Meeting documents

Under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, there is a reciprocal duty for the Police and Crime Commissioner and certain criminal justice bodies to co?operate in ensuring an efficient and effective criminal justice system: Section 10 (3): … make arrangements (so far as it is appropriate to do so) for the exercise of functions so as to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area.

The Panel would like the PCC to provide detailed information on how he and other criminal justice agencies are co-operating in ensuring that there is an efficient and effective criminal justice system in the Thames Valley and whether partners have similar or differing priorities and key aims as outlined in the PCC’s new Police and Crime Plan.

Members noted the report and in particular that under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 there is a duty for PCC’s and criminal justice bodies (including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, youth offending teams and probation) to make arrangements to provide an efficient and effective criminal justice system for the police area.

The Deputy PCC (the PCC had to leave after the previous item) reported the following:-

·         That whilst the PCC currently chairs the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB), there were no formal levers for the PCC to exert power over criminal justice agencies

·         The PCC and criminal justice agencies meet and discuss current issues on a regular basis e.g prison service in Aylesbury and significant issues for policy.

During discussion the following questions were asked :-

Councillor Birchley - The PCC previously expressed concern about the closure of courts and the need for victims to travel along way to court. Are the use of remote video links being used effectively so they are overcoming the barrier of court closures ? The HMIC report says that in the Thames Valley the right to give evidence by video link rather than attend court was uncertain. Has there been an increase in failed cases due to closures?

The Deputy PCC reported that this had been raised at the LCJB and the concern around the reduction in estate and the impact this would particularly have on victims. The technology needed to be in place beforehand to compensate for the reduction in courts.

Julia Girling commented on the need to make use of video links and how crucial this was for the victim/witness and the need for support from local police officers through the trial process. She also referred to the need to reduce cracked (where a case is concluded without a court hearing) and failed trials. The Deputy PCC commented that they were always looking at how to improve taking cases to court. Cllr Egleton also referred to the fear of crime and the impact on victims and witnesses when court cases were delayed and they were not sure whether to come back when the trial restarted. He also referred to the roads policing item and the fact that the court had no further capacity to take on extra cases. The Deputy Chief Constable reported that the courts take on the maximum number of cases per day so that if one did not go ahead there were other cases that could. They obviously had to prioritise the more serious crimes and used police officers to help them with a system of familiarisation. They tried to make the best use of resources, which sometimes had its challenges.

Julia Girling commented that sometimes witnesses were asked to come back three times because of court delays and sometimes on the third request they did not attend because they had become fed up with the system. It was particularly difficult with vulnerable witnesses. 55% of witnesses when asked said they would not do it again because of court delays and their own experience. She also commented that the facilities for witnesses at courts were sometimes not great and specifically referred to Aylesbury Crown Court where the witness suite was used as a staff room. She commented that witnesses were not often prioritised and it was important to keep them engaged in the process. She asked if the PCC had visited any of the courts. The Deputy PCC reported that he had visited some of the courts but not all. He also commented that the PCC had very little direct power over these matters but he could raise this issue with LCJB partners.

Action Deputy PCC

The Deputy Chief Constable commented that there had been improvements in domestic abuse cases in terms of getting the case to court more quickly. Julia Girling commented that whilst this may be the case it was really key for domestic abuse cases whether they go to court or not for there to be a strong support network for the victim so that there were no repercussions of abuse. The Deputy PCC reported that they had recently held a conference at the Kassam Stadium on domestic abuse and coercive control which looked at long term care and support for victims and what the future held for them particularly after the perpetrator had been released from prison.

Cllr Webb - What is the PCC relationship like with the Chief Crown Prosecutor and is he responsive to the crime and safety priorities set out in your Plan. Do you scrutinise the variation in CPS performance nationally to understand how Thames Valley is doing on quality of police investigations and the conduct of local Crown Prosecutors  ?

The Deputy PCC reported that there was no formal role of scrutiny in this regard. The PCC was able to raise and address issues through the Local Criminal Justice Board, which was a robust partnership, but outside of this he had no power regarding the Crown Prosecution Service. This was a failure in the system.

Cllr Birchley asked what happened if there was a long delay before a case went to court? The Deputy Chief Constable reported that those involved would be shown their statements to refresh their memory.

Julia Girling commented that in some cases sentencing was not tough enough and was not a deterrent. The Deputy PCC reported that it was undertaken on a case by case basis and that the media could often report that sentencing was lenient but it was for the court to decide with the facts in front of them. This was an area outside the jurisdiction of the PCC and rules were set by Parliament. The media also criticised judges for not being in touch with reality, however with the cases that were brought to them on a regular basis they were very aware of what was happening on the ground.

Cllr Egleton referred to a recent HMIC report which says that ‘the leaders of local criminal justice agencies acting together, and in cooperation with the PCC, should undertake a fundamental review of local partnership arrangements to assess whether they are fit for purpose to lead improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the CJS at local level. PCCs have the pivotal role in helping local partners to work together as well as introducing accountability. The outcome of the review should be a multi agency action plan with clear objectives and measurable outcomes showing what success looks like so that all organisations are working in the best interests of the whole system’. Has the PCC done this and if not what action is he taking to achieve a joined up criminal justice system as outlined in this Plan ?

The Deputy PCC reported that the Local Criminal Justice Board was the forum to achieve a joined up criminal justice system and that partners were represented on the Board covering arrest to rehabilitation. They would need to work together on improving the system.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Panel have a themed meeting in September and that a selection of criminal justice partners be invited to attend.