Avoidable DelayA THEMATIC INSPECTION OF DELAYIN THE PROCESSING OF CRIMINALCASES IN NORTHERN IRELAND

May 2006

i

AVOIDABLE DELAYA thematic inspection of delay in the processingof criminal cases in Northern Ireland

May 2006

ii

iii

List of abbreviations iv

Chief Inspector’s Foreword vii

Executive summary xi

Recommendations xv

PART 1 System wide issues

Chapter 1 Change in the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System 3Chapter 2 What is Delay? 7Chapter 3 Leadership to reduce delay 17Chapter 4 Delivery structures 23

PART 2 Case process stage issues

Chapter 5 Report / Charge 31Chapter 6 File preparation 35Chapter 7 Prosecution of criminal cases 41Chapter 8 The courts (case management) 51Chapter 9 Youth cases 63

Appendix 1 Methodology 73

Contents

iv

List of abbreviations

BIS Benefit Investigation Services

CJA Criminal Justice Agencies

CJINI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland

CJR Criminal Justice Review

CJS Criminal Justice System (Northern Ireland)

CJU Criminal Justice Unit (in PSNI)

CMS Case Management System (in PPS)

CPO Case Processing Office (in PSNI)

DAG Delay Action Group

DCU District Command Unit of PSNI

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid

DPP Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions

FSNI Forensic Science Northern Ireland

HMCPSI Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary

HMICA Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration

ICOS Integrated Court Operations System

IT Information Technology

LCJ Lord Chief Justice

MIT Murder Investigation Team

MOU Memorandum Of Understanding

NI Northern Ireland

v

NICtS Northern Ireland Court Service

NIO Northern Ireland Office

PE Preliminary Enquiry

PI Preliminary Investigation

PPS Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland

PSA Public Service Agreement

PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland

PSR Pre-Sentence Report

PYO Persistent Young Offender

RFI Request for Further Information

RUC Royal Ulster Constabulary

SDG Strategy and Delivery Group

SIO Senior Investigating Officer (PSNI)

SLA Service Level Agreement

SMART Specific, Measurable,Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound

SPD State Pathologist’s Department

SSI Social Services Inspectorate

SSR Specific Sentence Report

TIS Time Interval Survey

TSR Trial Status Report

YJA Youth Justice Agency

vi

1. The purpose of this inspection was to review the extent and causes of avoidable delay inthe processing of criminal cases in Northern Ireland and to produce recommendationsfor improvement.

2. Despite the best efforts of many working in the criminal justice agencies, delays in theNorthern Ireland criminal justice system have become excessive. The problem is mostworrying in relation to offences committed by young people. The spirit of prompt,‘summary’ justice for relatively minor offences by young people has been lost, to thedetriment of the offender as well as the victim or witness. Throughout the system,avoidable delay is adding to costs and reducing the effectiveness of criminal justice.

3. The report makes some significant proposals for tackling the problem of avoidable delay.I hope it will assist the agencies to make a real and perceptible impact on the problem.

4. Like all inspections, this was a snapshot at a particular point in time. Significant initiativeshave been taken both before and since the fieldwork was conducted for this inspection.Use of the Causeway information system, for example, has moved on significantly in theintervening months. I hope that a joint Action Plan will be developed in response to thisreport, which will reflect the progress that has been made as well as setting out thefurther response of the agencies to the recommendations.

5. The Inspection Team, led by James Corrigan of CJI, with the specialist help of inspectorsfrom HMIC, HMICA, HMCPSI and SSI, appreciated the co-operation it received from allthe criminal justice agencies and from the Northern Ireland Office. I particularlyappreciated the contribution which members of the judiciary made to this inspection.CJI does not, of course, inspect the judiciary: any recommendations for improving theadministration of court business are addressed to the Northern Ireland Court Service,not to the judiciary, whose independence CJI entirely respects.

6. I am also grateful to those who served on the Steering Committee for the review:Jacqui Durkin (Court Service), Chief Supt Tom Haylett (PSNI) and Raymond Kitson (PPS).They served in a personal and advisory capacity, and bear no responsibility for anydeficiencies in the resulting report.

Kit ChiversChief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland

vii

Chief Inspector’s Foreword

“To no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice”(Magna Carta)

viii

At a glance – key areas for improvement

The problem of delay is worse in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales.Published case processing times for youth court cases, for example, are more thantwice as long in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales.

What needs to happen:

1. Ministers and officials need to ensure that all the agencies are workingtogether on the issues of delay, with a common strategy and sharedtargets.

2. The PSNI needs to improve the quality and timeliness of the files it submits to the Public Prosecution Service.

3. The Prosecution Service needs to improve its processes and themanagement of those processes.

4. Cases need to be managed actively through joint, inter-agency co-operation.

5. There needs to be a proper analysis of the reasons for courtadjournments.

6. There should be a specific target for reducing delay in youth cases.

In addition:

7. The use of police bail needs to be more disciplined.

8. The PPS should help the Police by reducing requests for a full file, and by onlyasking for further information when it is really necessary.

9. More cases, especially youth cases, should be diverted away from the PPS and thecourts by use of police informed warnings and cautions.

10. Defendants who are guilty should be further encouraged to plead guilty at theearliest opportunity.

11. The operation of legal aid should be adjusted to provide every reasonableincentive for the brisk disposal of cases.

The full list of recommendations is on page xv.

ix

x

xi

Executive summary

1. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 and the subsequent Criminal Justice Review in 2000have been the main drivers of change in the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System(CJS). The rapid pace and intensity of change has inevitably put pressures on agenciesas they have sought to restructure, reorganise and modernise how they conduct thebusiness of justice. But it has also challenged agencies to reassess and evaluate theeffectiveness and efficiency of how they deliver their services to the public. The cost of these services per head of population in Northern Ireland is nearly double that inEngland, Scotland or Wales.

2. The timeliness of case progression through the CJS is an important indicator of itseffectiveness and efficiency. Inspectors found many views from within the CJS andamong users that case processing times are unacceptably long, and this is confirmed bycomparisons with England and Wales. Despite efforts by the Criminal Justice Board(CJB) and the Delay Action Group (DAG) to reduce delay, case processing times havebecome longer for indictable cases and it now takes on average about a year to processa defendant’s case from first remand to disposal – this does not include the time fromoffence to first appearance in court. The average processing time for adult defendants,who appear in the magistrates’ court, is 113 days from charge/issue of summons todisposal. Youth defendants are taking 134 days on average from charge/issue ofsummons to disposal. Published data for adult and youth magistrates’ courts show thatcases are taking much longer in Northern Ireland compared to England and Wales. Thelength of these processing times appears to be excessive and requires immediate andjoint action by the Northern Ireland criminal justice system.

3. This report is divided into two sections: (i) criminal justice system-wide issues and; (ii)case process stage issues aimed at one or more agencies. Inspectors found consensusamong all the agencies that case processing times should be shorter i.e. that avoidabledelay is a feature of the criminal justice system. There is also broad agreement thatdelay has negative consequences for most agencies and users of the criminal justicesystem. In particular, the impact on young people, as victims, witnesses and particularlyoffenders, can be very detrimental. Time intervals and targets are often necessary inthe interests of justice, to enable cases both for the prosecution and for the defence to be prepared properly. But some time is wasted, and some delays are unreasonable.It is the avoidable delay which is the subject of this inspection.

4. The criminal justice agencies and users accept that avoidable delay is a problem whichneeds to be addressed, though there is some reluctance to attribute responsibility totheir own agencies, professions or groups. A number of strategies and targets havebeen developed, though none could be described as joined-up or taking an end to endapproach to the problem. Instead, existing strategies and targets are agency specificwith little input and participation from others within the CJS. The dilemma is thatwhile many of the causes of avoidable delay may be agency focused, the solutions needto be delivered jointly through an end to end approach to case progression. There is a

need for a joint strategy on delay which is underpinned by specific delay targets. TheCriminal Justice Strategy and Delivery Group should take overall leadership for thedelay strategy and its development and implementation should be the responsibility ofthe CJB.

5. The main response of the CJS to the issue of avoidable delay has been in the context ofthe two specific recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review. The Justice OversightCommissioner has stated that both recommendations have technically been achieved,but is critical of an approach which is not designed ‘to address the causes of delay inthe criminal justice process.’ The approach, which was developed by the CJB and the DAG, is primarily centred on monitoring performance in relation to indictable (Crown Court) criminal cases. Actions and solutions are generally confined to existing initiatives with little scope to allocate tasks and achieve coordinated delivery.Inspectors are in agreement with the Justice Oversight Commissioner, who stated that‘the problems of delay will not be solved through the collection of data and prolongeddiscussion’. The CJB should take a more pro-active leadership role in relation to delayand the DAG should become more action-orientated. Successful delivery of thestrategy will require joint co-operation and action at local level which should take theform of improved inter-agency co-operation (e.g. case progression groups).

6. CJI welcomes the engagement of the senior judiciary in trying to reduce caseprocessing times through more effective case management in the Crown Court. It isappropriate that the judiciary should provide leadership in addressing a delay culturewhich pervades at every stage, and in all types of cases. On a broader level, strong andeffective leadership from across the CJS is critical to the delivery of a delay strategyand to challenging the cultures and practices which contribute to this problem.

7. If, as we hope, significant reductions in case processing times can be achieved over thenext few years, CJI recommends that statutory time limits should be introduced inNorthern Ireland by 2009-10, and these should include sanctions for non-complianceon the lines of the regime in Scotland.

8. The second section of the report is focused on process stage issues of case progressionand recommendations are targeted at specific criminal justice agencies. The inspectionfound that the causes of avoidable delay are varied in type but are consistently evidentin all the criminal justice agencies. It is at the interfaces between these agencies thatproblems such as file preparation are most evident.

9. There are two major concerns on file preparation: too many files are slow (late inrelation to time targets) in reaching the PPS; and too many are of poor quality (inrelation to checks by the PPS) meaning that additional time is required to obtainmissing information. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), who prepare most investigation files, accept that improvement to the timeliness and quality of filepreparation is necessary and this is the core theme of its ‘reducing delays’ strategy.

xii

10. This report recommends that the PSNI needs to further prioritise the importance offile preparation within the Service and address a culture which regards ownership of a case as ending at the point of charge. Appropriate training should be provided toofficers and supervisors. Inspectors accept that delays associated with file preparationare not always within the direct control of the police. In particular, both forensicscience and pathology reports have been a significant source of delay in recent years.Both Forensic Science Northern Ireland and the State Pathologist’s Department havebeen inspected by CJI in 2005 and a number of recommendations have been made inrelation to their contribution to reducing delays.

11. The submission of poor quality files has put additional pressures on the PublicProsecution Service (PPS), which is currently experiencing significant challenges in the context of its roll out across Northern Ireland. It is therefore not surprising thatbottlenecks have emerged at various points, and poor advance planning was evident inits roll out in Fermanagh and Tyrone. Inspectors are concerned that backlogs in cases,primarily from post registration to decision on prosecution, are likely to continue andtherefore add avoidable delay to cases.

12. Performance against internal timeliness targets is poor, especially as these targets areconsidered generous by some senior staff within the PPS. The solution is two fold: (i)the PPS should continue to improve its existing processes and practices whileallocating/re-directing resources to tackle specific bottlenecks; (ii) the PPS inconjunction with other criminal justice agencies should reconsider some key principlesbehind the formation of the PPS in order to reduce its volume of cases and expeditethe processing of youth cases in particular. In particular, there is a need to reassesswhether it is necessary that all decisions on informed warnings and cautions for youthsshould continue to be taken by the PPS. There is also scope to further reduce overallcaseload through delegation of ‘absolute’ offences to the PSNI and by the extension offixed penalty offences.

13. Effective case administration and management is critical to the expedition of criminalcases. Inspectors found some good examples of case progression – the Trial StatusReports and Pre-Trial Reviews developed and implemented by the senior judiciary inrelation to Crown Court cases are examples of good practice. The use of caseadministration is still underdeveloped for the vast majority of cases in the magistrates’courts. It has been adopted by the DAG in the establishment of the inter-agency CaseTracking Group for indictable cases, though the group has made little impact to date.

14. The report recommends that effective and targeted case management (prior to court)and case administration (in court) is required for magistrates’ court cases. Caseprogression groups should be established by the criminal justice agencies, initially with afocus on youth cases. The Court Service should appoint case progression officers totake the lead in this exercise, thought the onus is on all the agencies to take a proactiverole in case progression. It is imperative that reliable data on live cases is available tothese groups so that priorities and actions are based on the most up to dateinformation.

xiii

15. Inspectors conducted an analysis of case files as part of this inspection. The purposewas to assess the quality of information contained in case files and then to use thisinformation to form a better understanding of the reasons for adjournments. It wasquickly apparent that the case files did not provide a full picture on adjournments andthat any fuller analysis would require changes to how this valuable information iscollected. Court observations also confirmed the existence of an adjournment cultureand indicated there is limited challenge to adjournment requests in court. Arecommendation is made that the Court Service should take the lead in seeking crossagency consensus on the definition and measurement of the reasons for magistrates’court adjournments. Existing databases should be modified to measure and monitorthis data. This information will be invaluable for identifying the causes of delay in courtand for reaching consensus on how these problems should be tackled.

16. The operation of legal aid was raised as a concern by a number of the agencies,particularly by some users of the CJS. While this inspection did not explore legal aid indetail, it did raise a number of issues which could impact on the length of cases. Inparticular, there is strong support for a set fee to be applied to all cases – as currentlyoperates in the Crown Court. Linked to the operation of legal aid is the issue of guiltypleas. It is manifest to inspectors that a prime cause of avoidable delay is the rate andtiming of guilty pleas. Evidence from meetings, file reviews and observations in courtshow that guilty pleas are common, but are often taken at the last moment (i.e. on theday of trial). By this stage, both the prosecution and the defence (each primarily fundedby the public) will have spent considerable resources on preparing cases and informingwitnesses and victims of court dates. Very often these witnesses and victims are thenasked to return on another date. Securing earlier guilty pleas can only partly beachieved by changes to the operation of legal aid. It must also be linked to the choicethat defendants have between gaining the benefits of an early guilty plea as opposed tothe chances of an acquittal following a contest. A combination of tangible benefits foran early guilty plea linked to a lower chance of an acquittal (e.g. through improvedprosecution of cases) should lead to earlier guilty pleas and to a significant reduction inoverall case processing times.

17. Reducing the extent of avoidable delay in the processing of criminal cases in NorthernIreland can only be achieved by joint action by all the key criminal justice agencies.Greater accountability at an inter-agency and local level should ensure that problemsand priorities can be agreed and issues channelled to respective senior management.CJI welcomes the commitment of all the agencies to tackling this problem. It makesthese recommendations as means of achieving a more effective, efficient and joined-upcriminal justice system which provides the public with greater confidence in theadministration of justice.

xiv

Recommendations

PART 1• The Criminal Justice Strategy and Delivery Group should take overall responsibility

for the development of a joint delay strategy, which encompasses all criminal cases.(Para 3.1)

• The Criminal Justice Board should be more proactive in coordinating a framework ofshared targets (delay) and monitoring the contribution that agencies are making towardsthem. It needs to be given a clear mandate to this effect by the SDG, and it needs a jointsecretariat properly resourced for this purpose. (Para 3.2)

• Each criminal justice agency should amend existing strategies and targets to align withthe recommended joint CJS strategy on delay. (Para 3.9)

• Specific delay targets should be set as part of the overall joint strategy on delay.Reduction in delay should become a PSA target in Northern Ireland as soon as this ispracticable and no later than 2008. Performance against the targets should be reportedin the CJS Annual Report. (Para 3.16)

• A separate youth target should be included in the delay strategy. (Para 9.22)

• The Criminal Justice Board should give serious consideration, as part of its delaystrategy, to identifying the numbers of persistent young offenders in Northern Irelandand then developing an appropriate strategy. (Para 9.11)

• The purpose, role, remit and membership of the Delay Action Group should be reviewedso that the group is more action-oriented and focused on all criminal cases from entryto the CJS to disposal in the courts. The work of the youth group should be subsumedby the DAG. (Para 4.4)

• Specific cross agency case progression groups should be set up and operate acrossNorthern Ireland. The new structure should be piloted for youth court cases. Terms ofreference for the operation of case progression meetings should be developed by theDAG. (Para 4.7)

• Statutory time limits should be introduced in Northern Ireland by 2009-2010. The timelimits should include sanctions for non compliance along the lines of those that currentlyoperate in Scotland. (Para 4.12)

xv

PART 2• PSNI should select a sample of cases to more accurately identify offence to charge /

summons times in Northern Ireland. (Para 5.4)

• Prosecutorial and pre-charge advice by the PPS to the police should be extended beyondnormal working hours. (Para 5.11)

• The PSNI should urgently address its problems with file preparation and address thewidespread issue of non-compliance on file quality and timeliness. Individualperformance should be linked to individual assessment reviews and ultimately to overall remuneration (e.g. Competency Related Threshold Payments). (Para 6.12)

• An urgent review of training on file preparation should be undertaken and appropriatetraining should be implemented as soon as possible. The PPS should provide an input tothe development of this training and also be involved in its delivery. (Para 6.14)

• It is critical that more robust quality control mechanisms and processes are put in place,and that supervisors who are the gatekeepers between the investigating officer and thePPS, are targeted for enhanced training provision. (Para 6.16)

• An accurate and agreed projection of future caseload should be undertaken by the PSNIand PPS as it will have implications for how resources are used to tackle avoidable delay.(Para 7.4)

• Better contingency arrangements are required for the future roll out of the PPS. PPSshould re-consider the timetable for the future roll out of the service in areas whereappropriate accommodation will not be available. (Para 7.8)

• The process of file allocation needs to be urgently reviewed by the PPS and a moreefficient file management system needs to be implemented as this is not appropriate forthe current or projected volume of cases. (Para 7.10)

• A standardised approach regarding ‘direct contact’ policy should be established betweenthe PPS and the police. A more formal means of feedback from the PPS to the PSNI isrequired. (Para 7.13)

• Alternative arrangements for signing of summonses should be implemented. This shouldinclude the use of electronic signatures which are authorised by a PPS prosecutor.(Para 7.26)

• A short-term measure should include modifications to existing PPS processes (e.g. fileallocation) with additional resources targeted at the reduction of current backlogs. ThePPS, in conjunction with the other criminal justice agencies, should reconsider whether itneeds to take all prosecution decisions. (Para 7.30)

xvi

• Regional variations in court performance should be explored in more detail to identifyareas where best practice can be shared. (Para 8.10)

• With the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, the Court Service should conduct aconsultation exercise, to identify how it can best handle different types of business andalso meet the changing needs of its users. (Para 8.10)

• NICtS should appoint case progression officers for magistrates’ court cases. (Para 8.13)

• Detailed and ongoing case file analysis, which inspectors consider to be essential, willrequire all the key agencies to agree how each type of adjournment is recorded in court.Data should be collected and disseminated by the courts, and IT systems should bemodified for this purpose. (Para 8.20)

• The PPS and the PSNI should ensure that ownership of witness attendance is agreed andthat communication and liaison are enhanced. (Para 8.28)

• PBNI should report separately on its performance in relation to PSRs and explanatoryletters, and should work closely with sentencers in relation to the extended use of SSRs.(Para 8.41)

• Greater flexibility with regard to decisions on informal warnings and cautions to youngpeople is required so that (in the words of the Criminal Justice Review) ‘cases are dealtwith expeditiously’. The PSNI should therefore assume delegated responsibility fordecisions on youth warnings and cautions. (Para 9.6)

• Periods of remand (on bail and in custody) should be for the shortest time possible,particularly for young offenders. The criminal justice agencies should developprocedures on implementation to minimise time spent on remand. (Para 9.14)

• More detailed plans are necessary for the PPS prioritisation of youth cases. They shouldbe formulated in conjunction with other CJAs, and implemented as quickly as possible.(Para 9.17)

• The practice of combining youth cases with longer-running adult or youth cases shouldbe restricted to exceptional circumstances. (Para 9.18)

xvii

xviii

System wide issues

PART 1

1

2

3

1.1 Much of the impetus for change in theNorthern Ireland Criminal JusticeSystem (CJS) has emanated from theBelfast Agreement of 1998 and thesubsequent Criminal Justice Reviewwhich was published in 2000. A keyobjective of the Review was toimprove public confidence through amore effective and efficient criminaljustice system. A recurring theme inthe Review was the issue of delay. Itmade two specific recommendations:(i) ‘introduction of legislation that willenable statutory time-limits to beintroduced in Northern Ireland, shouldthat be judged to be necessary’; and (ii)when ‘setting limits within which casesshould be completed, attention shouldbe paid to the average time taken toprocess cases at the relevant stages.’The Review acknowledged that manyof its other recommendations wouldalso impact on delay in the processingof criminal cases. For example, therecommendation to reform thepractice of how serious cases arecommitted (i.e. sent) to the CrownCourt was based on achieving a moreefficient and effective system andthereby reducing delays.

