects report for Victim Support,
providing them with witness details who have requested referral.
Victim Support will receive these referrals at the First Response Centre at Shoreham and make
contact with the witness offering support. The number of referrals will be noted and additional
handling times by First Response teams and volunteer supporters.
Information, qualitative and quantitative will be made available to partners reviewing the pilot.
Partners consulted on this concept:
Maralyn Smith, Divisional Manager, Victim Support, Surrey and Sussex
Frances Amos, Manager, Witness Service, Sussex
Jo Ball, Manager of Sussex Police Contact Centre
Di Roskilly, Supt - Head of Sussex Police Criminal Justice Branch
Sean Lambourne, Manager Sussex Police Crime Management Unit
Debbie Ridgway, Deputy Manager, Sussex Police CMU
Sue Janman, Sussex Police Victim and Witness Delivery Manager
B. R. Tippen
SCJB 23.4.13