Niacro

NIACRO works to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities

NIACRO’S RESPONSE TO NIO’S CONSULTATION

TO ALTERNATIVES TO PROSECUTION –

A DISCUSSION PAPER – MARCH 2008

1.         INTRODUCTION:

1.1       NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: promoting safer communities; working with children and young people who offend; providing services to families and children of offenders; supporting offenders and ex-prisoners in the community; working with prisoners. 

1.2       NIACRO works in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland. 

1.3       We welcome the opportunity to respond to the NIO consultation document “ALTERNATIVES TO PROSECUTION – A DISCUSSION PAPER – MARCH 2008

2.         BACKGROUND:

 

2.1NIACRO is unequivocal in its support for alternatives to prosecution.  Keeping people, particularly young people, out of the criminal justice system is an important consideration given the negative prediction as to future offending which current research evidences.

2.2However the main proposals in this paper focus on fines in some shape or form.  Northern Ireland’s current deplorable record as to its treatment of fine defaulters has to be addressed before any further individuals can be caught in this process and meaningful alternatives need not only to be discussed but agreed and resourced.  This is the second key consultation in the last 12 months where the issues of fine defaulters has been raised (also the Criminal Justice Order 2008) and without progress on this issue the genuine desire to ensure the appropriate use of disposals, specifically custody, has to be called into question.  So NIACRO requires that this issue be addressed and with adequate resources.

3.SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

3.1    Restorative adult cautioning - NIACRO does not accept that there is any imperative to limit the availability of this alternative to 18 – 21 year olds.  Many recommendations within the Criminal Justice Review have either been ignored or overtaken by events.  Further it would be useful to share the initial scoping exercise referred to in paragraph 2.17 as to why this has been so easily discounted.  NIACRO believes it does have general application for adult males and that it may very well be a helpful appropriate alternative for female offenders.

3.2   The effectiveness of Restorative Justice approaches - NIACRO is fully conversant with the principles and values of restorative justice and believes in its application.  In that context the raft of current available and proposed initiatives that focus on quick fix solutions such as fines, while dealing in many cases with the presenting issues of behaviour, undermines the fact that the solutions are often more complex and flies in the face of the quality results which are referred to from the Smith Institute’s finding reference page 12.

3.3  Informal warnings/adult cautions/ restorative cautions - NIACRO believes that the principal to separate the police’s role from that of prosecution/diversion decisions is important and is a critical confidence building measure in the current climate.  The evidence from England and Wales as to occupational capacity and appropriate usages are a concern but the key objection to moving further in this area is in relation to the role of PSNI.

It is NIACRO’s view that the rehabilitation period for an adult caution to be spent in our current legislative framework is unnecessarily punitive and we therefore formally request a review of that legislation so that it actually acts to provide reintegration support to those individuals who are working to change their behaviours and demonstrate positive contributions to employment or other such service.

3.4   Fixed Penalty Notices for disorder - Again NIACRO is not attracted to the England and Wales model given the issues referred to above in relation to the role of PSNI.  The potential to take fingerprints/DNA particularly in the context of either interface tension or any other community disturbance does not in our opinion appear to have been reality tested.  We are attracted to the Scottish model where lower levels of fines have resulted in greater compliance and the fact

that there is no criminal record of a conviction in the Scottish scenario. This is helpful. 

Not having had the experience of visiting a scheme in England and Wales the proposition that the issuing of fixed penalty notices or penalty notices for disorder, act to diffuse public order situations is questionable and if there is such compliance it does raise concerns as to the issue of net widening.

3.5   Fine default implementation team - The limited range of measures that are currently being considered all focus on responding to the financial penalties alone.  There needs to be consideration of a range of alternatives to financial penalties which are no answer to those who are struggling to make payments.  Alternatives to fine default need to be resourced and provision made available for the previously proposed supervisory activity orders.

3.6   Conditional cautioning - NIACRO believes that there is merit in further exploration of the option of conditional cautioning.  It would be important to ensure that there is clarity as to where this would be applied given the fact that we are not supporting the implementation of Penalty Notices for Disorder.  The mixture of compensation to victims in the community as well as conditions to address offending behavior seem to us to be proposals which could impact on offending behaviour and the commission of crime, though it would be very important to ensure that there were sufficient resources available in the community to meet the specific conditions required.

3.7   Direct Measures – As can be deduced from the above we believe that there is much to commend the Scottish model both in relation to the process of the Procurator Fiscal; the low levels of fines imposed and the consequent high levels of compliance along with the notion of undertaking either unpaid work or diversionary activity. 