1.2 One of the biggest changes proposedby the Criminal Justice Review was theestablishment of a single independentprosecuting authority. A new PublicProsecution Service (PPS) has replacedthe Department of the Director ofPublic Prosecutions (DPP) and is takingon responsibility for the prosecutionof all criminal cases. Staff numbershave rapidly increased from 150 staff(DPP) to a current figure of 387(December 2005), and it is projectedthat 550 staff will be employed when it is fully operational. The number ofcases received has been increasingfrom around 10,000 per year to20,000 in 2004/05, and it is projectedby the PPS that this will increase toover 70,000 cases per year when fullyoperational. Inspectors acknowledgethe level of change that is requiredwithin the PPS to achieve its full rollout. It is important that the issue oftimeliness should remain a priority formanagers and staff within theorganisation.

Change in the Northern IrelandCriminal Justice System

CHAPTER 1:

4

1.3 A major process of internalreorganisation has being taking place in the police as a result of the Pattenreport on policing in NorthernIreland, which was published in 1999

1.

This led to the replacement of theRoyal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) bythe Police Service of Northern Ireland(PSNI).The PSNI is facing a number ofkey challenges, particularly in terms oftraining new officers and wider humanresource development. One of thebiggest operational changes to datehas been the introduction of electroniccase preparation as it requires a majorcultural change within theorganisation.

1.4 The Northern Ireland Court Service(NICtS) has not faced that same levelof organisational change, though over90 recommendations of the CriminalJustice Review had direct or indirectrelevance for NICtS. Examples includethe establishment of lay magistrates,coroners reform, inclusion of 17 yearolds in the youth court and issuing ofyouth court guidelines. Some recentdevelopments are impacting on howNICtS conducts its business. Theproposed abolition of committalproceedings will mean that indictablecases are sent directly to the CrownCourt instead of the current practiceof having preliminary hearings at themagistrates’ court. There have beensome recent changes in the operationof legal aid (which is now operationalin the Crown Court and will soonapply to the magistrates’ courts).

1.5 There are significant changes takingplace in Forensic Science NorthernIreland and in the State Pathologist’sDepartment. These changes are partlydesigned to reduce the time taken toproduce reports for the PSNI and theCJS in general. Recent inspections byCriminal Justice Inspection (CJI) foundsignificant delays in the submission ofreports by both organisations, and this was having a negative impact on overall case progression times.A set of recommendations has beendeveloped for both organisations, andsome notable improvements have beenachieved in relation to the timelinessof DNA forensic science reports inparticular. Progress will be re-assessed by CJI later in 2006.

1.6 The Causeway Programme is a majortechnology initiative designed to joinup existing criminal justice informationtechnology (IT) systems. It will notreplace individual agency IT systemsbut instead seek to provide greatercompatibility and sharing ofinformation between the criminaljustice agencies. It does howevermean that many agency IT systems will require upgrades or replacementin some cases. The key benefit ofCauseway is that details on criminalcases can be shared across the CJSelectronically. The first phase (DSM0 –case preparation) is now complete andoperational for the PSNI, ForensicScience Northern Ireland and the PPS.The next major phase (DSM1 – courtsprocess) has been delayed until May2007 and will involve Court Service

1 A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland,The Report of theIndependent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland

5

participation and greater casemanagement functionality. One of thekey outputs of Causeway is the use ofelectronic case preparation (launchedin July 2005). It means that once the police create the file, it can thenbe sent electronically to the PPS(launched in July 2005). WhileCauseway was not devised specificallyto address delay, one of its key benefitsis expected to be a reduction inadministrative delay, principally at theinterfaces between the criminal justiceagencies.

1.7 The Causeway team was tasked withpreparing a paper on delay – a shortreview of the causes of delay inbringing criminal cases to trial inNorthern Ireland. In late 2002,Ministers commissioned an ad hocgroup of representatives of thecriminal justice agencies to takeforward the work arising from thisreport. The group reported toMinisters in 2003 that the introductionof particular measures would have apositive impact on delay in advance ofthe major benefits to be delivered bythe Causeway programme. A key issuehowever is that Causeway is moving at the pace of the slowest partner and modifications of existing and newIT systems are taking longer thananticipated. A clear example was thedelay in the roll out of electronic casepreparation in Fermanagh and Tyronewhich impacted very negatively on thePPS.

1.8 Inspectors acknowledge the concernsof senior staff in the PPS and PSNI in particular, that major changeprogrammes can put additionalpressures on core activities andtherefore may result in delays.Conversely a period of change,particularly when it is supported by significant additional resources tothe CJS, is an ideal opportunity tomake the necessary improvements for a more effective and efficient CJS.Inspectors acknowledge that some ofthe recommendations of this reportmay require additional resources.Most should link with the currentstrategic plans of the criminal justiceorganisations and should thereforerequire no additional resources todeliver. In the longer term, lessavoidable delay and quicker caseprocessing times will provideefficiencies for the wider criminaljustice system.

6

7

What is Delay?CHAPTER 2:

The concept of delay

2.1 The use of the term ‘delay’ can becontentious in a criminal justicecontext. While delays in the healthservice for patients or in thetransport service for passengers aregenerally criticised as unacceptable,delays in the processing of criminalcases are often referred to by those who work in the system as‘necessary’, and ‘unavoidable’.A distinction is made betweenadministrative delay (e.g. transferringof case files between offices oragencies) and legal delay (e.g.adequate time for the prosecution ordefence to read the case files) thoughthe boundaries are not easily evident.Everyone accepts that a reasonableperiod of time is required to conductinvestigations, prepare prosecutionand defence cases and to conduct afair trial. There is little agreement,however, on how long is a ‘reasonable’time, as criminal cases vary in theircomplexity, and comparisons orbenchmarks with other criminaljustice systems or jurisdictions areresisted on the basis of different laws,structures, IT systems and people.

2.2 This also reflects the response of thecourts to cases brought under Article6 of the European Convention on

Human Rights. The Convention onHuman Rights, which is formallyincorporated into UK law, states that‘everyone is entitled to a fair andpublic hearing within a reasonabletime by an independent and impartialtribunal established by law.’ This is aright which can be traced back 800 years to Magna Carta, whichstated ‘to no one will we refuse ordelay right or justice.’ No exactinterpretation of a ‘reasonable time’ has been defined as the courtshave determined each case on itsparticular circumstances, though many have accepted that individualcases have violated Article 6.

2.3 A number of studies and reports have attempted a definition of delayand sought to solve the problem ofdetermining from when the length of delay can be measured. A Councilof Europe study2 examined delay incriminal cases in some detail andconcluded that it is best to ‘use amore abstract definition of delay’which provides greater scope foranalysis of its causes and possiblesolutions. The paper suggested thatdelay should be defined as when a case ‘takes more time than

2 Delays in the Criminal Justice System – Causes andSolutions, Council of Europe, p.3

8

necessarily required by the penalsystem, considering all procedural,constitutional and other rights ofdefendant, victim and witness.’

2.4 The PPS, in its recent investigationinto delay, defined it as ‘allunnecessary time taken to progresscases within the prosecution servicewhich can be reasonably consideredto be avoidable.’ The PSNI, in itsreducing delay strategy also focusedon ‘unnecessary delay in caseinvestigation, preparation andadjudication.’ There is thereforesome consensus that time which is ‘unnecessary’, ‘avoidable’‘unreasonable’ and ‘unacceptable’ can be defined as delay.

2.5 The perception and experience ofthose who work in, or engage withthe criminal justice system is alsocritical to an understanding of whatconstitutes delay. Inspectors gatheredthe views and comments of a widerange of participants and users of thecriminal justice system (i.e. judiciary,Resident Magistrates, police,prosecution, defence, court staff,probation and groups representingvictims, witnesses and defendants),and most share the view that delay is a problem which needs to beaddressed through concerted action.There is however, some reluctance toattribute responsibility for delay totheir specific agencies, professions orgroups.

Measuring case processing times

2.6 Efforts to tackle the causes of delayin the Northern Ireland criminaljustice system date back to the mid1990s. An analysis of the reasons for

delay in indictable cases led to new arrangements for joint casemanagement between the police,and the then Director of PublicProsecutions (DPP). The later Reviewof the Criminal Justice System (2000)stated that ‘there remains scope forconsiderable further improvement’ on reducing delays.

2.7 Progress in implementing therecommendations of the Review hasbeen monitored and assessed by theJustice Oversight Commissioner, LordClyde, who has devoted a separatechapter of his bi-annual reports tothe issue. He concluded that thescheme established by the criminaljustice agencies ‘can only be ameasure of the efficiency of thesystem and is not designed….toaddress the causes of delay in thecriminal justice process.’ He furtherexpanded in his third report that‘very serious consideration should begiven to the introduction of statutorytime limits to enforce the timelyprocessing of cases and to ensureconformity with the reasonable timelimit requirement of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights.’

2.8 There is no overall monitoring andtracking of criminal cases ordefendants in the Northern IrelandCJS, though it is anticipated that thiswill be possible when Causeway isfully operational. The most detailedmonitoring of completed cases fordefendants is currently undertaken bythe Court Service. The average timesto process defendants is summarisedin Table 1 below. The times fordefendants in the Crown Court weretaking on average 360 days from firstremand (first appearance in court) to

9

disposal in 2005, which represents aslippage in performance fromprevious years. Adult defendants inthe magistrates’ court took 113 dayson average from point of charge/issueof summons to disposal in 2005which is similar to 2004 but worsethan 2003. The equivalent figure foryouth defendants is 134 days, whichrepresents an improvement on 2004.

2.9 The published figures do have someimportant limitations in terms ofoverall case processing times fordefendants. It does not include thecritical pre-court period for CrownCourt defendants (i.e. from offence tofirst remand) and the period fromoffence to charge/issue of summonsfor defendants in the magistrates’court. It is estimated by the NIO andPSNI that offence to clearance (i.e.charge/summons for all notifiableoffences) is taking on average 112days3. Another limitation is thatpublished data for defendants in themagistrates’ court excludes certaincategories of cases/processes (i.e.defendants on bench warrants,adjourned generally, deferredsentences and youth monitored cases).The inclusion of these categories withthe 2004 figures added 28 days to theaverage processing time for both adultand youth defendants. It is thereforereasonable to assume that the averageend to end processing time (i.e.offence to disposal) is around 253 days for adult defendants and 274 days for youth defendants in themagistrates’ court. Provisional figuresprovided by the PPS for its rolled outareas point towards a similar time

period for the processing of youthsfrom date of incident to disposal.

Table 1: Average times to processdefendants in Northern Ireland

Crown Court Number of days (average)

Remand to disposal – 2005 360Remand to disposal – 2004 327Remand to disposal – 2003 339Remand to disposal – 2002 343

Adult magistrates’ court

Charge/summons to disposal – 20054 113Charge/summons to disposal – 2004 111Charge/summons to disposal – 2003 104

Youth magistrates’ court

Charge/summons to disposal – 2005 134Charge/summons to disposal – 2004 145Charge/summons to disposal – 2003 153

All notifiable offences dealt by charge or summons

Offence to clearance (charge/summons) – 2004 112

2.10 Key questions for the CJS arewhether an average of 134 days is a reasonable time period toprocess youth defendants fromcharge/summons to disposal? Is 274 days from date of offence todisposal reasonable? Is an average of 360 days a reasonable period toprocess defendants in indictable casesfrom date of first remand to disposal?It is the purpose of this inspection toaddress these questions in somedetail and establish the level andcauses of avoidable delay in caseprocessing times.

3 CJPMS Annual Report 2004, p.114 Data for defendants in the magistrates’ court for 2005 is currently provisional and will be published in July 2006

England and Wales

2.11 It is more difficult to assess the levelof avoidable delay in the absence ofbenchmarks with other criminaljustice systems. NIO Ministersexpressed concern in 2003 that cases were taking ‘too long’ and asked to see more comparisons inperformance and approach withEngland and Wales. The England andWales CJS most closely resemblesNorthern Ireland where the issue ofdelay has been the focus of attentionfor a number of years (e.g. Nareyreport, Persistent Young Offendertarget; Statutory Time Limit PilotSchemes in the Youth Court), thoughit is accepted that much more needsto be done to tackle this problem.

2.12 There has been significant resistancein Northern Ireland to makingcomparisons with other criminaljustice systems. A paper by the DelayAction Group (DAG) stated that ‘suchcomparisons were potentially unfairand unhelpful’ as other jurisdictions‘operate different processes and usedifferent methodology to collect andpresent data.’ The minutes of theDAG express the view that we ‘doourselves an injustice by comparingperformance with England and Wales.’Inspectors feel however, that there isvalue in comparing published datafrom Northern Ireland and Englandand Wales and also drawing upon theapproach that others apply to addressingthe problem of avoidable delay.

2.13 An argument put to inspectors

against making comparisons withEngland and Wales, is that theinvestigation stage of cases (pre-charge/summons) is shorter inNorthern Ireland compared toEngland and Wales. This would meanthat the time from charge/summonsto disposal could take longer inNorthern Ireland as investigation and file preparation is completed.The evidence collected in this report would not support this view –incident to charge/summons times isactually longer in Northern Ireland(112 days on average5) compared toEngland and Wales (84 days fromoffence to charge or laying ofinformation for all defendants whichincludes an average of 59 days6 fordefendants in indictable cases).However, there does appear to be adifferent approach to determiningdate of offence in England and Walescompared to Northern Ireland whichcould partly explain this discrepancybetween the two jurisdictions.

2.14 Measuring cases from date of offence is valuable in a comparativeperspective as it provides a commonstarting point. It is suggestedhowever, that the starting point forany benchmarking should be the dateof reporting of the offence to thepolice rather than date of offence.It is important for benchmarkingpurposes that the same rules apply to measuring the date of reporting.

2.15 In the interests of transparency,this report shows the publishedprocessing times for different types

10

5 Data supplied by PSNI and published in DAG paper on delay6 Statistical Bulletin: time intervals for criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts, December 2005, Department for

Constitutional Affairs (DCA) p.15

11

of criminal cases in Northern Ireland and England and Wales.The published figures show thatNorthern Ireland is taking significantlylonger to process criminal casescompared to England and Wales.The biggest difference relates toyouth defendants, though defendantsin indictable cases are taking muchlonger to reach the Crown Courtstage compared to England andWales.

2.16 A number of important caveatshowever must be applied to theinterpretation of these figures andtherefore to any comparisons.The data in Northern Ireland iscollected from a completeadministrative dataset while Englandand Wales figures are compiled onthe basis of a sample of completeddefendant’s cases in particular weeksduring the year – Time Interval

Survey (TIS). However, the margin of error is low and therefore shouldnot make the data unreliable. A moreimportant factor for any comparisonis the period of measurement forcriminal cases. Due to theunavailability of offence date data inNorthern Ireland, the period ofmeasurement is taken from date ofremand (first listing) for indictablecases and data of charge or date ofsummons issued for magistrates’court cases. Most data in Englandand Wales is measured from date ofoffence, which provides for a morecomplete analysis of case progression.It is therefore necessary from acomparative perspective, to comparecase progression from date of chargeor summons in both jurisdictions.The date of disposal is the end pointof cases and there appears to be amore consistent approach to usingthis date in both jurisdictions.

