“It has never been the rule in this country — I hope it never will be — that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution”. So said Sir Hartley Shawcross, Britain’s lead prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials, a view supported recently by Andy Cooke, Chief Inspector of Police and Fire Services. All prosecutions should be in the public interest.
Go to your local magistrates’ court and watch any day’s court hearings and you will wonder whether today’s police and prosecutors have forgotten Sir Hartley’s wise words. You will see people accused of shoplifting some groceries, of having a small amount of cannabis in their pocket, of not having the right ticket on the tube. These are crimes and cause harm to individuals, businesses and society at large, but do court sanctions fit the crime? Most of those who commit lower-level crime plead guilty and are sentenced to pay a court fine. They struggle to pay – they often have very little money and lead chaotic lives. Having to pay a court fine is a punishment, but there is little evidence punishment on its own changes behaviour.
Some police forces are champions of resolving crime out of court. They try to offer those who have committed lower-level offences the opportunity to change their behaviour and make amends without receiving a court sanction. Police officers can refer those with addiction problems to services, they can persuade people to apologise to the victim and they can get them to pay compensation for a broken window or keyed car. Police have a choice. They can either use out of court disposals – where the suspect receives an informal or formal sanction – or divert straight to the services the suspect needs. The suspects are often people with complex health and family issues. There is no silver bullet. But resolving crime out of court seems to deal better with lower-level crimes than court. More than a third of those sentenced to imprisonment reoffend in the year after leaving prison. Only 19% of those who receive a caution (the main out-of-court disposal) reoffend in the year after receiving it.
Resolving crime outside a courtroom is on average more effective than court sanctions in reducing offending. But what about victims? Recent surveys suggest the public seek severe punishment even for lower-level crimes – 95% of the public polled wanted a court sanction for someone found not wearing a seat belt in a moving car. 15% of all those polled wanted the seat belt avoider to go to prison. So, when faced with a crime done to them, what do victims want? When the reality hits, many victims are less punitive than the polls would suggest. Most want their hurt and loss recognised, they want the crime to be resolved and they want something to be done to stop the person who harmed them doing it again. For lower-level crimes, many victims don’t particularly want the case to go to court, but it’s all they know about.
The Turning Point diversion programme shows that victims can be more satisfied by a crime being resolved out of court than if it were prosecuted. ‘Turning Point’ was a deferred prosecution programme which ran in Birmingham. When someone who had committed a lower-level offence could be identified, police in custody offered the person the option of undergoing a rehabilitative programme or being prosecuted. The suspects didn’t have to formally admit the offence and would not get a criminal record if they completed the programme. The police consulted victims about their views – whether they were OK with resolving the crime without going to court. When victims understood that the individual who punched them when drunk/stole their phone/was found with a knife might change their behaviour through Turning Point, most were positive. Overall, victims whose crime was dealt with out of court were more positive than those where the accused was prosecuted.
One of the key advantages of deferred prosecution programmes like ‘Turning Point’ is that suspects can make amends and work on turning their lives around without the ‘life sentence’ imposed by a criminal record. Any employer can ask for a criminal record check, and some types of check can reveal crimes committed many years before. A significant minority of employers will not hire anyone with a criminal record, and it can also be more difficult to get housing and to travel. Most suspects who are dealt with by the police out of court don’t get a criminal record, even if they admit responsibility, but one out-of-court sanction – the caution – does attract a criminal record. Receiving a caution is still better than receiving a court conviction, but we are campaigning to change the law, so cautions are never automatically disclosed on criminal records. The campaign www.fairchecks.org.uk is open to all those who feel that the current criminal records disclosure system blights the futures of children and young people. Do join us.
For more information about how to resolve crime without going to court www.linktr.ee/transformjustice or browse our website www.transformjustice.org.uk
Penelope Gibbs, Director, Transform Justice
