HC No - Parliament.uk

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response to the Committee's Fourteenth Report of Session 2014–15 Second Special Report of Session 2015–16 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2015

HC 379 Published on 24 July 2015 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £3. .50

Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Victoria Atkins MP (Conservative, Louth & Horncastle) James Berry MP (Conservative, Kingston & Surbiton) David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield, Southgate) Nusrat Ghani MP (Conservative, Wealden) Mr Ranil Jayawardena MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing & Shoreham) Stuart C. McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Keir Starmer MP (Labour, Holborn & St Pancras) Anna Turley MP (Labour, Redcar) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Carol Oxborough (Clerk), John-Paul Flaherty (Second Clerk), Dr Ruth Martin (Committee Specialist), Duma Langton (Committee Specialist), Andy Boyd (Senior Committee Assistant), Iwona Hankin (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Select Committee Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2049; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response

1

Second Special Report On 6 March 2015 the Home Affairs Committee published its Fourteenth Report of Session 2014-15, Out-of-Court Disposals (HC 799). The Government’s response to the Report was received on 20 July 2015, and is published as an Appendix to this Special Report.

Appendix: Government response Letter from Rt Hon Mike Penning MP, Minister of State for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Victims, 20 July 2015 I am responding on behalf of the Government to the Committee's report on out of court disposals (OOCDs). I would like to thank the Committee for its consideration of this important issue. I am pleased that the Committee agreed that the reforms to OOCDs that I announced in November 2014 would simplify the current framework, put victims at the heart of the system and emphasise those disposals that can address patterns of offending behaviour. I have set out in a separate attachment to this letter the Government's response to the recommendations and conclusions in the Committee's report.

Government response The Government would like to thank the Committee for its report on out of court disposals (OOCDs). The Ministry of Justice, working closely with the Home Office, has considered the report and the Government’s formal response is set out below. This follows the order of the Committee’s Report. Conclusion/Recommendation 1 Out-of-court disposals are not designed to deal with serious offences, nor with persistent offenders. It is alarming that they are used inappropriately in up to 30% of cases, although there might be certain circumstances where issuing an OOCD for a serious or repeat offence could be justified. One of the attractions of OOCDs is that they save the police time and administrative cost, allowing officers to spend more time on the frontline, policing the community, but they must not be used by police merely as a time-saving tool when the circumstances of the offence suggest that prosecution is the right course of action. This is especially the case when there is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be addressed by the type of sentence that only a court can administer. (Paragraph 13)

2

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response

Government response: The Government agrees that OOCDs should not be used for serious offending that clearly merits prosecution. As Richard Monkhouse said in his evidence, however, OOCDs can be a proportionate and effective response to low-level offending and a means of keeping the courts free of those cases that do not warrant prosecution. Conclusion/Recommendation 2 The way in which OOCDs have originated, and how local police forces have used them, has created a postcode lottery. It is wrong that an offence committed in Cumbria should go to court, while the same offence, if it was committed in Gloucestershire, might be dealt with by a caution. (Paragraph 17) Government response: The Government agrees with the statement made by Chief Constable Owens that the fragmented and organic way in which the current OOCD framework has developed is a barrier to consistency. This was one of the driving forces behind the current review of OOCDs, announced by the then Secretary of State for Justice in October 2013. The proposed reforms to the OOCD framework, which were announced last November and would see only two disposals instead of six, would help to bring about much greater consistency. That said, police forces should retain some discretion to determine the most appropriate means for tackling crime within their local areas. The Committee drew attention to the disparity across the 43 police forces in how offences are brought to justice. This is based in part on the OOCD data reproduced in Figure 2 of the Committee’s report, which set out the use of cautions, penalty notices for disorder and cannabis warnings by each force in the year ending March 2014. The table does not include data on the use of community resolutions, as the Home Office only began collecting national data on this disposal from April 2014. Use of community resolutions varies considerably between police forces, which may go some way to explaining the apparent disparity in overall disposal rates. Conclusion/Recommendation 3 The way in which OOCDs are recorded by the police does not help to instil public confidence in the system. If the reporting of a serious crime, for example rape, has been dismissed, but an OOCD has been used for a lesser crime, this is what should be recorded, in a straightforward and clear manner. This will assuage fears that this tool is being inappropriately used for serious crime. Furthermore, if worries that OOCDs are being used inappropriately to deal with repeat offenders are to be allayed, then the obvious and essential starting point is for all issued OOCDs to be recorded on the Police National Computer. (Paragraph 20)