Benchmarking performance (published data)

Type of case N. Ireland Eng & Wales7

Crown Court defendants

Offence to disposal no data 281 daysRemand to disposal 360 days 214 days

Remand to committal 170 days 52 daysCommittal to start hearing 130 days 114 daysHearing to disposal 60 days 48 days

Adult magistrates’ court defendants

Offence to completion no data 149 daysCharge/summons to disposal 113 days 61 days

Youth magistrates’ court defendants

Offence to completion no data 98 daysCharge/summons to disposal 134 days 55 days

7 Data obtained from TIS survey conducted by DCA

2.17 The biggest issue that militates againstbenchmarking with England andWales is the different approaches towhat types or categories ofdefendants and cases are measuredand most importantly what types orcategories are excluded from thedataset. In Northern Ireland, datapublished by the Court Serviceshows that four categories ofdefendants/cases are excluded:bench warrants, adjourned generally,deferred sentences and youthmonitored cases. The effect of these exclusions is that thecharge/summons to disposal times foradult and youth defendants has beenreduced by 28 days in the 2004 data.It is more difficult to ascertain whattypes and categories of cases areexcluded from the published TIS datain England and Wales. Data providedby the Department of ConstitutionalAffairs to NICtS does provide someinsight: later disposal dates for somecharges are not counted (the earliestdisposal date is collected in thesurvey); deferred sentences are notcounted (same as Northern Irelandfor magistrates’ court defendants);adjourned sine die are counted (whichcan provided an earlier disposaldate); and bench warrants arecounted from date of execution asopposed to date of issue (though thisshould not impact on overall end-to-end case processing times). Differentprocesses can also impact on caseprocessing times such as the practicein England and Wales of sending moreserious cases to the Crown Court for sentencing. This may reduceoverall case processing times in themagistrates’ courts (as these casescan be considered as a disposal whensent to the Crown Court) though

they will be picked up in the CrownCourt data.

2.18 A direct comparison of publishedcase processing times for defendantsin Northern Ireland and England andWales shows that Northern Ireland istaking significantly longer to processall types of criminal cases. However,comparison of these figures isproblematic as different approachesto the collection and measurement of case processing times is used inboth jurisdictions. Inspectors fullysupport the objective of the CJB that benchmarking with England andWales should be undertaken, thoughthis should happen immediatelyrather than by April 2007 asannounced. Benchmarking on thebasis of a more consistent andcomparative dataset will provide avaluable input to the extent ofavoidable delay in processing criminal cases in Northern Ireland.

Scotland

2.19 How criminal cases are processed inthe Scottish criminal justice systemwas mentioned by a number ofinterviewees during this inspection.The Scottish system was referred toby the Criminal Justice Review in2000 and the key recommendationson time limits can be traced back tothe Scottish system of time targetsfor the processing of different typesof criminal cases. The CriminalJustice Review noted that cases inScotland were generally processedspeedily and efficiently withoutimpairment of the quality of justice.

2.20 The Scottish system is very differentto Northern Ireland, but its approach

12

13

to dealing with delay is worthy ofconsideration. Unlike mostjurisdictions, time limits ‘for theprevention of delay in trials’ areincorporated into legislation(Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and Amendment 2004).Following arrest, a defendant must bebrought before a court on the nextworking day. The Procurator Fiscalthen has eight days to complete initial enquiries before commencingcommittal proceedings. The 1995 Act stated that the period fromcommittal to start of jury trial in the High Court and Sheriff Court is subject to a 110-day rule, wherethe defendant is in custody. Theindictment (when detailed charges are put to the defendant) must beissued within 80 days from the dateof committal. If the accused is onbail, the trial must start 12 monthsfrom the first appearance on petitionin respect of the offence. Theconsequence of breaching either the110-day time limit or the 12 monthtime limit is that the accused will befree from the charges, irrespective ofthe seriousness of the crime.

2.21 The Scottish time limits, particularlythe 110-day limit, ensures thatpersons accused of serious crimes are not kept in custody for longperiods. It also benefits justice in thatwitnesses’ memories are still freshand they are able to give their bestevidence. There is also clear evidencethat it avoids unnecessary delay andanguish for victims.

2.22 The practice of how the time limitshave operated has been the subject ofreview in recent years. A review byLord Bonomy8 of High Court businessfound that applications for extensionsto the time limits, which can berequested by the defence and/orprosecution have become much moreregular. The report found that longextensions in complex cases wererare but short extensions to the 110 day time limit were frequent.Extensions were granted in 11% ofcases in 1995 but in 23% of cases in2001, despite the fact that 55% ofcases had a guilty plea.The reportfound that the 80-day time limit forissuing the indictment is usuallyachieved by the prosecution, butthere is a practice of workingtowards the limit rather than doing itas quickly as possible. This has theconsequence that the defence can justhave 29 days to prepare some casesfor trial, meaning that trials aresubject to adjournments.

2.23 Following up Lord Bonomy’s report,the Scottish Executive initiated aperiod of consultation which has leadto an amendment to the 1995 Act.The 2004 Amendment includes newtime limits for the processing of cases– a new 140-day limit for trials (110-day limit for a new preliminaryhearing and 30 days further for startof trial). The intention is that fewextensions of the 140-day limitshould be required and a moreproactive approach to judicial casemanagement should ensure that allparties come to preliminary hearing

8 Lord Bonomy’s report Improving Practice: 2002 Review of the practice and procedure of the High Court of Justiciary waspresented to the Scottish Executive in November 2002.

and trial fully prepared andunnecessary adjournments areavoided. The 80-day limit withinwhich the Crown has to serve anindictment is unchanged and meetsthe requirement that accused personsare not held in custody for a lengthyperiod. The 12-month limit from firstappearance on petition to trial forpersons on bail remains unchanged.

2.24 A significant new element is that thesanction for non adherence to thetime limits is changed from ‘liberated’for the accused to ‘entitled to beadmitted to bail.’ An accused will be entitled to bail if the 80, 110 or140 day limits are breached but theCrown will still be entitled toprosecute providing that the trialstarts within 12 months of the firstappearance on petition before theSheriff.

2.25 The experience of the Scottish timelimits to date is that clear targets andassociated sanctions can have apositive impact in terms of early casepreparation by the prosecution andthe defence. However, the over useof extensions (in half of all caseswhich go to trial) diluted the overallimpact of the time limits.The decisionto continue with time limits, thoughchanged to reflect the changingnature of cases, is demonstration oftheir value in Scotland. The change in the sanctions applied to nonadherence will take longer to assessbut it is an approach which should beseriously considered by the NI CJS.The Justice Oversight Commissionercommented that ‘very seriousconsideration should be given to theintroduction of statutory time limits

to enforce the timely processing ofcases’ and the experience fromScotland would show that such limits and associated sanctions haveprovided greater focus to caseprogression and acted as a deterrentto avoidable delay.

Republic of Ireland

2.26 Delay, particularly in dealing withyoung offenders, is recognised as aspecific problem in the Republic ofIreland. The Minister of Justice haswarned that the present pattern ofdelay fundamentally undermines thecapacity of the system as a whole torespond effectively to crime and todeter it. However, there is limitedavailable data on case processingtimes. The Irish Court Service in itsAnnual Report 2004 provide courtstatistics which show that cases in the Supreme Court had an averagewaiting time of 10 months from thearraignment to the hearing date.Cases in the Circuit Court aremeasured by average waiting times fora next sitting. More detailed data isprovided on case processing times inthe District Court which shows thatit takes on average 6 months fromdate of charge/summons to firsthearing date in Dublin and 4 monthsin Cork. It is stated that there isgenerally no delay in cases receivinghearing dates in the provincialDistrict Courts. No data is providedon overall processing times withinthe courts and no separate analysis of youth cases is provided, thoughrecent studies have referred to thenegative consequences of delay foryoung people in particular.

14

15

2.27 The Director of Public Prosecutionsin the Republic of Ireland providesdetails on the time taken betweenreceipt of a completed prosecutionfile and the issuing of a direction onprosecution. Figures for 2004 showthat 44% of directions were issuedwithin 14 days of receipt of the fileand 81% were issued within threemonths or less – an improvement onthe previous two years. The GardaSíochána does not have any publishedtargets on timeliness and no data isprovided on file preparation times inits annual report.

2.28 The principal response ofGovernment has been a mix oflegislative changes and targetedadditional resources (e.g. additionaljudiciary and increased capacity withinthe Probation and Welfare Service).There is a notable interest atGovernment and agency level indrawing upon approaches andpractices in other similar criminaljustice systems.

Consequences of delay

2.29 Delay can have significantconsequences for the wider criminaljustice system. The old adage that‘justice delayed is justice denied’9 caneasily be applied in Northern Ireland.To victims, delays can reduce thechances of a successful prosecution as events may become blurred towitnesses. For witnesses, lengthyinvestigations followed by numerousadjournments diminish recollections,increase fears and frustrations withthe system and make co-operation

more unlikely in the future. To theagencies and the general public,delays add to the cost of theadministration of justice and candiminish public confidence in theadministration of justice. Todefendants, delays can increaseuncertainty and often result in lengthy periods in custody before aplea is taken or a verdict is reached.It also means that interventions toaddress offending behaviour aredelayed with resulting consequencesfor rehabilitation and restoration tothe victim.

2.30 Delay has been raised as a specificconcern by organisations who workwith victims and witnesses as well as offenders. It was also raised as akey issue at the most recent CJSNIStakeholder conference in 2005.NIACRO did a survey of offenderswhich showed that delays affectmeaningful participation in thecriminal justice process for offenders,victims and witnesses. Results showthat 89% of defendants perceivedtheir case from arrest to disposal tobe slow or extremely slow. It alsofound that poor case managementprocesses does not encourage changein offender’s behaviour and lapses incommunication mean that victims canturn up at court unnecessarily.

9 Often attributed to William Gladstone

16

17

Leadership to reduce delayCHAPTER 3:

Ministerial involvement

3.1 The Ministers of the threeDepartments responsible, with theirdirect knowledge and experience of delay initiatives in England andWales, are taking an increasinginterest in case processing times,particularly for indictable cases.The Northern Ireland CriminalJustice Board (CJB), through its DAG,now reports directly on delay toministers. A Criminal Justice Strategyand Delivery Group (SDG) is chairedby the Secretary of State forNorthern Ireland, and is made up ofother Ministers with responsibility for criminal justice matters i.e. theAttorney General; NIO Security andCriminal Justice Ministers and theMinister in the Department forConstitutional Affairs who isresponsible for the NI Court Serviceand the judiciary. It first met inNovember 2004 and has includeddelay as a standing agenda item.Ministers were concerned that notenough action was taking place andwanted to see more directcomparisons with England and Wales.It has requested regular six monthprogress reports on delay. The SDGis the ideal forum to take overallleadership on the issue of reducingavoidable delay and it is

recommended that the CriminalJustice Strategy and DeliveryGroup should take overallresponsibility for thedevelopment of a joint delaystrategy, which encompasses all criminal cases.

The Criminal Justice Board

3.2 The CJB is responsible for oversightof work on an inter-agency basis toaddress strategic cross-cutting issuessuch as delay. At the end of 2005, theseven organisations on the CJB issueda statement undertaking to ‘workcollaboratively and cooperatively toestablish a reliable baseline for caseprogress from charge to disposal byApril 2006 and establish reliablefigures to allow benchmarking withEngland and Wales by April 2007.’ It is anticipated that this report willmake a significant contribution to thisexercise and should bring forward anybenchmarking with England andWales. It does however pointtowards the limited scope of the CJBto act on delay. It is limited by thenature of the criminal justice systemand its constituent agencies andorganisations. As one senior managerin a criminal justice agency noted,there is a ‘need for some form ofoverall control but this is difficult

18

with separate agencies, with no one in overall control.’ This lack ofoverall control inhibits jointapproaches and responses to an issuesuch as avoidable delay – though itdid nominate a sponsor on delaywhich attends the DAG on behalf of the CJB. In line with the CJIrecommendation on target settingand performance management, theCriminal Justice Board should bemore proactive in coordinating a framework of shared targets(delay) and monitoring thecontribution that agencies aremaking towards them. It needsto be given a clear mandate tothis effect by the SDG, and itneeds a joint secretariatproperly resourced for thispurpose.

3.3 Tackling the problem of avoidabledelay can only be delivered by strong,decisive and co-ordinated action andthe CJB is the ideal forum for thispurpose. Research undertaken in theUnited States of America on its delayreduction programmes and ‘speedytrial acts’ identified leadership andactive participation of those directlyinvolved in administrating justice asthe key element in those areas whichachieved success in reducing delays10.

3.4 Each of the agencies has developedand implemented internal strategies,initiatives and/or actions which eitherdirectly or indirectly target delaywithin their own organisations. Onemember of the Delay Action Group(DAG) stated that there needs to bea more ‘corporate’ ownership ofdelay and ‘sense of urgency’ as an

issue for all agencies rather thanensuring that their own particularpart of the system or targets areoperating effectively or being met.The minutes of the DAG refer to thereluctance to set timeliness targets,especially on an end to end processas they are awaiting the impact of the various ongoing initiatives (see chapter 1). Indictable cases aresubject to specific inter-agency action,but there is no overall strategy ortarget for the processing of thesecases. The NIO did count upindividual agency targets to get anoverall target of 339 days forindictable cases but this is a mixtureof average and percentage times andthere is no consensus that this shouldbe a target or baseline – the keyindicator of performance is animprovement on the previous times.

Agency strategies

3.5 The PSNI developed a ‘reducing delay’strategy in 2004 with the objective to ‘reduce bureaucracy, improvestandards and the management ofinvestigations and introduce a conceptof ‘getting it right first time, on time’.The key focus of the strategy is theimprovement of case preparation,ensuring that files are submitted to the prosecution on time and to the appropriate quality.The strategy is intended to bedelivered operationally by DistrictCommanders and Assistant ChiefConstables with the full support andcommitment of the Chief Constable.Interviews with a wide range of PSNIstaff at all levels in the Service showlimited awareness of the strategy,

10 See World Bank notes on lessons from the United States

19

particularly in the District CommandUnits (DCUs), where the vastmajority of case file preparation takesplace. Many of its aims are takingplace, or have been completed, as aresult of other initiatives such asCauseway and the roll out of the PPS.

3.6 The PSNI strategy does recognise theimportance of partnership with otheragencies and organisations in the CJSand accepts that its performance willbe affected by developments andperformance in Forensic ScienceNorthern Ireland (FSNI) and theState Pathologist’s Department (SPD).Both organisations have recently beeninspected by CJI and a number ofrecommendations have been made inrelation to reducing delays in thesubmission of reports to the PSNI.There continues to be an onus onFSNI and SPD to provide more timelyreports to the criminal justice systemand the PSNI in particular.

3.7 The growing importance of avoidabledelay for the Public ProsecutionService (PPS) was recognised by itsdecision to commission a specificinvestigation of the issue. The reportis strategic in nature as it links delaysto the past and current service levelcapacities within the organisation andaccepts that backlogs in work need tobe addressed through specific actions.The report, as its terms of referencestipulate, is a single agency responseto an issue which is much broaderthan the PPS.

3.8 The Northern Ireland Court Service(NICtS) recognises that delay is aproblem in the processing of casesbut sees its role as primarilyproviding the infrastructure and

resources to ensure the effective andefficient processing of criminal cases.It has no specific delay strategy butinstead is involved in designing andimplementing initiatives such as theTrial Status Reports. It has set anumber of internal timeliness targetsand currently provides and publishesthe most detailed statistics on caseprocessing times for criminal cases.

3.9 It is clear to inspectors that thecriminal justice agencies are taking a more pro-active approach to theissue of avoidable delay and internalstrategies include actions whichshould improve performance.There is however little consultationwith other agencies in terms ofdeveloping these strategies and theyare by their very nature not focusedon an end to end approach to case processing. It is thereforerecommended that each criminaljustice agency should amend itsexisting strategies and targets toalign with the recommendedjoint CJS strategy on delay.

The Judiciary

3.10 The active support and involvementof the judiciary is critical to thesuccess of any strategy on delay.To date, the Lord Chief Justice andindividual judges have developed andimplemented a number of majorinitiatives which are designed toreduce avoidable delay in seriousindictable cases and address anyconcerns that might arise in relationto Article 6 of the EuropeanConvention. The key principle behindthese initiatives is pro-active casemanagement i.e. that all partiesinvolved in a case are properly

prepared when it comes to court andtrial. Inspectors have noted theenthusiastic and high level ofcommitment shown by the judiciaryto tackling the problem of avoidabledelay in the Crown Court, andconsider this level of support to becritical to any strategy and plan toreduce delay. It is appropriate thatthe judiciary are taking a leadershiprole in challenging a delay culturewhich pervades all cases in theCrown Court and the magistrates’courts. The Lord Chief Justiceassumed responsibility for themagistrates’ courts in April 2006 and will be considering additionalmeans to reduce delay.

Targets

3.11 A key component of any strategy isthe setting of objectives which arethen underpinned with specificperformance targets. The key questionfor a delay strategy is whether itsobjectives require a specific timelinesstarget for the processing of cases.At present, there is no overall end toend target for the processing of anytype of criminal case. Instead agencieshave developed their own set ofinternal targets which are based upon agency objectives and priorities.While some of these targets havebeen set in co-operation with partnercriminal justice agencies, most areagency specific and can sometimescompete with or impede anotheragency’s objectives and targets.For example, the PSNI target for thesubmission of files has contributed to apractice of submitting incomplete filesto the prosecution and thereby addingto delay at the next stage of a case.

3.12 The PSNI Policing Plan has 138targets of which two relate to theprocessing of cases: to process 85% of bail cases within 110 days and 85%of custody cases within 90 days.Both targets were not achieved in2004-2005 as 77% of bail cases and74% of custody cases were processedwithin these timescales, though this isa significant improvement on 2003-2004 performance. The rural regionis performing better than the urbanregion. The DCUs where the PPS isrolled out are doing very well inrelation to bail times (5 of 6 achievedtarget in 2004-2005) and are relativelybetter in relation to custody times (3 of 6 achieved the target in 2004-2005). It is anticipated that as thePPS is rolled out to other areasperformance will continue to improve in relation to these targets.

3.13 There is no reference in the PolicingPlan to the processing of indictablecases as part of its involvement in theCriminal Justice Process MonitoringScheme. The PSNI/PPS protocolsdocument also contains a group oftimeliness targets, principally aroundfile submission but these are notofficial targets of the PSNI. As statedearlier, all of these targets wouldneed to be re-assessed in light of anoverall end to end delay strategy.

3.14 A strategic objective of the PPS is ‘to deal with prosecution cases in atimely manner in partnership withother agencies’ of which ‘improvingthe timeliness of decisions’ is aspecific target. The two key publishedtargets are: to issue prosecutiondecisions within agreed targets times; and to make committal papersavailable within agreed target times.

20

21

The PPS targets suffer from a lack ofbaseline information (either historictrends or benchmarking) though theyhave proved to be challenging. Thetargets were achieved in the PPS pilotareas in 2004/05 but broadly notachieved in relation to DPP caseload.They are unlikely to be achieved for2005/06 based on provisionalinformation from the Belfast andFermanagh & Tyrone PPS areas.