3.8   Use of funds raised – NIACRO would support the use of the funds in relation to activities that both support victims and offenders.  It is important not to phrase this in a manner that says it is one or the other but rather to recognise that work with victims and work with offenders both work to reduce crime and its impact in the future.

3.9  Human rights and equality implications – There will undoubtedly be human rights issues if measures to obtain fingerprinting or DNA are either administered in some of the settings suggested under the Fixed Penalty Notices for Disorder or if any of these measures were used for children.  It would be an imperative that all under 18s – children – would be seen as children first and diverted away from the youth justice system.

4.CONCLUSION:

4.1NIACRO believes this is an important consultation and that as yet we are only positive in relation to conditional cautioning modeled on the Scottish system and a proper view as to the potential applications of restorative adult cautioning.  Any set of proposals that merely looks to extending the fines regime in the context where fine default is still so inappropriately dealt with will not receive our support.

Q1: Would you consider the development of alternatives to prosecution to be an advantageous addition to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland?

The answer is undoubtedly yes.  However there need to be alternatives other than financial penalties given the potential to default.  There then need to be alternative default arrangements in order to ensure that individuals are not being swept up tariff inappropriately. 

Paragraph 3.15 holds a limited set of options and there is a need for supervisory activity orders to be resourced and introduced. 

There needs to be clarity and differentiation in the range of alternatives that are introduced as it is clear from the research that the plethora of alternatives introduced in England and Wales have generated some confusion.

Q2: Do you consider that Penalty Notices for Disorder would be a useful

addition to the disposals available in Northern Ireland?

NIACRO does not support their introduction –

• We absolutely oppose their introduction for under 18 year olds
• We do not wish to see any blurring of the lines between the role of the police and prosecution duties
• We believe that widespread DNA sampling/fingerprinting is poor practice and likely to contribute to net widening
• The commission of crime and poor behaviour generally have a complex interplay of causal factors and this one size fits all adoption of a fine regime inadequately responds to the underlying causes

Q3: Do you consider that a conditional caution approach - involving elements of a punitive prosecutorial fine, and a menu of other rehabilitative and reparative conditions, where appropriate - should have a role in Northern Ireland?

This proposal is worthy of further consideration.  The Scottish model where the fine is set modestly has merit.  A further attraction to the option is the rehabilitative and reparative conditions which we fully support.  There are resource implications but a potential delivery programme could engage organisations experienced in working with offenders and those working with victims who could be commissioned to pilot the delivery of a service in this field.

Q4: Are there any other alternatives to prosecution which you believe the

government should be considering?

There is no reason to keep restorative adult cautioning located purely to the 18 – 21 age group as referenced in the Criminal Justice Review.  We believe that this approach has merit for adults of all ages and may be particularly appropriate in relation to women.

It would be transparent to make available the evidence that has inferred that this is not an appropriate alternative. 

In relation to supervised activity orders these need to be considered not just as an alternative to the fines regime but as an alternative to prosecution in its own right.

Q5: Do you consider that the PSNI should have the ability to make

autonomous decisions on the issue of Penalty Notices for Disorder?

No.  As outlined NIACRO believes in the separation of duties as has been established.

Q6: Do you consider that the counter-measures identified, in section 3,

adequately address the potential implementation issues raised?

As we do not favour implementation by the police the safeguard measures are irrelevant. 

Q7: Have you identified other potential operational difficulties, or issues of

concern, arising from implementation of the measures identified?

The key issue for Niacro in relation to our support for restorative adult cautioning and conditional cautioning as well as the realization of supervised activity orders is that resources must be available.

Q8: Do you consider that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland which may lead to an unintended impact here of alternatives to prosecution. If so, what are these, and how do you consider they might be addressed?

We believe that the measures that we are supportive of will not result in an unintended impact.  This assumes that children will not be included; the prosecution process will be independent and that there will be clear differentiation between the alternatives available.

Q9: Do you think it would be appropriate for revenue raised through the

imposition of any alternative to prosecution punitive fine to be diverted to

support victims’ services, and/or to fund rehabilitative services for offenders?

It is important that any funding raised would be available to fund services in relation to both victims and offenders.

It is important not to phrase this in a manner that says it is one or the other but rather to recognise that funding in relation to work with victims and work with offenders both help to reduce crime and its impact in the future.

Q10: Do you consider that implementation of such alternatives to prosecution might give rise to any concerns about human rights or equality issues?

There will undoubtedly be human rights issues if measures to obtain fingerprinting or DNA or either administered in some of the settings suggested under the Fixed Penalty Notices for Disorder are implemented or if there was any potential for any of these measures to be used for children.  It would be an imperative that all under 18s – children – would be seen as children first and diverted away from the youth justice system.