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response

3

Government response: The Government notes the Committee’s view about the way the police record OOCDs. It is not always the case that the more serious crime has been dismissed, but rather that decisions are taken to deal with the offender for a lesser matter where it is considered to be in the public interest to do so. We will consider how such cases can be made more transparent in the future. In terms of repeat offenders, the Government agrees that police officers should have access to information about previous OOCDs. We are considering the options available to ensure that this information is made available to front line officers, including by making greater use of the Police National Computer. Conclusion/Recommendation 4 The reforms that have been made to simple cautions will go some way to restore public confidence in this type of disposal. The introduction through guidance of a high bar for their use when dealing with serious or repeat offences should ensure that they cannot be used, except in exceptional circumstances, for more serious or repeat offenders. The new guidance has already gone some way to reducing the number of simple cautions for indictable offences, and we support the proposal that the guidance be put on a statutory footing. (Paragraph 25) Government response: We welcome the Committee’s support for the measures taken by the last Government to restrict the use of simple cautions and to put these on a statutory footing. The Committee will be aware that the statutory restrictions contained in the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015 came into force on 13 April 2015. Conclusion/Recommendation 5 We agree that the current “organically developed” OOCD system is too complex, which does not help police officers. The proposed new system benefits from being a straightforward, escalatory process. In addition, the new system emphasises disposals to which conditions and measures are attached, which can address patterns of offending behaviour and puts victims at the heart of the system. We believe the introduction of a new system will mean that the police can start from a clean slate, and show that they can tackle low-level offending appropriately. (Paragraph 31) Government response: We are pleased that the Committee agrees that the measures announced by the last Government would address the complexity of the current OOCD framework and put victims at the heart of the reformed system. We agree that attaching conditions or actions to a disposal would enable the police to tackle low-level offending in a more appropriate

4

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response

and effective way. The three police forces that are currently piloting elements of the new framework have demonstrated real innovation in the types of conditions they have set as part of a conditional caution. Conclusion/Recommendation 6 Scrutiny panels must be established in all police force areas, so that decisions to use OOCDs are reviewed for appropriateness and consistency across the country. In addition, the feedback the panels provide will assist in identifying any extra training that police officers require. Therefore, we recommend that the representative of the police on the scrutiny panel be at least at the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, so that they have the authority to implement recommendations emanating from the panel. (Paragraph 35) Taken with Conclusion/recommendation 7 It is important that the scrutiny panels have a range of experience in order to assess the appropriateness of OOCD decisions. This should include the experience of victims, whether that voice is provided through a voluntary organisations or through victims themselves. This input should help improve the feedback that the panels provide. In addition, if the public are aware that victims are involved in reviewing OOCD decisions, they may be more confident in the system as a useful mechanism to deal with low-level offences. (Paragraph 36) Government response: The Government agrees that scrutiny panels are an important means of ensuring that OOCDs are administered appropriately and consistently. Every police force should, by now, have such a panel in place. Scrutiny panels can also identify examples of good practice, as well as training needs for police officers. The Committee recommended that the police representative on the panel should be at least of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable in order to have the authority to implement the panel’s recommendations. The Government agrees that panels should report to the force’s Chief Officer Team in order to ensure that lessons are learnt. In terms of panel membership, it is important that the police representative has sound operational knowledge of how OOCDs are used, in order to assist the panel in its discussions. The Government also agrees that each panel should have a broad range of experience and should include a victims’ representative. MoJ officials are working with police colleagues and others–including the Magistrates’ Association–to develop national guidance on how scrutiny panels should operate, including their membership. This guidance should be finalised over the summer.

Out-of-court Disposals: Government Response

5

Conclusion/recommendation 8 The College of Policing is the key police organisation for producing and disseminating guidance. The work that the College of Policing has done to provide Authorised Professional Practice guidance on the six OOCDs should bring more consistency to the practices of police forces, if it is followed. If the new OOCD system is fully rolled out, the College must be ready to provide the authoritative guidance from the outset, so that the problems of the current system do not reoccur. In addition, it must be involved in providing officers with training on how to use these tools appropriately. (Paragraph 39) Government response: The Government agrees that if the proposed, streamlined OOCD framework is to be rolled out across England and Wales, then clear and authoritative guidance to the police is vital. MoJ officials are working closely with College of Policing colleagues on the Review of OOCDs and to prepare for any possible changes to Authorised Professional Practice.