3.15 The Court Service has set specificcase management targets which statethat 80% of criminal business shouldbe processed within target times.Two of these targets relate directly to the Criminal Justice ProcessMonitoring Scheme for indictablecases - committal to arraignment forCrown Court defendants within 6weeks (92% within target for 2005)and arraignment to start of hearingfor Crown Court defendants within12 weeks (68% within target for2005). A separate target is set foradult magistrates’ court defendants to have a first hearing to disposalwithin 9 weeks, which was achievedfor 77% of defendants in the periodApril to December 2005. A youthcourt target from first hearing to date of finding is set at 12 weekswhich was just missed in the 2004-05reporting year (76% of defendantswithin target) and has fallen back to69% for 2005.

3.16 CJI has recently published a thematicinspection on target setting andperformance management in theNorthern Ireland Criminal JusticeSystem. The report found that thereis limited evidence of agencies gettingtogether to target key aspects of thecriminal justice system jointly, and

there is a widespread feeling that itwould be right for the CriminalJustice Board to be more pro-activein managing the structure of targets.As there is no Public ServiceAgreement (PSA) target on delay inNorthern Ireland (though some canmake a link to improving publicconfidence in the criminal justicesystem), it is recommended thatspecific delay targets should beset as part of the overall jointstrategy on delay. Reduction indelay should become a PSAtarget in Northern Ireland assoon as this is practicable and nolater than 2008. Performanceagainst the targets should bereported in the CJS AnnualReport.

3.17 There is a need to set differenttargets for specific types of cases ordefendants, such as youths. A highlevel joint target could include morespecific end to end targets for specifictypes of cases. These targets shouldbe jointly agreed and provide forownership by all participatingagencies. Efforts should be made to consult with and provide for theinput of the Law Society and the BarCouncil together with members ofthe judiciary and representatives ofthe voluntary and community sector.

3.18 The setting of targets for theprocessing of criminal cases will needto be a joint effort for all the criminaljustice agencies and there will needto be agreement on how data arecollected and measured. Two mainmethods of measurement are used(all on completed cases): averagetimes and proportion of cases withina certain time period. The average

time to process cases, often brokendown by types of cases/type ofproceedings, provides a goodoverview of performance. Analternative approach is to measurethe proportion of cases which arecompleted within a certain period e.g. 90% of cases completed within 50 days. This is best used whensetting targets though it does notdirectly address the issue of thelongest running cases (unless thetarget is set at or near 100% within a certain number of days). Forexample, NICtS timeliness targets forcivil business and family business isset at a much higher threshold of97% and 95% respectively, meaningthat a greater proportion of cases arecovered by these targets.

Resources

3.19 Delivering a delay strategy with aconsequent reduction in caseprocessing times does raise thequestion as to whether additionalresources will be required. There is no doubt that successful deliverywill require a targeted input ofresources, though much of this isabout improving the efficiency ofexisting activities rather thanundertaking new work. Whereadditional resources are required, itshould provide improved value formoney in the medium and longerterm as processes are streamlinedand avoidable and costly delay isreduced. CJI would accept thatadditional capacity is required insome key areas (e.g. case progressionofficers) but that important benefitscan be gained from better use and

management of existing capacity. Thisis especially so in Northern Irelandwhere in 2004-05 £763 per head ofpopulation was spent on public orderand safety compared to £394 inEngland, £389 in Scotland and £399 in Wales11. In the year 2004-05 thecombined budget of the criminaljustice agencies was more than £1bn.

3.20 All avoidable delay is a drain on thepublic purse and as cases takes longerto process, then that cost continuesto escalate. The ‘Troubles’ can nolonger be used as the only reasonwhy expenditure on criminal justiceremains so high compared to otherjurisdictions / regions.

22

11 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2005, HM Treasury

23

Delivery structuresCHAPTER 4:

4.1 The primary inter-agency structureestablished by the CJB to focus ondelay is the Delay Action Group(DAG) – previously known as theCase Progress Group. The DAG ischaired by the NIO and bringstogether senior representatives fromeach of the key criminal justiceagencies. A key difference, other thanthe change in name, is the emphasis in its terms of reference, on practicalsolutions rather than monitoringprogress. It seeks to gain ‘anoverview of problem areas, matchingthese to the initiatives in hand andidentifying gaps and possiblesolutions; determine what practicalaction can be taken to improveprocessing times.’ It also planned to provide an ‘improved analysis ofcomparisons between NorthernIreland case progress figures andthose from England and Wales.’

4.2 A criticism from one member of theDAG, which is shared by inspectors,is that ‘it did not allocate tasks and expect coordinated action atdivisional level to combat delay’, andthe concluding paragraph of a recentpaper on delay takes a ‘wait and see’approach (waiting on results ofexisting initiatives with theassumption that these will deliverimprovements in case processing

times). Other members of the groupaccept that it has limited capacity toevaluate the impact of one agency’schange initiatives and actions on theother agencies. The Justice OversightCommissioner stated that the scheme(to which DAG operates) does notaddress the causes of delay in thecriminal justice process. He furtherstated that ‘the problems of delay willnot be solved through the collectionof data and prolonged discussion’.

4.3 A separate Delay Working Group foryouth cases reports to the youthjustice sub-group of the CJB. It ischaired by the NIO and has gatheredinformation and data on the progressof youth cases and prepared a paperon delay12.

4.4 It is recommended that thepurpose, role, remit andmembership of the Delay ActionGroup should be reviewed sothat the group is more action-oriented and focused on allcriminal cases from entry to theCJS to disposal in the courts.The work of the youth groupshould be subsumed by the DAG.

12 Delay in the youth court – scoping the problem,NIO Youth Justice Policy Unit

24

4.5 There is no specific group to look atthe vast majority of criminal cases inthe magistrates’ courts. What doesexist are local Court User Groups,but these are essentially discussiongroups with a remit much wider than delay. Some bi-lateral meetingsare taking place locally, especiallybetween the PPS and the PSNI withan agenda that is primarily focused on the roll out of the PPS. None ofthese local meetings or groupsreport formally to the DAG.

4.6 An inter-agency Case ProgressTracking Group has been establishedby the DAG to identify potentialproblem cases in the Crown Courtsat an earlier stage with a view totaking earlier remedial action toprogress the file. The inter-agencyapproach to case progression iswelcome but little practical progressis evident to date. This may be partlydue to the infrequency of its meetings– the first meeting was in December2004 with a commitment to meetapproximately every three months.There is little value in holdinginfrequent meetings to discuss livecases as too much will have happenedin the intervening months (unlesscomprehensive communication isestablished between meetings).

4.7 Concerted action on expediting live cases would require frequentmeetings, preferably of operationalstaff within the key agencies. Thesecase tracking, or more accurately case progression meetings need to be action orientated on live casesrather than a discussion forum.It is recommended that the principleof inter-agency case progressionmeetings should be further developed

and that specific cross agency caseprogression groups should be setup and operate across NorthernIreland. The new structureshould be piloted for youthcourt cases. The DAG should takeresponsibility for the establishmentand overall operation of the caseprogression groups. Tasks includedetermining which cases to target(e.g. through pilot), what grade of staff to allocate and which agency toprovide live case data to otheragencies. It is recommended thatterms of reference for theoperation of case progressionmeetings should be developed by the DAG. A guide to how caseprogression meetings should functionis provided on the next page.

Management Information Systems

4.8 Critical to performance improvementis the availability and use of accurateand timely information on caseprocessing times. This does not existat present as the criminal justiceagencies await the full roll out ofCauseway and the Court Servicebrings its new case managementsystem on stream. Instead, theagencies are largely reliant on historiccompleted case information availablefrom their own managementinformation systems. While all ofthese systems collect valuable andcomprehensive data on live andcompleted cases, none are specificallyset up to provide the end to end datawhich is necessary to track andprogress live cases.

4.9 The full roll out of Causeway has thepotential to deliver this key benefit.In the crucial interim period, there is

25

How should case progression meetings work?

Background• Established in England and Wales to deliver the PYO pledge

• Joint agency approach recognised by government and criminal justice agencies as key to successful delivery of the PYO pledge and approach now adopted by ScottishExecutive to deliver reduction in time to process young offender cases

Membership• Operational staff (e.g. police inspector, prosecutor, court case progression officer)

from key criminal justice agencies. It should include the police, prosecution andcourts but may be expanded to include forensic science, probation etc depending ontypes of delays and range of cases.

Structure of meetings• Appoint chairman to ensure that minutes and agreed actions are recorded

• Agree frequency of meetings (fortnightly is recommended)

• Determine priority cases to progress (e.g. youths, longest running, approaching trial,on remand etc.). The list should not be too long to ensure that appropriatediscussion and actions can be determined. A list of 20 to 30 cases is consideredsufficient at the early development stage.

• Obtain appropriate live data and information on cases to be progressed. One agencyshould provide the official list of cases to other members of the group in advance ofthe meeting. This should include updated list of live cases showing time elapsed andapproaching milestones (e.g. trial). All participants should therefore come preparedto the meeting.

• Ensure that actions on each case is recorded and attributed – progress to be checkedat start of subsequent meeting

• Issues which can not be resolved at local level should be escalated to higher level(e.g. DAG; senior management of criminal justice agency).

a requirement to better utiliseexisting case management systems.The PSNI point towards the roll outof business information to DCUswhich will show officer performanceand the PPS Case ManagementSystem (CMS) now has increasedfunctionality through the use of itsbusiness objects package to providemore detailed information on cases.Causeway will also be able to provideincreasing information on live andcompleted data within specified areas.

4.10 As a senior manager in the CourtsService stated, ‘managementinformation needs to be seen andused as a proactive tool to effectaction prior to targets being missed –it should not just be used forretrospectively analysing what wentwrong.’ The provision of reliable datais critical to the setting of targets andmonitoring performance – unreliabledata will conversely undermineefforts and create scepticism amongstaff and the general public.Inspectors are aware that agenciesare working on improving their casemanagement systems and supportefforts to achieve a more accurateanalysis of live and completed caseprocessing times.

4.11 It is a concern that the PSNI do nothave accurate details of their caseprocessing times, though Causewayand their improved MIS (NICHE) willincreasingly provide more of thisessential data. The PPS CMS doescontain comprehensive information,though problems have emerged in

relation to its accuracy. The CourtService management informationsystem also collects substantialinformation on cases but is‘impossible to interrogate’ in thewords of some users. This is dueprimarily to the separate databases inthe magistrates’ and Crown Courtwhich are not linked. Enhancedinformation will be available to thecourts and the judiciary when theIntegrated Court Operations System(ICOS) comes on line in 2006, thoughfurther delays in its roll-out arepossible.

Statutory time limits

4.12 CJI support the recommendation ofthe Criminal Justice Review thatstatutory time limits can have apositive impact on helping to reducecase processing times as well assustaining any improvements inperformance. However, to introducetime limits as in Scotland at this pointwould be counterproductive as theywould need to be unacceptably longto be achievable. Assuming that goodprogress will be made in reducingcase processing times, it isrecommended that statutory timelimits should be introduced inNorthern Ireland by 2009-2010.The time limits should includesanctions for non compliancealong the lines of those thatcurrently operate in Scotland.Time limits are different from targetsin that they relate to the processingof all cases within a reasonable timeperiod.13

26

13 See Home Office report 21/03 for a fuller analysis of the operation of statutorytime limits in the pilot schemes of youth courts in England and Wales

27

28

Case process stage issues

PART 2

29

30

31

5.1 In serious cases, it is the norm for the police to charge. A charge file isprepared and submitted to the PPSfor a decision on prosecution. Forthe majority of less serious offences,the police prepare a file and thensubmit it to a specialist unit withinPSNI, or now increasingly directly to the PPS. The plan, as detailed in acomprehensive document entitledPPS/PSNI protocols, is that suspectsshould normally be reported byPolice to the PPS rather than beingcharged. The exceptions are wherethere is a requirement to detain asuspect in custody or where thepolice investigation is complete andthere is a reasonable expectation ofan early disposal at court.

5.2 The use of reporting does add moretime to the early processing of cases(within PSNI) as it involves thecompletion of investigations and thecollation of all necessary evidence.It should however reduce the timethat the PPS spends on cases ashigher quality and morecomprehensive case files are receivedby the PPS. The reality at presentdoes not support this – as largenumbers of reported files requireadditional information to be sent tothe PPS (see Chapter 6).

5.3 It is not within the remit of thisinspection to look in detail at theinvestigation stage of cases, though it is accepted that the length of timefrom offence to arrest/charge/reporting can have a significant impacton victims and witnesses in particular.The length of time spent at theinvestigation stage of a case will also directly impact on how a caseprogresses after a suspect is chargedor reported – the argument is that alonger and more comprehensiveinvestigation stage should produce astronger case which is less likely tobe subject to delays such as awaitingadditional evidence and specialistreports.

5.4 A strongly held view expressed bythe PSNI and some other criminaljustice agencies is that the PSNIconduct investigations more quicklycompared to England and Walesmeaning that more time is thenrequired at the post charge/reportstage of cases. This was also oneargument against making comparisonswith England and Wales. However,the data does not support this view(see Chapter 2) and there has beenno further analysis of these times bythe PSNI. CJI supports the suggestionof the DAG that the PSNI should

Report/ChargeCHAPTER 5:

32

select a sample of cases to moreaccurately identify offence tocharge / summons times inNorthern Ireland.

Bail and custody times

5.5 An issue that was raised by a numberof interviewees was the use of police bail. The current situation inNorthern Ireland is that the policecannot bail a suspect with conditions(unlike England and Wales). Whattends to happen is that a suspect isbailed for 28 days allowing the policeto collect additional evidence beforecharging or reporting the individual.Defence solicitors contend that whensuspects answer bail after 28 days,they are often re-bailed for another28 days. It is claimed that this is due to lack of progress in terms of preparing the case file and cansometimes relate to the fact that the police officer handling the case is not on duty at this time. Defencesolicitors claim that the use of policebail is too open-ended and that 28 days has now become theminimum period of bail in most cases.Inspectors are of the view that amore detailed assessment of policebail is required. It is thereforeproposed that a separate inspectionof police bail should be conducted by CJI later this year.

5.6 In cases of charge and bail, the InitialRemand File must be with the PPS nolater than 7 days before the chargedperson’s first scheduled courtappearance (i.e. 21 days to preparethe file). Data provided by the PPS shows that the police are notadhering to the protocols as with one day remaining the PPS will only

have received 79% of the bail papers.When bail papers are only receivedon the day of court, the prosecutorwill often need to request anadjournment. For charge and custodycases, there is no specified time limit for appearance in court, just astatement that a person should bebrought before the court at theearliest opportunity. The InitialRemand File must be with theprosecution service by 9.30am on the first court appearance.

5.7 The PSNI has set timeliness targets(within the Policing Plan) in relationto dealing with cases when adefendant is in custody or on policebail – ‘to process 85% of custodycases within 90 days and 85% of bailcases within 110 days.’ The periodthat is measured is from date ofremand to file submitted to the PPS.The Annual Report of the NorthernIreland Policing Board states thatthese targets were not achieved in2004-05 (see chapter 3). Thesetargets do not relate to othertimeliness targets within the CJS such as the Criminal Justice ProcessMonitoring Scheme (indictable cases)and there are no specific targets inthe Policing Plan for non bail and noncustody cases (i.e. reported cases).

5.8 The use of charging followed byremand into custody or bail doesensure an earlier first courtappearance for the defendant andPSNI/PPS performance on chargecases is more timely than reportedcases (see Chapter 7). The challengefor the CJS, which has now adoptedthe reporting method, is to deliver amore expeditious service.

33

Prosecutorial and pre-chargeadvice

5.9 Prosecutorial advice is guidanceprovided by the PPS to investigations,primarily the police in NorthernIreland. The Justice (NorthernIreland) Act 2002 means that aninvestigator may request advice onany prosecutorial issue at any stage of an investigation. The key benefit of such advice from a timelinessperspective is that the quality ofevidence for the prosecution shouldbe stronger and therefore less delay should occur when cases arereceived by the PPS and are broughtto court. The most notable type ofprosecutorial advice is known as pre-charge, when the police seekguidance on the type of charges thatshould be instigated against someonesuspected of committing a criminaloffence.

5.10 There is strong support for moreprosecutorial advice from staff withinthe PPS and the PSNI. Both seebenefits in terms of better qualityfiles (evidence) and better use ofcharging and there is an anticipationthat it should help to reduceavoidable delays. One senior policeofficer noted that ‘pre-charge adviceis viewed positively by uniformofficers’, while another stated thatthey ‘would like to see greaterprosecutor involvement at an earlystage.’ Data from the PPS areasshows that that the number of pre-charge advice requests has beenlow – just 6 in Belfast and 33 inFermanagh and Tyrone in the periodApril 2004 to September 2005.There are slightly more cases with

prosecutorial advice with 109 inBelfast and 183 in Fermanagh andTyrone during the same period.

5.11 At present, prosecutorial and pre-charge advice is limited to the PPSrolled out areas and to specific typesof serious cases. It is just availablefrom 9am – 5pm Monday to Fridayand any requests outside of thesehours are restricted to exceptionalcircumstances. It is anticipated thatthe PPS and PSNI would conduct abusiness plan in support of theextension of this service whichshould include the demand for an out of hour’s service, potentialbenefits, means of delivery and cost.The PPS and PSNI are currentlyjointly designing a data collectionexercise to capture the demand for this extended service. In view of the projected benefits for bothorganisations, including a reduction in avoidable delays, the furtherextension of prosecutorial and pre-charge advice is supported byinspectors. Assuming that such advicewill become available to all areas asthe PPS is rolled out (it is in the PPSimplementation plan) and subject to abusiness plan, prosecutorial andpre-charge advice by the PPS tothe police should be extendedbeyond normal working hours.

34

35

File preparationCHAPTER 6:

6.1 Once a defendant is charged orreported to the PPS, it is theresponsibility of the investigatingorganisation, usually the police, toprepare the prosecution file. Filepreparation is a critical function as its quality and timeliness will have adirect bearing on the future progressof a case. Concerns about the quality and timeliness of case files arecommon to many police forces andnumerous initiatives are targeted atimproving the quality of files. ThePSNI is therefore not unique in facing the challenge of improving thetimeliness and quality of its case files.

6.2 There are big differences between theprocesses of file preparation betweenand within police forces. In NorthernIreland, a decision was taken in thelate 1990s to establish specialist filepreparation units – Case ProcessingOfficers (CPOs) within CriminalJustice Units (CJUs), where specialistpolice officers would receive initialfiles from investigating officers andthen prepare the file for submissionto prosecutors. There is consensus inthe PSNI and other agencies that thisdid lead to improved file quality andtimeliness though it also led to asituation where most police officershad no experience of file preparationand a skills deficit was emerging

across the Service. The latterargument persuaded seniormanagement in PSNI that individualofficers should regain responsibilityfor file preparation and that filepreparation units should be phasedout.

6.3 The quality assurance of filepreparation has now been placedwith DCUs, where investigatingofficers prepare their own files and first line supervisors haveresponsibility for quality assurancechecks of files before submission toprosecutors. This process of changeis well advanced in the PSNI, thoughsome DCUs such as Dungannon haveretained a file building capacity withintheir Criminal Justice Unit (CJU) untilthe new processes are embedded.

6.4 Inspectors recognise that therationale for placing the responsibilityfor file preparation with individualofficers is sound but are not assuredthat the present arrangements areproducing files of the necessaryquality within a reasonable timeperiod. This view is formed on thebasis on extensive meetings with arange of police officers as well as theusers of police files, principally withinthe PPS, courts and the defence.There is strong evidence that poor

36

file quality and timeliness is aprincipal cause of avoidable delay inmany cases.

Performance

6.5 The key evidence of poor filetimeliness and quality is provided bythe views and experiences of PSNIofficers, the users of police case files and by statistics produced by the PPS in relation to targets agreedby the PSNI and PPS. Commentsfrom police officers included anacknowledgement that indictable files,which used to be better prepared, arenow submitted with missing evidencein order to meet internal timelinesstargets. As one Murder InvestigationTeam (MIT) officer noted, ‘staff aresending files (to prosecution) that areknown to be incomplete.’ Evidenceprovided by staff within PSNI CPOswhere the PPS is not rolled out asyet, show that one quarter to onethird of files are returned from theCPO to DCUs for additionalinformation and that 25% of thesereturned files are due to basic filestructure mistakes (i.e. not evidentialissues).

6.6 The PPS/PSNI protocols provideagreed standards for thequality/content and timeliness of files in the PPS areas. The generalrule in the protocols is that ‘policeshould only submit case files to thePPS when sufficient pivotal evidence(including forensic and medicalevidence) is available to allow aprosecution decision to be taken’.Files where supporting or peripheralinformation which will not impact onthe prosecutor’s decision can besubmitted. The PSNI reducing delays

strategy states that these protocolsare being introduced across theService for all files and that itincludes timescales for submission of files as well as responding to PPSrequests for additional information.The protocols state that thesetimescales become operational from1st September 2005.

6.7 The PSNI/PPS protocols include arange of timeliness targets for thesubmission of manual hardcopy paperfiles and electronic files which aresent via Causeway. For summarycases, a full electronic file must bereceived by the PPS not later than 49 days after the date of reporting(when offender was informed that thematter was being reported to theprosecutor) – the target is 63 daysfor paper files which are sent bypolice courier to the PPS. Forindictable cases, a full electronic filemust be received by the PPS not laterthan 91 days from date of reporting –the target for paper files is 110 days.For youth cases, 35 days from date ofreporting to file received by the PPSfor electronic files and 42 days forhardcopy paper files. A separatecategory of fast stream cases has alsobeen identified with separate targets.These case files have a target of 35days from date of charge to filereceived by the PPS for electronicfiles and 42 days for hardcopy paperfiles. Fast stream cases are essentiallythose where a trial is required by lawand where the file is sufficiently readyto proceed to trial. A separatetimeliness target is set for committalproceedings (see Chapter 8).

6.8 PPS data from the Fermanagh andTyrone pilot areas provide some

37

preliminary findings on performanceagainst these timeliness targets. Table2 shows that the target of 110 dayson average for indictable paper files isbeing met for reported files andcharge files – charge files are gettingto PPS much quicker. The use ofaverages does disguise the fact that alarge proportion of cases are notmeeting the agreed timescales – 41% of indictable reported files aretaking longer than 110 days. Theintroduction of electronic files viaCauseway in Fermanagh and Tyronemeans that the new target of 91 daysfor indictable cases now applies.Performance on summary reportedfiles, which constitute 92% of allcases, is poor. A target of 63 days forpaper files is far from being achieved– 87 days in the period April 2004 toSeptember 2005 and 60% of case filesoutside agreed time limit. The newelectronic file target of 49 days willrequire considerable effort to achievein Fermanagh and Tyrone. Theevaluation report on the Fermanaghand Tyrone pilot states that thetimeliness of submission is asignificant contributing factor to cases which have become statutebarred (81 in the area).

6.9 The reasons for Request for FurtherInformation (RFI) requests provide auseful indicator of file quality. A RFIis a procedure which enables theprosecutor to ask the police foradditional evidence / supportinginformation. Figures produced by the evaluation of the PPS pilots showthat 41% of RFI requests in Belfastare due to the need to see a full file.Other reasons in order of frequencyare missing statements (17%), needfor further enquiries and investigation(11%) and missing interviewtranscripts (9%). There is a slightlydifferent order in Fermanagh andTyrone where the largest proportionis due to the need for furtherenquiries and investigation (33%)followed by missing statements (18%) and a full file request (18%).

6.10 The response process to RFIs iscoordinated by police liaison officers.A time limit of 21 days has beenagreed by the PSNI and PPS for thereturn of information but responsetimes by the police have been slow(see Chapter 7 for more details).It was mentioned by MIT officers that once charging is complete, littleresource is allocated towards dealing

Table 2:Timeliness of files from PSNI to PPS

Type of File % within target Average days

Summary reported files 40% in 63 days 87

Indictable reported files 59% in 110 days 105

Indictable charge (bail) files 75% in 110 days 71

All charged custody files 78% in 90 days 80

Source: PPS Fermanagh and Tyrone Pilot Project, Evaluation Report

with RFIs, leading to delays inresponse times. There are alsoconcerns that e-mails are not read bypolice officers. The PPS did reportdifficulties in locating the relevantinvestigating officer meaning thatmore time is then required to issuean RFI, often for relatively minorpieces of information. Officers inDungannon DCU stated that if an RFI is marked urgent, then it is turnedaround in 4 days.

Reasons for poor timeliness and quality

6.11 The issue of file quality isacknowledged by senior PSNImanagement as one of the keychallenges for the organisation and isthe central plank of the reducingdelays strategy. The strategy acceptsthat a ‘new culture’ is necessarywhich is geared towards ‘getting thefile right first time on time’ andfocusing on ‘unnecessary delay in case investigation, preparation andadjudication.’ There is clearly a needto address a culture, particularlywithin the DCUs, which sees chargingas crime clearance.

6.12 The PSNI/PPS protocols refer tosanctions for poor quality and latefiles – the DCU, via the police liaisonteam, is asked to nominate a personto explain the delay to the PPS andmay be called at the next courthearing to explain any delay to theResident Magistrate. In practice, thevolume of poor quality and late casesmeans that this sanction is little usedand therefore ineffectual. With theroll out of enhanced businessinformation to DCUs (e.g. officerperformance), there is considerable

scope to address this problem.It is recommended that the PSNIshould urgently address itsproblems with file preparationand address the wide-spreadissue of non-compliance on file quality and timeliness.Individual performance should be linked to individualassessment reviews andultimately to overallremuneration (e.g. CompetencyRelated Threshold Payments).

6.13 The loss of experienced officers,mainly through the severance packageassociated with the Patten reforms, isa factor mentioned by a number ofpolice officers. There is no doubtthat certain sections of the PSNIwere adversely affected by the loss of experienced officers, though theimpact on file preparation should nothave been too negative. The key issueis the level of training provided tonew and existing officers. Inspectorsfound that file preparation was animportant component of training andthat investigative interviewing inparticular was well advanced.

6.14 However, the overall quality of policetraining in case building and filepreparation was criticised as poor bya number of key officers in the PSNI.One officer stated that ‘staff had nospecific training on file preparationand none on electronic filepreparation.’ It is recommended that an urgent review of trainingon file preparation should beundertaken and appropriatetraining should be implementedas soon as possible. The PPSshould provide an input to thedevelopment of this training and

38

39

also be involved in its delivery.14

An example of good practice wasevident in Dungannon DCU wheremore experienced staff train new staff in file preparation in return for specialist assistance in areas such as IT.

6.15 A number of PSNI and PPS staffstated that existing timeliness targetsfor file preparation were having anadverse affect on file quality. Casefiles are submitted to the PPS tomeet timeliness targets but thesecases are known to be incomplete.The problem is not that the target iswrong, though it should be moreclosely aligned with a qualitydimension – the issue is thatincomplete files are allowed to besubmitted to the PPS and to CPOs.

6.16 As a result of the internal re-organisation of file preparation, allpolice files must be authorised by aSupervising Officer (SO) prior totheir submission to the PPS. The SO must be of a rank senior to theInvestigating Officer or a member ofappropriate rank within the CJU andmust perform a quality assurancerole. This is clearly not workingeffectively in most DCUs, particularlyfor volume crime such as theft andburglary - CID or other crimedepartments will continue to havefiles reviewed and recommended byDetective Inspectors or above.It is critical that more robustquality control mechanisms andprocesses are put in place, andthat supervisors who are the

gatekeepers between theinvestigating officer and the PPS, are targeted for enhancedtraining provision.

6.17 Inspectors accept that PSNI is relianton the performance of some externalorganisations. The provision offorensic science and pathologyreports have been subject toconsiderable delay in recent yearsand this has meant that case files areeither submitted incomplete or lateto the prosecution. PPS data for the period April 2004 to September 2005 show that 97 RFIs in Belfast and 33 RFIs in Fermanagh and Tyronewere due to the absence of a forensicreport. This refers to about 3% ofRFI requests in each region. Thisdoes not provide the full picture asthe police have stated that many filesare delayed in their submission toPPS for this reason.

6.18 In light of the recent CJI inspectionsof Forensic Science Northern Irelandand the State Pathologist’sDepartment, both organisationsshould continue with efforts toimplement their action plans and toreduce the time to produce reportsto the police. The PSNI and theNorthern Ireland Office shouldcontinue to monitor performance inthis regard and take remedial actionwhere required.

6.19 The late provision of medical reportswas mentioned as a particularproblem by PSNI officers and a range of other interviewees in other

14 Since this fieldwork was undertaken, the PPS and PSNI have participated in a joint workshop on improving filequality. A senior PPS prosecutor is now providing a key segment of training for PSNI supervisors, initially aimedat operational staff in Belfast.

agencies. It was stated that ‘casualtyreports are impossible to obtain’.Data on RFIs gathered by the PPSshow that there were 105 RFIrequests due to a missing medicalreport in Belfast and 33 in Fermanaghand Belfast. This represents about 3%of RFI requests in Belfast and 5% inFermanagh and Tyrone. The NIO, aschair of the DAG, sought to improvelinks with health boards and trusts inorder to get a better service onmedical reports but there has beenlimited success to date. The key issueis that criminal justice medicalreports are not a priority for a healthservice, which is facing pressures inso many other areas. The CJS willtherefore need to change position on what is absolutely necessary.For example, could the provision ofmedical notes be sufficient?

6.20 There is a broader argument around the issue of file preparation.It is apparent to inspectors andmentioned by a number ofinterviewees that much of the effortspent on file preparation is wastedand that greater efficiencies in the useof police resources are achievable. Anumber of police officers mentionedthat the PPS require a full file evenwhen a plea of guilty is taken orstrongly anticipated. The currentpractice is that a full file is askedupon receipt of guilty plea or aftersecond remand with no plea. Therequest for a full file in thesecircumstances is leading to growingfrustration within the police and hascertainly added to delay in the

processing of cases. The PPS acceptthat they ask for full files in morecases than is required and state thatmore comprehensive guidelines willbe included in a new draft of theprotocols document. Inspectorsagree that these guidelines are urgentand necessary. Greater efficienciesand a reduction in avoidable delaysshould be possible in circumstanceswhere guilty pleas are taken at anearlier stage (see Chapter 8 for more details).

40

41

Prosecution of criminal casesCHAPTER 7:

Context

7.1 The Office of the Director of PublicProsecutions (DPP) was created in1972 and took on responsibility forprosecutions in all courts, other thansummary cases such as motoringoffences. Consideration was given to the DPP prosecuting all cases butthis was rejected on the grounds that ‘trifling’ cases could be processed through the courts moreexpeditiously by the police. Policecontinued to prosecute up to 80% of criminal cases.

7.2 The Review of the Criminal JusticeSystem in 2000 considered theprosecution process in detail andrecommended that ‘responsibility fordetermining whether to prosecuteand for undertaking prosecutionsshould be vested in a singleindependent prosecuting authority.’The Review did consider whetherresponsibility for prosecuting ‘trivial’cases could remain with the police,principally on the grounds of delay,but felt that this would dilute theprinciple of independence for littlepractical gain.

7.3 On a broader level, the Reviewconsidered ‘that effective jointmanagement of the interface betweeninvestigation and prosecution is ofcritical importance to the efficiencyand effectiveness of the criminaljustice system as a whole’ and anyproblems would add to delay.A recent report by the NationalAudit Office found that the ‘lack ofco-ordination’ between the policeand the prosecution in England andWales was contributing to courtadjournments and additional delayand it commented that the agencies‘do not seem to be working together’.

Roll out of the PPS

7.4 The roll out of the new structures ofthe PPS, now fully operational in theBelfast region and Fermanagh andTyrone, means that the number ofcases received by the PPS is rapidlyincreasing. From April 2004 toSeptember 2005, Belfast regionreceived 10,393 files and Fermanaghand Tyrone received 9,442 files,though Belfast is now approachingtwice as many files per month asFermanagh and Tyrone. The PPSanticipate that they will process over70,000 cases per year15 after roll outthough the police and the Causeway

15 The new PPS for NI, project update, summer 2005

42

Programme16 are anticipating areduction in case numbers to around55,000 per year. Such a reductionwould have significant implications on the work of all criminal justiceagencies and would free up resourcesin some key areas, which should alsolead to a reduction in delays. It istherefore recommended that anaccurate and agreed projectionof future caseload should beundertaken by the PSNI and PPS as it will have implicationsfor how resources are used totackle avoidable delay.

7.5 Inspectors have been provided with a copy of the report on theinvestigation of delay within the PPS.Research and findings of this reportare used in this chapter, though thetiming of its work means that itrelates primarily to the service inDPP areas. The inspection also draws upon other more recentdocumentation and data, eitherprovided directly by the PPS orincluded in the draft report of theevaluation of the pilot PPS areas.A large amount of evidence was also collected through a range ofinterviews with PPS staff and otherstakeholders who have a directworking relationship with theprosecution service. The focus of thisinspection has been primarily on thePPS service in the rolled out areas.

Registration of files

7.6 All case files received by the PPS areregistered on the computer system.

The most recent figures provided bythe PPS for Fermanagh and Tyroneshow that it takes on average 5 daysfrom receipt of file to registration.This is still a relatively long period toregister a file, though it is a bigimprovement on the situation whichprevailed earlier in 2005. One of themost serious issues from a delayperspective was the creation of abacklog of cases for registration – byJune of 2005 around 700 files were in a queue waiting to be registered.Delays in registration contributed tomore Form 1s17 to prevent casesbecoming statute barred. Theproblems with registration led to asituation where police were hand-delivering files to the PPS to ensurethat date of receipt was confirmed.

7.7 There is little doubt that thisproblem added considerableavoidable delay to the processing ofcases in the PPS and this was clearlyevident to inspectors in the review of case files for this region. While the issue is now mainly resolved, andmuch of its impact was due to a delayin the provision of electronic files byCauseway, the PPS should take fulleraccount of such risks for the futureroll out of the service payingparticular attention to the impact on case processing times.

7.8 Another aspect of the roll-out of thePPS has been the decision to operatea front office and a back office for the processing of cases. Inspectorsacknowledge that the split officeoption for Fermanagh and Tyrone

16 Presentation by the Causeway Programme, 200517 A Form 1 can be requested by the police or PPS and allows for an indefinite extension of the statutory time

limit so that an offence will not become statute barred

43

became necessary due to problems insecuring appropriate accommodationin Omagh. But the operation of these structures has contributed toadditional avoidable delay, particularlyin areas such as the movement ofpeople and files between offices.PPS staff mentioned that 1-2 weekscould be added for the transfer offiles between district offices andheadquarters and some of thesedelays even applied to file transfersbetween Belfast offices. It isrecommended that bettercontingency arrangements are required for the future rollout of the PPS. PPS should re-consider the timetable for the future roll out of the servicein areas where appropriateaccommodation will not beavailable.

Allocation of files and decisionmaking

7.9 After registration, files are allocatedto prosecutors for a decision onprosecution. Indictable case files areallocated manually by regionaldirectors. All other files are placed in ‘the unallocated summary casequeue’ and are either selected byprosecutors or referred toprosecutors due to the urgent natureof the file. Due to the extent of the backlogs, files are often leftunallocated in this queue for months.This is effectively ‘dead’ time for caseprogression. A significant finding fromthe Deloitte investigation into delaywas that files spent 97% of their timein a state of waiting (i.e. there is onlyactive consideration of each file inunder 3% of the time that they arebeing processed by the PPS). A

report by the Causeway Programmeon delay across the CJS found thatjust 5% of the elapsed time in a caseis spent on professional work.

7.10 When the prosecutor reads the file,he/she may have a query about thefacts, or evidence contained in theinvestigation file and will thereforenot be able to make a decision onprosecution or not. In this case, aninterim direction in DPP areas,or a RFI in PPS areas, will be issuedto the police seeking a furtherwritten report with regard to thequeries. MIT officers in PSNI stated that RFIs requests in astraightforward case can take 3months to be received from the PPSand it can be up to 18 months forcomplex cases. It is recommendedthat the process of file allocationneeds to be urgently reviewed bythe PPS and a more efficient filemanagement system needs to be implemented as this is notappropriate for the current orprojected volume of cases.

7.11 When a case is allocated to, orselected by a prosecutor, he/she willconduct a review of the file to ensurethat all of the necessary informationis available to make a decision onprosecution. This is a critical periodin case progression as a quickdecision will enable the timelyexpedition of the case. However, theview of a number of police officers isthat the ‘length of time taken by PPSto give a direction is too long.’

7.12 Meetings with PPS prosecutors showthat delays are due to a number offactors, principally the need to seekadditional information from the

police before a decision can be taken.There is also acknowledgment thatthe increasing volume of cases hasput considerable pressures on staffand backlogs have thereforedeveloped. A PPS initiative to identifythe reasons for long running caseswithin the PPS (currently cases over120 days) found that many of thesecases were delayed due to waiting onadditional information. The exercisealso revealed that the PPS CaseManagement System (CMS) had datavalidation problems which needed tobe resolved to ensure staff confidencein timeliness targets.

Requests for FurtherInformation

7.13 A Request for Further Information(RFI) is issued by the PPS where theevidence and information in a casefile is incomplete. The PSNI / PPSprotocols outline the circumstanceswhere an RFI should be issued andclearly states that the PPS can notdelay its decision or the completionof committal papers on foot of a RFIwhich is not essential. However, adefinition of what is not essential isnot readily apparent and some policeofficers are frustrated at what theyperceive as inappropriate use of RFIsby PPS prosecutors. There was aview within the PSNI that someinexperienced prosecutors are asking for unnecessary additionalinformation and full files in manycases. They would argue that morestraight forward or simple mattersarising on a police file could beclarified by telephone. It isrecommended that a standardisedapproach regarding ‘directcontact’ policy should be

established between the PPSand the police. A more formalmeans of feedback from the PPS to the PSNI is required.

7.14 PPS data provided to inspectorsshows that between April 2004 andSeptember 2005, 980 RFIs wereissued in Fermanagh & Tyrone ofwhich 177 are full file requests.In Belfast 3,362 RFIs were issued ofwhich 1,386 were full file requests.It is estimated by the PPS that about30% of new cases require an RFI inBelfast compared to about 10% inFermanagh and Tyrone. A number offactors may explain the big regionalvariation such as better quality files in Fermanagh and Tyrone, differentrecording of data on CMS,prosecutors contacting police directlyrather than the formal RFI processand different approaches byprosecutors in each region.

7.15 Data on Crown Court cases in anNIO paper on delay show that forthose persons returned to trial in2003, interim directions were issuedin respect of 316 out of 905 chargedby police and remanded, either onbail or in custody, and 215 out of 467reported to police to the DPP. It isclearly evident that the extensiveneed for, and use of interim directionand RFIs, is adding considerable timeto the processing of cases and it isthe judgement of inspectors thatmuch of this delay is avoidable.

7.16 The PSNI/PPS protocols state clearlythat it is the responsibility of thesupervising officer to ensure that theRFI is acted upon by the police andwithin the time scales agreed.Analysis in 2001 showed an average

44

45

of 84 days to return information tothe PPS. This led to a 21 day interimdirection timescale. If police areunable to comply with 21 days, awritten report should be submittedto the PPS setting out the reasonsand when matters will be resolved.Monitoring is undertaken by PSNIliaison officers, who act as a controlmechanism for the police. The factthat just over 30% of full replies aremade within the target is 21 days(excluding full files) is clear evidencethat the processes are not working asenvisaged in the protocols. The PSNIdoes not collect detailed informationon the reasons for RFIs requests (e.g.those outside their direct control),though provisional data is nowprovided by the PPS to the relevantPolice Liaison team.18

7.17 The need to use RFI requests orinterim directions is not confined to the PSNI. Files received fromorganisations such as the Office ofthe Police Ombudsman and theBenefit Investigation Services (BIS)are also subject to additionalinformation requests. In the period1st May 2005 to 30th of September2005, a total of 41 interim directionswere issued on BIS files whichrepresents just over 17% of filesreceived in this period (thisinformation was only recorded fromMay 2005 and it could include morethan one interim direction per file).19

Use of Form 1

7.18 Where a case is likely to exceed thetime limit for summary proceedings(typically 6 months from the date ofincident to the issue of summons),the investigator or the PPS canrequest the issue of a Form 1.A Form 1 allows for an indefiniteextension of the statutory time limit and means that the offence will not become statute barred (thecase would be withdrawn in mostcircumstances where an offence isstatute barred). The request for aForm 1 should be exceptional and it should contain an explanation forthe delay.

7.19 The PSNI/PPS protocols envisage thatmost requests for Form 1s will be bythe PSNI. However, the experiencefrom the Fermanagh and Tyrone pilotis that most of these requests wereby the PPS which is clear evidence ofbacklog and delay in the processing of cases. Between April 2004 andSeptember 2005, 637 Form 1s wereissued in Fermanagh and Tyrone. InBelfast, a total of 196 Form 1s wereissued. During the same period 81 cases became statute barred (i.e.passed the statutory time limit of 6 months without issue of summonsor Form 1) – 70 of these cases led to no prosecution.

7.20 The PPS has collected data on thetimescales from when a case isreceived to when a decision is issued.Table 4 shows that it took on average57 days for summary reported cases in Fermanagh and Tyrone andSouth Belfast compared to 29 daysfor summary charge cases. Thetimescales for indictable cases is 142

18 A new system for PPS RFI requests was introducedat the end of 2005, which means that all RFIs arenow issued via Police Liaison who have theauthority to challenge the prosecutor issuing therequest in terms of both the clarity of the requestand the legitimacy of the request.

19 Data provided to CJI as part of the ongoinginspection of BIS.

days for reported cases and 115 daysfor charge cases. An additional 62days in reported cases and 44 days incharge cases are taken for the periodfrom decision issued to committal forindictable cases. A separate target toissue committal papers within 40 daysof receipt of investigation file hasbeen set by the PPS. In 2003/04 thiswas only achieved in 10% of cases butthis had improved to over 50% in2004/05.

7.21 The data in Tables 3 and 4 relates PPS performance in Fermanagh andTyrone and Belfast to the publishedtimeliness targets set by theorganisation. The targets for 2005/06are more challenging that those setfor 2004/05 (see Chapter 3). The key point is that the organisation isstruggling to meet its timelinesstargets in these PPS areas, where themajority of cases are now being

received. None of the targets arecurrently being achieved in theseareas and performance is particularlypoor in the Western region(Fermanagh and Tyrone) for summarydecisions – only 26% of summarydecisions are within 25 dayscompared to a target of 50% and 33% of summary decisions are takinglonger than 80 days. It is also aconcern that 19% of indictabledecisions in Belfast and Fermanaghand Tyrone are taking longer than 180days and 26% of summary decisionsare taking longer than 80 days – thetarget is just 5%. The period fromwhen a decision is taken to when it isissued can be lengthy depending onvarious factors. Table 3 shows thatsummary cases (both charge andreported) are timely but thatindictable cases are taking around 50 days on average.

46

Table 3: PPS timescales to take decisions (Fermanagh&Tyrone and South Belfast)

Type of case (adults) File received Decision to Decisionto decision decision issued to date (days) issued (days) committal (days)

Summary reported cases 45 12 n/aIndictable reported cases 90 52 62Summary charge cases 22 7 n/aIndictable charge cases 71 44 44

Source: PPS (includes RFI time)

Table 4: PPS Timeliness Targets for summary decisions

TargetRegion 50% in 25 days 95% in 80 days

Belfast 45% 83%

Western (F&T) 26% 67%

Overall 35% 74%

Source: PPS (includes RFI time)

47

Table 5: PPS Timeliness Targets for indictable decisions

Target

Region 50% in 80 days 75% in 115 days 95% in 180 days

Belfast 31% 56% 80%

Western (F&T) 34% 59% 83%

Overall 32% 57% 81%

Source: PPS (includes RFI time)

7.22 It is evident to inspectors that thePPS are taking the issue of avoidabledelay seriously and that thetimeliness targets for 2005/06 aremore challenging that those for theprevious year. However, data availableon Belfast and Fermanagh and Tyrone,where the majority of cases are nowreceived, clearly show thatachievement of these targets isunlikely. Indeed, there are areaswhere performance has significantlydeteriorated over the past year. It isconcerning that the further roll outof the PPS and the increasing volumeof cases will further exacerbate thissituation. While this level of delay(compared to targets) is significant, itis also avoidable through concertedaction by the PPS and in co-operationwith the PSNI in particular.

Summons

7.23 The PPS is responsible for theproduction and issue of summonseswhich includes drawing upsummonses, deciding on court date,signature and arranging for them to be served directly by post or inperson by the police. The mainfinding from this inspection is that

the summons process, which is goingthrough a period of transition, is tooopen-ended and suffers from a lack ofownership. As an example, the PPSare reluctant to include the time thatit takes to deal with summonses in itsperformance figures, though it doesrecognise that responsibility for mostof the process lies with theprosecution service.

7.24 There is an important timelinesstarget for the issue of summonses: acase will become statute barred if asummons is not issued within 6months of the date of offence, thoughexceptions are possible and a Form 1can put a hold on proceedings. Aconsequence of the 6 months targetis that there is a tendency in the PSNIand PPS to delay action on a caseuntil it is approaching the 6 monthlimit. This was also seen to be aconsequence of some time limits inScotland.

7.25 The PPS has set a target of 6 weeks(42 days) for postal summonses and 8 weeks (56 days) in personal servicefrom issue of summons to firstappearance in court. The most recentdata provided by NICtS20 (which

20 The Northern Ireland Court Service Magistrates’ Court Bulletin, July-September 2005

groups summons and charge cases)show that it is taking 61 days fromsummons to first hearing in adultmagistrates’ courts – this would belonger if charge cases were excluded.It is taking 86 days in Belfast. Thetime from issue of summons to firsthearing is better in the youthmagistrates’ court where it is nowtaking an average of 39 days, which isa significant improvement on 2004(49 days). A number of interviewees(mainly outside the PPS) stated thatthis was essentially ‘dead time’ from acase processing perspective, especiallywhen compared with charge cases.The PPS accepts that a balance needsto be struck between timeliness ofthe initial court hearing and thelikelihood of persons attending.

7.26 A problem which added someavoidable delay concerned the signingof summonses. It was mentionedspecifically in relation to Fermanaghand Tyrone where the operation ofsplit offices required a lay magistratefrom Fermanagh &Tyrone to attendBelfast to sign summonses. It wasalso reported as a problem in otherareas, particularly when magistratesare on holiday. It is recommendedthat this issue should be reviewedand that alternative arrangementsfor signing of summonses shouldbe implemented. This shouldinclude the use of electronicsignatures which are authorisedby a PPS prosecutor.

7.27 The use of postal summonses offersan alternative to the present servingof summonses by the police (not thebest use of police resources). Theevaluation of the PPS pilots showsthat 2,635 postal summonses were

issued by PPS in the pilot areas overthe 18 month period up to end ofSeptember 2005. This represents46% of all summonses issued in thepilot areas. There is a need to checkthe evidence of success of postalsummonses as it appears to workwell in Belfast but there are mixedviews from Fermanagh and Tyrone.Many postal summonses had to bereissued and personally served inFermanagh and Tyrone and this addeddelay to these cases.

7.28 The PPS are keen to increase thescope of offences for which postalsummonses can be used though thisneeds to be carefully monitored inlight of the experience fromFermanagh and Tyrone. It is proposedthat any changes to legislation onsummonses, which is required toallow a much broader range ofoffences to be deemed suitable forpostal service, should take fullconsideration of the findings fromFermanagh and Tyrone.

7.29 The length of time to take a decisionand then to issue this decision isexcessive in many cases in the PPS.This is primarily due to theorganisation struggling to deal withthe increased volume of cases leadingto backlogs at various points – most clearly evident in terms ofregistration in Fermanagh and Tyroneand currently evident in terms oftime to take a decision on cases andcomplete the paperwork after thedecision has been taken. In thewords of one Resident Magistrate, thePPS has ‘bit off more than they canchew.’ The solution is two fold:improve current processes throughimproved systems, better productivity

48

49

and/or more resources; and reducethe workload (i.e. volume of caseswhich are dealt with by the PPS).

7.30 Inspectors recommend that a short-term measure should includemodifications to existing PPSprocesses (e.g. file allocation)with additional resourcestargeted at the reduction ofcurrent backlogs.21 In the mediumterm, the PPS, in conjunctionwith the other criminal justiceagencies, should re-considerwhether it needs to take allprosecution decisions.

7.31 One option to consider is whetherthe delegation of ‘absolute’ offencesto the police would lead to asignificant reduction of PPS caseloadand to a more efficient and timelyprocessing of these cases. It isaccepted by senior management inthe PPS that the decision to take allprosecution decisions was a ‘stepfurther than the Criminal JusticeReview had envisaged’ (see also 9.6on specific decisions which may notrequire the current level of PPSinvolvement). A second option is toreduce the number of cases /offences which require the police toprepare a file and the prosecution totake a decision on prosecution. CJIsupport current discussions on theexpansion of the use of fixed penaltyoffences and recommend that theissue receives the urgent attention ofthe NIO and all criminal justiceagencies.

7.32 The Deloitte investigation into delayfound that delay is a problem withinthe prosecution service, thoughprimarily a strategic issue rather than an operational one. It made 10 recommendations principallyaround increased productivity, whichare being implemented by a newlyformed Performance ManagementGroup within the PPS. This reportdoes not duplicate any of theserecommendations but fully supportstheir implementation.

21 The PPS has recently established a dedicated teamof staff working on reducing the administrativebacklog in Belfast.

50

51

The courts (case managment)CHAPTER 8:

8.1 The Northern Ireland Court Service(NICtS) is responsible for theadministration of the courts inNorthern Ireland. The Crown Courthears all serious criminal cases whilethe magistrates’ courts (adult andyouth) conduct preliminary hearingsin serious cases and hear anddetermine less serious criminal cases.The criminal jurisdiction of countycourts is limited to hearing appealsfrom magistrates’ courts againstconviction and sentence. The largestproportion of NICtS gross operatingcosts for 2004/05 (42%) is committedto the strategic objective ‘to increasethe efficiency of case management’.

The Role of the Judiciary22

8.2 The judiciary has a key role incontributing to the objective ofincreasing the efficiency of casemanagement. The previous LordChief Justice (Lord Carswell) issuedin 1998 a Practice Direction whichintroduced target times for CrownCourt cases, which were thenadopted as administrative targets bythe Court Service. Following up on

this, the present Lord Chief Justicehas set up regular meetings of theCrown Court Judges, established aCrown Court Judicial Committee tomonitor workload patterns andperformance against target times,improved systems for the deploymentof Supreme Court Judges andprovided better co-ordination of theirwork and designated the Recorder of Belfast as ‘provisional’ PresidingCounty Court Judge withresponsibility for co-ordinating thework of County Court Judges.

8.3 A Trial Status Report (TSR) has beendeveloped, after detailed consultationwith the prosecution and the defence,which is intended to identify risks and obstacles at an earlier stage andtherefore prevent unnecessaryadjournments. Pre-Trial Reviews have been introduced which have thebenefit of concentrating minds oncase progression and the judiciary has led an initiative in respect of third party disclosure. Both theprosecution and the defence are nowusing TSRs and participating in thePre-Trial Reviews. A more recent

22 It should be noted that the judiciary are not subject to inspection by CJI. Inspectors are conscious of theimportance of preserving the independence of the judiciary, and would therefore as a matter of principle makeno recommendations directed at them. Inspectors gratefully acknowledge the assistance they received frommembers of the judiciary in the course of this study.

52

initiative is the practice of attaching asummary sheet on each file whichclearly identifies the outstandingissues on a particular case.

8.4 Figures provided to inspectors onbehalf of the Lord Chief Justice showthat the prosecution and the defencehave requested late adjournmentsdespite confirming that their caseswere ready to proceed. The LordChief Justice has noted that ‘avoidabledifficulties were still caused by lateapplications by both prosecution anddefence’ meaning that trials had to bedelayed or taken out of the list, whichcan delay the case for three monthsor more. He acknowledges that anew culture of case management willtake time to develop in the CrownCourt. Both the Bar Council andLaw Society remain to be convincedof the benefits of case management.

Case processing times in theCrown Court

8.5 The time to process defendants inthe Crown Court is published by theNICtS. It is these times which arethe subject of the Criminal JusticeProcess Monitoring Scheme (CJPMS)and the work of the Delay ActionGroup. As noted above, the targettimes introduced in 1998 for the keyprocess stages of Crown Court cases(namely that 80% of cases should not exceed 6 weeks from committalto arraignment and 80% of casesshould not exceed 12 weeks fromarraignment to start of trial) wereadopted as core administrativetargets by the Court Service and have remained the same since then.The committal to arraignment targetis being achieved (92%), but not the

arraignment to hearing target (68%).An additional 6 week target onsentencing is likely to be added bythe judiciary and it is likely that adirection will be issued formagistrates’ courts as the Lord ChiefJustice assumes responsibility for them.

8.6 However the use of percentage basedtargets, especially those set below90%, can disguise the impact of longrunning cases. For example, thecommittal to arraignment target of42 days has been achieved for 92% ofdefendants, yet the average time fromcommittal to arraignment is 47 daysin 2004 and 52 days in 2005. On theother hand, the arraignment to startof hearing target of 84 days is onlyachieved for 68% of defendants(2005), yet the average arraignmentto hearing time is 59 days in 2004 and78 days in 2005. It is average timeswhich form the basis of performanceanalysis by the CJMPS and DAG.

8.7 On a broader level, following aperiod of steady improvement from2003, the average time from remandto disposal in 2005 is 360 days.An increase in time is evident at allthe process stages from point ofcommittal (Table 6). It should benoted however that the overallnumber of Crown Court cases hasincreased significantly in recent years,though 2005 is the first reductionsince 2001. This ‘spike’ in the numberof cases is a likely contributing factorto delay. The Judiciary also point outthat the length of trials has increasedas cases have become more complexand this is certainly reflected in thestart of hearing to disposal times for2005 which show a rise of 8 daysfrom the 2004 figures.

53

Table 6:Average processing times for defendants in the Crown Court

Process stage 2005 (days) 2004 (days) 2003 (days)

First remand to committal 170 171 188

Committal to arraignment 52 48 42

Arraignment to start of hearing 78 59 61

Start of hearing to disposal 60 52 51

First remand to disposal 360 327 339

Source: Criminal Justice Process Monitoring Scheme (Northern Ireland Court Service Crown Court Bulletins)

8.8 The proposed change to committalproceedings is seen as having benefitsfor reducing processing times forCrown Court cases. However,inspectors heard mixed views frominterviewees about the abolition ofPreliminary Enquiry (PE) andPreliminary Investigation (PI) and thedirect transfer of cases from themagistrates’ court to the CrownCourt. The fear is that existingproblems which are manifest in themagistrates’ courts will be transferredto the Crown Court and additionaldelay could be added to cases. Tightcase management will be required toaddress potential problems.

Case processing times in theadult magistrates’ courts

8.9 NICtS has set two specific timelinesstargets for the processing ofdefendants in the magistrates’ court.An adult magistrates’ court target toprocess defendants from first hearingto disposal in 9 weeks, which wasmet in 78% of defendants in 2004 and77% in April to December 2005 (thetarget is 80%). While performance isclose to the 80% target, it still meansthat over 20% of adult defendants aretaking longer than 9 weeks (63 days).

Table 7:Average processing times for defendants in adult magistrates’ court

Process stage 2005 2004 2003

Charge/summons to first hearing 63 65 59

First hearing to finding 41 39 41

Finding to disposal 8 7 4

Charge/summons to disposal 113 111 104

8.10 Average processing times fordefendants and cases can hide anumber of important issues. One ofthese issues is the regional dimensionin Northern Ireland. Data publishedby NICtS does provide a breakdownof performance by court area.This shows significant variationsbetween court areas in terms of case processing times. For example,charge / summons to disposal timeswere 124 days in Belfast, 108 days inL’Derry and 87 days in the Division ofFermanagh in the period October toDecember 2005. Court performancecan be assessed on the basis of firsthearing to disposal times whichshows that it took on average 50 daysin Belfast, 39 days in L’Derry and 45days in the Division of Fermanagh inthe final quarter of 2005. It isrecommended that these regionalvariations in court performanceshould be explored in moredetail to identify areas wherebest practice can be shared.For example, a number of courts have earlier start times (i.e. 10am)which may be having a positive impacton reducing case processing times.There are also potential benefitsfrom the use of split lists. It isrecommended that with theagreement of the Lord ChiefJustice the Court Service shouldconduct a consultation exercise,to identify how it can besthandle different types of businessand also meet the changingneeds of its users.

Case Management

8.11 In October 2005, the Lord ChiefJustice established a group comprisingrepresentatives of the ResidentMagistrates, PSNI, PPS and the CourtService to consider a number ofissues that could reduce delay in the magistrates’ courts. There is nocomprehensive information availableon the causes of delay and thereasons for court adjournments.Some interviewees believe that it is not possible to have casemanagement for volume work – ‘it’s too difficult because of volume.’CJI does not accept this approach as effective case managementarrangements operate in England andWales for magistrates’ court casesand also in Scotland in relation toyoung offenders. The issue of volumeis not important – the key issue is todetermine what type of cases shouldbe subject to more effective casemanagement. The appointment of a Presiding Magistrate to provideleadership and momentum foreffective case management linked to effective support from courtadministration is essential in thisregard.

8.12 A number of studies in England andWales, Scotland and the UnitedStates of America found that differentpatterns of delay and adjournmentswere closely associated with different‘court cultures’23. They found that theculture of a court can be stronglyshaped by the personality of the

54

23 See Raine and Wilson, Organisational culture and the scheduling of court appearances, Journal of Law and Society,20(2), 1993; Leverick and Duff, Adjournments of summary criminal cases in the Sheriff Courts, Scottish ExecutiveCentral Research Unit, 2001; Reducing court delays: five lessons from the United States,The World Bank, Prem notes(34), December 1999.

55

judge or magistrate, accounting forsignificant variations in the numberand length of adjournments.

8.13 In view of the need for effective casemanagement, it is recommended thatNICtS should appoint caseprogression officers formagistrates’ court cases. It issuggested that case progressionofficers should take a leading role inthe proposed inter-agency casemanagement groups and work inclose liaison with PPS and PSNI inparticular.

Analysis of adjournments

8.14 The reasons why court adjournmentsare requested can provide a keyinsight into the types of delays(avoidable and necessary) whichimpact on case progression andtherefore indicate what actions maybe required on an agency or crossagency basis. In essence, poor casepreparation and readiness by partiesto a case is often exposed in courtthrough the need for adjournments.It is therefore surprising that nosystematic analysis of courtadjournments has been undertakenfor magistrates’ court cases inNorthern Ireland. Various ad hocinitiatives have been undertaken byvarious courts, prosecutors andmagistrates but primarily for CrownCourt cases. Part of the problem isthat the courts do not have theappropriate case management ITsystem in place to undertake thistype of analysis, though there hasbeen little demand for thisinformation from the criminal justiceagencies.

8.15 In the absence of any comprehensiveanalysis of case files, inspectorsdecided to examine a sample of files to determine what type ofinformation is recorded and whetheran assessment of the reasons foradjournments is possible. It wasdecided that it was the PPS and notthe courts which had the mostdetailed case files. A total of 175case files were randomly selected byinspectors of which 94 related tocontested cases. The average numberof adjournments in these contestedcases was 4 and the average length of adjournment was 26 days. Recentfigures for magistrates’ courts inEngland and Wales show that theaverage length of adjournment was 28 days.

8.16 The reasons for adjournments arevaried from the files reviewed andlarger proportions requested by one agency does not indicate a lesseffective or efficient approach to caseprogression. For example, many ofthe court requested adjournmentsrelate to the necessary and standardpractice of requesting the completionof pre-sentence reports. These arenecessary adjournments based on‘standard court procedures’24, thoughtheir need and length should beexamined as part of an overallstrategy on delay.

8.17 A second category of adjournmentsare less clear in their need - defencerequests to take instructions fromtheir clients were a frequent cause ofadjournments. This may be partly dueto late disclosure by the prosecution

24 Term used by the National Audit Office in itsexamination of adjournments in England and Wales

and / or late appearance by thedefendant which are outside thecontrol of the solicitor. But it canalso relate to poor initial preparationby the defence (perhaps caused bytaking on too many cases) and by ahope that an adjournment will begranted.

8.18 A third category of adjournmentswere clearly avoidable through betterpreparation and planning. Theseincluded repeat adjournments incases due to the defendant or otherwitnesses not turning up at court, thedefence or prosecution not ready toproceed despite earlier assurancesand late applications such as fordisclosure.

8.19 The examination of PPS case filesdemonstrated that more detailedanalysis of adjournments is possiblethough a number of issues wouldneed to be resolved before it isapplied on a wider basis. It wasquickly apparent that there is littleconsistency in recording the reasonsfor adjournments on files – some arevery detailed while others providelittle or no information. There wasalso some evidence of ambiguity inthe recording of reasons foradjournments e.g. a defence requestfor an adjournment to takeinstructions could relate to delays onthe prosecution side. Such factorswere not easily apparent from manyof the files reviewed.

8.20 Inspectors were left with theimpression that while the file analysiswas a valuable exercise and providedadditional information on courtadjournments, the files were onlyproviding part of the overall picture

of case progression. A moredetailed and ongoing case fileanalysis, which inspectorsconsider to be essential, willrequire all the key agencies toagree how each type ofadjournment is recorded incourt. It is recommended that thisdata should be collected anddisseminated by the courts, andIT systems should be modifiedfor this purpose – inspectors weretold that Laganside courts have an ITsystem with a drop down menu toindicate reasons for adjournment butthat it was not used at the time ofthe inspection.

8.21 The views of interviewees confirmthe findings of this file analysis. Somecommented on the fact that the non-availability of comprehensive data oncourt adjournments contributed toconfusion and to a blame culture.For example, there is a widely heldperception that many adjournmentsare due to defence applications,particularly in relation to disclosure.The argument is further strengthenedby a view that it is in the financialinterests of the defence to prolongcases. A recent analysis of courtadjournments in England and Walesby the National Audit Office foundthat 61% were defence related. Boththe Bar Council and the Law Societydeny that this is the case and wouldargue that most adjournments aredue to the prosecution and not thedefence.

8.22 What is without doubt is that there is an adjournment culture, which isputting increased pressure on theworkings of the courts. A number ofinterviewees commented that the size

56

57

of court lists, which is partly causedby adjournments, is then puttingpressure on all parties to furtheradjourn cases.

8.23 Court observations by inspectorsconfirmed the rapid ‘churning’ ofcases i.e. where numerous cases arelisted, short but inconclusiveproceedings take place and the caseis then adjourned to a new date.A visit to an adult remand court inLaganside showed that over amorning, 82 cases were listed, otherovernight cases were added and only2 cases had a disposal. A number ofinterviewees commented that thecontinuation of this practice meansthat ‘court lists are becomingunmanageable’.

8.24 The operation of disclosure wasmentioned as a particular issue ondelay, particularly as it is becoming anincreasing feature of the magistrates’courts. It has prompted one ResidentMagistrate to comment that‘everything becomes a state trial’meaning that defence solicitors arerequesting full disclosure on a widerange of what were traditionallystraight forward cases. A number ofstaff in the PPS, Court Service andPSNI commented that disclosure wascreating difficulties for caseprogression.

8.25 The DAG considered the impact ofdisclosure and noted that ‘latedisclosure applications can be madeby both the defence and prosecution’which adds to delay. An importantdevelopment has been thepreparation, by the Crown CourtJudicial Committee under theChairmanship of Mr Justice Hart, of a

protocol on third party disclosure.This is nearing completion. As theissue of disclosure takes on greaterimportance, CJI is planning toundertake a review of practiceregarding the disclosure of evidenceto the defence later in 2006.

8.26 Witness availability has been asignificant cause of courtadjournments and was raised as aconcern by a number of interviewees.It seems that part of the problem isdue to poor communication betweenthe police and the PPS. At the firststage, it is clear that the police arenot recording all the necessaryinformation about witnesses on thefiles. At a later stage, internal PPSprocedures were criticised as beingtoo slow in issuing invitations topolice and civilian witnesses to attendcourt resulting in increased nonattendance. One Resident Magistratecommented that late notification ofprosecution witnesses led to thecancellation of 4 out of 5 contests on one particular day.

8.27 Defence solicitors felt that thechange of responsibility for witnessattendance to the PPS from PSNImeant that they had less directcontrol over the attendance of policeofficers – a view shared by at leastone Resident Magistrate. The policedid mention instances of the PPSfailing to summons an officer toattend court, who is then criticised by the court for not attending. Theevaluation report on the PPS pilotareas made some recommendationson improving internal PPS proceduresand these are strongly supported byCJI.

8.28 Witness availability does not appearto be a priority in the setting of trialdates as there is limited informationon availability and no consultation inrelation to suitability. It isrecommended that the PPS and the PSNI should ensure that ownership of witnessattendance is agreed and thatcommunication and liaison are enhanced. There is also anopportunity to draw upon theexperiences of the ‘No Witness,No Justice’ project in the CrownProsecution Service in England andWales.

8.29 There is a broader issue of how the ‘adjournment culture’ that hasbeen identified can be tackled.Observations by inspectors in courtsshowed that many questionableproposals for adjournment were not challenged in court by any of the agencies. There are also nomeaningful sanctions to address someof the key problems such as repeatedfailure to attend or failure toprogress cases within a reasonabletime. The cost of adjournmentstogether with trials that do not goahead as planned (both ineffectiveand cracked) is significant. The recentanalysis in England and Wales by theNational Audit Office found thattrials and hearings in magistrates’courts that did not go ahead asplanned was costing £173 million per year.

Legal Aid arrangements

8.30 The operation of legal aidarrangements can have a significantimpact on the processing of criminalcases. New financial arrangements

are now being put in place inNorthern Ireland. A fixed fee hasbeen introduced in Crown Courtsbut no assessment of impact isavailable to date. It is intended toextend the new arrangement to themagistrates’ courts in the near future.The experience from England andWales is that a set fee has helped toprogress cases and its extension tomagistrates’ court cases is supportedin this report.

8.31 There was considerable anecdotalevidence from police, PPS and courtstaff that the current legal aidarrangements encourage courtadjournments with little incentive toresolve cases at an earlier stage.Police (DCUs) state that defencesolicitors and counsel ‘exploit’ thesystem and there was mention that ‘atype of war of attrition on victims orwitnesses’ is often pursued bydefence solicitors. This needs to be carefully managed as it would be rough justice if defence areencouraged to expedite cases, but the prosecution are causing delaysthrough poor preparation.

8.32 Some adjournments can be directlylinked to the current legal aidarrangements. Examples wereprovided of cases delayed due to theneed to await confirmation of expertfees before counsel are happy toproceed. A Legal ServicesCommission suggestion that a panelof experts at a fixed fee rate mightremedy the current problem and hasreceived tentative support from thelegal profession.

8.33 The issue of the rate and timing ofguilty pleas was raised by a number

58

59

of interviewees as part of thisinspection. Figures provided byNICtS

25show that 61% of defendants

pleaded guilty on all charges in theCrown Court in 2004 (65% inEngland and Wales), but that figure isjust 36% in the adult magistrates’courts. Considerable regionalvariations are evident as 31% ofdefendants pleaded guilty in Belfastcompared to 40% in L’Derry. A totalof 53% of defendants pleaded guilty inthe youth court which includes 39%in Belfast, 68% in L’Derry, 69% inBallymena and 73% in North Downand Craigavon. There is no datamade available on when these pleasare taken, though it is widely statedto inspectors that many are taken atthe latter stages of a case, often onthe date of trial. There is alsoevidence to show that few guiltypleas are taken at the arraignmentstage for indictable cases.

8.34 The review of case files also showedthat many guilty pleas were made just before a trial was about tocommence, often after a number of court adjournments. A PPSprosecutor commented that‘sometimes there are fouradjournments before a plea isentered.’ One of the consequencesof late pleas is that considerableeffort, time and cost has beenaccrued by both prosecution anddefence.

8.35 The rate and timing of guilty pleas isinfluenced by a number of factors.

The legal aid system in NorthernIreland does not encourage the earlyresolution of cases, even in themagistrates’ court where many casesare straightforward. The operation ofa ‘one stop fee’ approach in Englandand Wales does appear to haveencouraged earlier guilty pleas.

8.36 Another factor is the level ofimportance that defendants and theirsolicitors place between pleadingguilty and obtaining incentives for anearly guilty plea as opposed to thechances of an acquittal following acontest. The motivation of adefendant (who is guilty) to make aplea of guilty at an early stage can beinfluenced by a number of factors.This includes the actual incentives for an early guilty plea – Article 33 of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order1996 requires the court to take intoaccount the stage in the proceedingsat which the defendant indicated theirintention to plead guilty (and thecircumstances in which this indicationwas given) and for it to impose a lesssevere punishment on the defendantthat it would have otherwise haveimposed to reflect the stage at whichthe plea was entered. A number ofguideline cases refer to the maximumdiscount being reserved for thosewho plead guilty at the earliestopportunity. Since the fieldwork forthis inspection was completed, theCourt of Appeal has handed down animportant judgement on this issue.26

In view of these guideline cases, thereis an opportunity to further publicise

25 Northern Ireland Court Service Judicial Statistics, 200426 A judgement of the Court of Appeal handed down on 24 February 2006 stated that if a defendant wishes to avail

of the maximum discount in respect of an offence on account of a guilty plea, he should be in a position todemonstrate that he pleaded guilty in respect of that offence at the earliest opportunity. The greatest discountwill be reserved for those cases where a defendant admits his guilt at the outset.

the benefits of an early guilty plea(e.g. in prominent locations inprisons, police stations and courts).

8.37 Another factor which influences therate and timing of a guilty plea is thelikelihood of an acquittal. This relatesto the quality of the prosecution (e.g. files, witnesses, reputation andexperience of the prosecution) aswell as reputation of the defence,defendant’s experience of the criminaljustice system and advice from thedefendant’s solicitor / barrister etc.27).Statistics showing that just 35% ofdefendants who pleaded not guilty inthe Crown Court in England andWales were convicted in 2004 can bevery convincing. It is probable thatthe rate and timing of guilty pleas canbe affected by improvements to filepreparation, case management (priorto court) and the administration ofcases in court. Inspectors believethat implementation of the otherrecommendations of this report willimpact on the rate and timing ofguilty pleas for all criminal cases inNorthern Ireland.

Finding to sentence

8.38 The operation of sentencing was notfound to be adding undue avoidabledelay to cases though there aresignificant variations between adultand youth defendants. The finding todisposal times for adults during 2005is 8 days compared to 34 days foryouth defendants and there are alsosignificant variations between courts.There is a need for the criminaljustice system as a whole and the

Probation Board in particular toconsider the reasons why youthdefendants are taking an average of34 days from finding to disposal.While the need for Pre-SentenceReports (PSRs) is commonlymentioned as a major contributingfactor, there are also issuesconcerning the involvement of socialservices and education bodies.CJI plans to undertake a number ofinspections on the treatment ofchildren in the CJS and these issueswill then be examined in more detail.

8.39 Timescales have been agreed betweenNICtS, the NIO and the ProbationBoard (PBNI) for the preparation andproduction of reports. In 2002 theProbation Board agreed revisedstandards for PSRs in conjunctionwith sentencers and the NIO.Standard 11 states that ‘all PSRs shallbe completed within 20 working daysof a court request (15 days if thedefendant is remanded in custody) oralternatively no later than anotherdate determined by the court.’ Butthis does not correspond with theinternal Probation Board target whichincludes PSRs and ‘explanatory lettersdelivered to the courts.’ Explanatoryletters usually detail why PSRs cannot be delivered within the agreedtimescale and include factors such asnon attendance of offenders at pre-arranged meetings. The inclusion ofexplanatory letters essentially meansthat the Probation Board cancontinue to achieve 99% within thetarget timescales. This is a confusiontarget and does not reflect actualperformance in relation to the

60

27 See Tague in Criminal Law Review for the argument on why barristers should recommend trials (i.e. not guiltypleas) to defendants as they are not as risky, and guilty pleas not as advantageous, as often thought.

61

delivery of PSRs. It is also of littlebenefit in gaining an understanding of the timescales for the preparationand production of reports.Inspectors therefore support therecent commitment of the ProbationBoard to seek to produce all PSRswithin 20 working days of a courtrequest.28

8.40 The delay in preparing pre-sentenceyouth reports could be addressedthrough the greater use of SpecificSentence Reports (SSRs), which caneither be done on the day of thefinding or within days of the courthearing. The use of SSRs has becomemore popular across England andWales and has made a significantcontribution to the reduction in delayfor PYO cases in particular. As thereare few requested in NorthernIreland (about 100), there is scope toincrease their use while protectingthe interests of both the judiciary andthe defence. Indeed, ResidentMagistrates have told inspectors oftheir willingness to consider the useof SSRs in more circumstances andthe Probation Board has set a targetto undertake more SSRs.

8.41 Following the recent agreement onthe timing and production of PSRsand the commitment to use moreSSRs, it is recommended that PBNIshould report separately on itsperformance in relation to PSRsand explanatory letters, andshould work closely withsentencers in relation to theextended use of SSRs.

28 A protocol has recently been agreed between the Crown Court Judicial Committee and the Probation Boardwhich will introduce a 6 week target time from the date of plea or finding to the date of sentencing.

62

63

Youth casesCHAPTER 9:

9.1 Much research has been undertakenwhich shows that delays in theprocessing of cases can have a muchmore negative impact on youngpeople, either as defendants or asvictims and witnesses. As a result,many countries have implementedspecific delay reduction initiativesaimed at youth cases – the mostnotable are the Persistent YoungOffender pledge in England andWales (half the time from arrest tosentence) and the introduction ofnational standards for youth justiceby the Scottish Executive (e.g. reducethe number of persistent youngoffenders by 10% and introduction of time standards to reach andimplement a decision on a youngoffender).

9.2 In addition to Article 6 of theEuropean Convention, the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child guarantees the right ‘tohave the matter determined withoutdelay’. There is also specificNorthern Ireland legislation underSection 53 of the Justice (NI) Act2002 which places a statutoryimperative on all criminal justiceagencies to have regard for theimpact of delay on the welfare of achild. The Review of Criminal Justicein Northern Ireland also expressed

concerns about the length of time ittakes for cases to be disposed of andrecommended that ‘efforts to dealwith delays in cases being broughtbefore the youth court shouldcontinue.’

Diversion

9.3 The purpose of diversion initiatives isthat youth cases in particular, whenthey are minor and first offences, donot enter the courts system, or whenthey do enter the system, they can be re-routed towards alternativedisposals. The effective use of theboth options has the potential tosignificantly reduce avoidable delayfor young offenders. A number ofdifferent diversion options areavailable: youth conference, informedwarning or caution.

9.4 The recent introduction of courtreferred youth conferencing hasintroduced a new restorative justiceapproach to dealing with youngoffenders. When a youth admits an offence or agrees to a youthconference following a finding ofguilty, the magistrate can ask for aYouth Conferencing plan.Diversionary conferences only take place if the PPS considers itappropriate. The evaluation of the

64

youth conference service found that69% of referrals were received fromthe courts and 31% from the PPS.If the Youth Conference plan is notaccepted by the court a PSR may berequested to address all previousconvictions or enhance the probationinformation element in the plan.There was some evidence from thecase file analysis and interviews thatPSRs were requested after a YouthConference plan were rejected.29

9.5 The use of diversion is increasinglyavailable to criminal justice agenciesin dealing with young offenders.Previously the decision to proceed by way of diversion was taken andimplemented by the police, often in amatter of hours. The PPS / PSNIprotocols state that informedwarnings, cautions, youth conferencesor prosecutions ‘must be submittedto the PPS for decision’. This sitsuncomfortably with a general rulewhich states that these protocols ‘donot seek to restrict police officersdiscretion to deal informally with themost minor offences’ – those thatpresumably could be dealt byinformed warning or caution.

9.6 PPS analysis of prosecutorialdecisions taken on cases againstyouths from January to August 2005in the Belfast region shows thatinformed warnings constitute 25% of decisions and cautions account for 17% of decisions.30 Thesediversionary options are thenadministered by the PSNI. This wasnot envisaged by the Criminal Justice

Review when it stated that juvenileliaison bureaux within the policeshould continue to divert youngoffenders away from the courtprocess by warning or caution.The report noted that if all suchcases were to be processed throughthe PPS for decision it would ‘addsignificantly to costs and delay’ andrecommended that ‘cases are dealtwith expeditiously.’ An informedwarning and a restorative caution isnot a conviction though a criminalrecord is held for 12 months and 30 months respectively (unlesssubsequent offending takes place).It is recommended that greaterflexibility with regard todecisions on informal warningsand cautions to young people isrequired so that (in the words of the Criminal Justice Review)‘cases are dealt withexpeditiously’. The PSNI shouldtherefore assume delegatedresponsibility for decisions onyouth warnings and cautions.This will require additional trainingfor PSNI officers and consistency indecision making. Implementing thisrecommendation will not result inpolice officers appearing in court forthe prosecution of cases.

Youth case processing times

9.7 Details of the case processing timesfor youth defendants are contained inTable 8. It shows that the averagecharge / summons to disposal time in2005 was 134 days. As was stated inChapter 2, an additional period of up

29 An evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service found that one third of plans were rejected bythe court.

30 Data provided by PPS to CJI in September 2005

65

to 112 days can be added for theoffence to charge / summons stage ofyouth defendants and up to 28 dayscan be added when exclusions arecounted. A comparison of figures forthe past three years show thatoverall performance is improving – an average charge / summons time of134 for 2005 is better than 2004(145) and 2003 (153). Most of thisimprovement is at the first hearing tofinding stage of youth cases (i.e. in theyouth court) where an average timeof 78 days in 2003 has decreased to56 days in 2005.

31 Figures for 2005 are not available as yet

Table 8:Average processing times for youth defendants in magistrates’ court

Process stage 2005 2004 2003

Charge/summons to first hearing 44 48 48

First hearing to finding 56 61 78

Finding to disposal 34 36 27

Charge/summons to disposal 134 145 153

Source: NICtS published data

9.8 NICtS published data on processingtimes includes a breakdown of timesby court location. For youthdefendants completed in 200431, itshows that average times fromcharge/summons to disposal variesfrom 120 days in Belfast to 156 daysin L’Derry and 192 days in Armagh.Most recent figures for October toDecember 2005 confirm that youthcases are taking longer to process inArds,Antrim, Craigavon and Armaghcourt Divisions. Reasons for suchvariation include different approachesto the issue and serving ofsummonses, frequency of youth courtsittings and different ‘court cultures’.

It is clearly in the interests of allagencies to identify the goodpractices in certain court locations so that they can be applied in areaswhere performance is moreproblematic.

9.9 It is acknowledged that caseprocessing times for youth defendantshas recently improved. However, itstill takes longer to process a youthdefendant than an adult defendantand much longer compared toEngland and Wales. Muchimprovement is therefore possible.

9.10 The big reduction in processing timesfor young offenders in England andWales can be largely attributed tothe government pledge to half thetime it takes to process cases ofpersistent young offenders. Thispledge was made by Labour as part ofits manifesto for the 1997 generalelection and followed rising publicconcern around the numbers ofcrimes committed by a relativelysmall number of persistent youngoffenders. Back in 1997 it took onaverage 142 days to process a casefrom arrest to sentence – by 2001the target of 71 days was achievedand has since been sustained. Thereis also evidence to suggest thatelements of best practice in dealing

with PYO cases has been extended tothe broader youth caseload inEngland and Wales (e.g. joint agencyapproaches to case management;effective tracking and monitoring oflive cases; tackling of the adjournmentculture in courts).

9.11 The success of the delivery of thePYO pledge in England and Wales hasmany important lessons for NorthernIreland in terms of approaching theissue of delay (e.g. setting up caseprogression meetings) but also interms of addressing public confidencein the criminal justice system. Theknown fact that a small number ofoffenders commit a large proportionof crime should be the subject ofgreater attention by the CJS inNorthern Ireland. Reducing theprocessing time for these defendantsis a good starting point as it willensure that appropriate sentences aremore quickly implemented andopportunities to re-offend whilst onbail are reduced. It is recommendedthat the Criminal Justice Boardshould give seriousconsideration, as part of its delaystrategy, to identifying thenumbers of persistent youngoffenders in Northern Irelandand then developing anappropriate strategy.

Bail and custody

9.12 A particular concern raised by anumber of respondents was thepractice of having young offendersremanded on bail or in custody forlong periods. Long periods on bailoften mean that additional offencesare committed and actions to addressthe re-offending behaviour are

delayed – there is a limit on whatprogrammes can be undertaken withan offender who has not received asentence. Long periods in custodyare more detrimental, as youngoffenders have often served theequivalent time of a sentence by thetime the actual sentence is known.The opportunity to address offendingbehaviour (e.g. through specific typesof sentences) is lost in thesecircumstances.

9.13 Defence solicitors pointed out thatyoung offenders held on remand arelikely to plead guilty when the periodon remand equals the possiblesentence – a not guilty plea(regardless of guilt or not) wouldensure that a continued period onremand would be likely.

9.14 Data provided by the Prison Service32

shows that 36% of the prisonpopulation are on remand whichcompares very unfavourably with 17% in England and Wales and 14% inScotland. The proportion of those onremand rises to 56% in HydebankWood (male), where all males areunder 21 years old. The highproportion of the prison populationwho are on remand is a symptom ofa number of factors, of which delaysin the processing of criminalproceedings is very significant. Whilea reduction in case processing timesis likely to reduce the proportion andnumbers of defendants who are onremand in the prisons, there is also a need to directly target the issue,particularly for young offenders.It is recommended that periods ofremand (on bail and in custody)

66

32 Monthly Prison Population Report, 10 April 2006, NIO

67

should be for the shortest timepossible, particularly for youngoffenders. The criminal justiceagencies should developprocedures on implementationto minimise time spent onremand.

Prosecution

9.15 The times to take prosecutiondecisions in Fermanagh and Tyroneand South Belfast (where PPS isrolled out) are included in the Table9. It shows that the time to take adecision and to issue a decision isquicker for summary charge casesthan summary reported cases.The big difference however isbetween indictable reported casesand indictable charge cases –reported cases are taking significantlylonger for making a decision and forthe issue of that decision.

decisions and such delay is notacceptable to many participants andusers of the CJS. One PSNI YouthDiversion Officer felt delays withcautions is having a detrimental effecton young offenders as well as victims.This was the view shared by a rangeof other interviewees.

9.17 The time to take and issue a decisionon youth conferences (average of 55days) is also excessive according to anumber of interviewees, particularlyas this time must be combined withtime spent on file preparation.A recent evaluation of the YouthConference Service found that theaverage length of time from theoffence to the day of the conferencewas 120 working days. It furthernoted that some victims expressed aconcern at the lapse in time since theoriginal offence. Inspectors were toldthat the PPS do intend to prioritiseyouth cases in the future. It is

Table 9: PPS timescales to take decisions on youth cases (F & T and S Belfast)

Type of case (youths) File received Decision to Decisionto decision decision issued to date (days) issued (days) committal (days)

Summary reported cases 38 6 n/a

Indictable reported cases 62 64 100

Summary charge cases 32 4 n/a

Indictable charge cases 28 43 61

Source: PPS (includes RFI time)

9.16 More detailed analysis of PPS decisiontimes for reported youth cases isprovided in Table 10. It is a concernthat it is taking on average 45 daysfrom the date a file is received toissue of decision for youth cautionsand 32 days for informed warnings.These should be straight forward

therefore recommended that moredetailed plans are necessary forthe PPS prioritisation of youthcases. They should beformulated in conjunction withother CJAs, and implemented asquickly as possible.

Table 10: PPS timescales to take decisions on reported cases (Fermanagh &Tyrone and South Belfast)

Type of case (youths) File received Decision to Decisionto decision decision issued to date (days) issued (days) committal (days)

No prosecution 39 8 47

Caution 40 5 45

Youth conference 47 8 55

Informed warning 27 5 32

Source: PPS (includes RFI time)

Youth Court

9.18 A concern raised by the courts inparticular is the practice of youthcases being ‘rolled-up’ together andsummonses being joined together.When this happens, it is the normthat the youth or adult case willfollow the longest running casemeaning that avoidable delay is added.It is recommended that the practiceof combining youth cases withlonger-running adult or youthcases should be restricted toexceptional circumstances.

9.19 A number of recent developments in the youth courts will haveimplications for how cases areprocessed. An examination of youthcourt sittings was completed inOctober 2002 which identified arange of issues which contribute todelay including youth court sittingsand formal engagement between theCourt Service and other relevantparties.

9.20 Infrequent sittings in rural areasmeant that youth cases were oftenadjourned for one month and thereappeared little scope to transfer

68

cases to neighbouring youth courts.The youth courts now try summaryand indictable offences where thedefendant is aged from 10 to 17inclusive – 17-year-olds have recentlybeen added to the youth courts.While this will increase the volumeof cases and workload for the youthcourts, it is anticipated that it willhave the benefit of more youth courtsittings. This will have the greatestimpact outside Belfast where someyouth courts will now have morethan one sitting per month meaningthat the length of adjournments willbe shorter.

9.21 The NICtS has a corporate target of9 weeks (63 days) from first hearingto finding, which was met in 76% ofdefendants in 2004-05 (average of 61days). This does not include theexclusions referred to in Chapter 2.It is also of note that the target is notfirst hearing to disposal, which is thetime period used for adult casetargets. The time period from findingto disposal is particularly long foryouth cases. This is a good exampleof the need for all criminal justiceagencies to apply a more consistentapproach to the setting of targets.

69

9.22 While recent initiatives are beginningto show some improvement inprocessing times for youth cases,inspectors are not assured that thiswill deliver the major improvementsthat are necessary. It is thereforerecommended that in addition to theabove actions, youth cases shouldreceive greater priority in the CJS.This means that a separate youthtarget should be included in thedelay strategy. It should alsoinclude a broader and more flexibleapproach to diversion decisions. It issuggested that the recommendationto establish case progression groupscould be piloted for youth cases,before its wider roll-out.

70

71

Appendices

72

73

Appendix 1 Methodology

The inspection commenced from May 2005 onwards and consisted of the following mainelements:

1. Research and data collection

2. Steering Group

3. Consultation - stakeholder interviews and verbal submissions

4. Fieldwork

5. Feedback and refinement

1. Research and data collection

Documentation included:

NICtS1. Northern Ireland Court Service Annual Report 2004-052. Northern Ireland Court Service Corporate Plan 2003-06 and Business Plan 2003-043. Northern Ireland Court Service Corporate Plan 2005-2008 and Business Plan 2005-064. Northern Ireland Court Service Judicial Statistics, 20045. Northern Ireland Court Service Crown Court Bulletins 2004-20056. Northern Ireland Court Service Magistrates’ Court Bulletins 2004-2005

PPS7. Annual Business Plan 2005-06, Public Prosecution Service8. Design and implementation of the new PPS for Northern Ireland, Fermanagh & Tyrone

pilot project, evaluation report – phase 1, Draft February 20069. Capacity Model of the PPS10. Investigation into delay within the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions,

Deloitte, 200511. Performance Review 2004-05: building a service for the future, Public Prosecution

Service

PSNI12. A New Beginning: Policing in Northern Ireland,The Report of the Independent

Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, September 199913. The Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Policing Plan 2006-200914 The Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Policing Plan 2005-2008

74

15. The Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern IrelandPolicing Plan 2004-2007

16. The Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern IrelandPolicing Plan 2003-2006

Probation Board of Northern Ireland17. Probation Board for Northern Ireland, Corporate Plan 2005-2008, Business Plan 2005-

06

Other18. Crown Prosecution Service: Effective use of magistrates’ courts hearings, National Audit

Office, February 200619. Delay:A short review of the causes of delay in bringing criminal cases to trial in

Northern Ireland,The Causeway Programme, 200320. Delays in the Criminal Justice System – Causes and Solutions, Council of Europe,

Criminological Research,Vol. XXVIII, Strasbourg 1992, S.47-8421. Delay in the Youth Court – Scoping the Problem, NIO Youth Justice Policy Unit22. Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conferencing Service, NIO Research and

Statistical Series: Report No. 12, October 200523. Evaluation of Statutory Time Limit Pilot Schemes in the Youth Court, Home Office

Report 21/03.24. Home Office Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Statistics 2004 England and Wales, Office of

Criminal Justice Reform, November 200525. Jackson, J. and Johnstone, J.,The Reasonable Time Requirement: an Independent and

Meaningful Right?, Crim.L.R. January 200526. Justice (NI) Acts (2002 & 2004)27. Leverick and Duff,Adjournments of summary criminal cases in the Sheriff Courts,

Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 200128. Narey, M, Review of delay in the Criminal Justice System:A Report, Home Office, 199729. National Audit Office, Criminal Justice:Working Together, HC 29 Session 1999 – 2000,

HMSO, 199930. Raine and Wilson, Organisational culture and the scheduling of court appearances,

Journal of Law and Society, 20(2), 199331. Reducing court delays: five lessons from the United States,The World Bank, Prem notes

(34), December 1999.32. Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland, Criminal Justice Review

Group, March 200033. Tague, P,Tactical Reasons for Recommending Trials Rather than Guilty Pleas in Crown

Court, Criminal Law Review, 200634. The Criminal Justice System’s Response to Delay, Paper by the Secretariat,Trialteral (04)

0635. Youth Justice Agency, Corporate Plan 2005-2008, Business Plan 2005-2006

75

2. Steering Group

The inspection was guided by a Steering Group consisting of:

Kit Chivers (CJI)Brendan McGuigan (CJI)James Corrigan (CJI)Jacqui Durkin (NICtS)Raymond Kitson (PPS)Tom Haylett (PSNI)

3. Consultation - stakeholder interviews and written submissions

Prior to the fieldwork, CJI inspectors undertook a number of fact finding meetings withrepresentatives of the key criminal justice agencies. Written submissions were requestedfrom a wide range of organisations, particularly in the voluntary and community sector.When requested, follow-up meetings were conducted with a number of organisations /individuals.

4. Fieldwork

Fieldwork was carried out during October and November of 2005. This involved meetingsand focus groups with staff of all grades within the core criminal justice agencies as well asother organisations with an involvement with the criminal justice system. Following thefieldwork, a review of case files was undertaken within the PPS. Research was alsoconducted to carry out comparative analysis with other jurisdictions.

Details of meetings / focus groups:

Police Service of Northern Ireland19 meetings of which 3 were focus groups4 all day visits to DCUs

Public Prosecution Service13 meetings of which 6 were focus groups

Northern Ireland Court Service10 meetings of which 4 were focus groupsObservations in 3 separate courts

Probation Board of Northern Ireland5 meetings

76

Youth Justice Agency7 meetings of which 4 were focus groups

Northern Ireland Office5 meetings

Community and voluntary sector7 meetings of which 1 was a focus groups

Judiciary3 meetings with Judges, 5 meetings with Resident Magistrates of which 1 was a focus group

Legal Services Commission2 meetings

Police Ombudsman1 meeting

The Law Society1 focus group

The Bar Council1 focus group

4. Feedback and refinement

A draft outline of the proposed recommendations was sent to the Steering Group inFebruary 2006. A second draft went to the Steering Group in mid March. Followingfeedback from the members of the Steering Group, a third draft of the report was sent to the Criminal Justice Agencies in late March for a factual accuracy check.

77

78

Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved

First published in Northern Ireland in May 2006 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND

14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA

www.cjini.org

ISBN 1-905283-10-5

Typeset in Gill Sans Printed and bound in Northern Ireland by Commercial Graphics

Designed by Page Setup