Scottish Government

Section Three: Identifying Cases for the Youth Court

Introduction

3.1 This section of the report describes the procedures through which potential cases are identified for the Youth Court and the outcomes of marking decisions of young people reported to the Procurator Fiscal. It also provides details of the number and characteristics of young people prosecuted in the Youth Court.

Identifying Potential Youth Court Cases

3.2 The target group for the Youth Court is intended to include alleged offenders - particularly persistent offenders - aged 16 or 17 years (and appropriate 15 year olds) who are resident within North or South Lanarkshire and who would otherwise be prosecuted in the Sheriff Summary Court. There is also flexibility for cases to be prosecuted in the Youth Court if the alleged offender's contextual background and circumstances suggest that such a referral would be appropriate to enhance community safety and reduce the risk of re-offending. Professional respondents were generally of the view that the target group for the Youth Court was appropriate, though some suggested that the upper age limit for the Youth Court should be increased so that 18 -20 year olds could also benefit from the fast track approach and the additional interventions to address their needs in relations to offending. Some professionals also felt that some young people on indictment and petition could also benefit from going through the Youth Court, unless their offences were only suitable for High Court. One Sheriff also suggested that the wrong group was being targeted, arguing that it would have been more beneficial to target resources on 18 to 22 year olds who were regarded as more likely to exhibit problematic patterns of persistent offending.

3.3 The police report all cases involving an individual under 18 as potential Youth Court cases. A key aim of the Youth Court is to provide rapid access to programmes of intervention tailored to the young person's needs. A fast track procedure has therefore been introduced with a view to offenders usually gaining access to court supervised and monitored disposals within 2 months of the commission of the offence or date of detection. Reports for custody cases and undertakings should be prepared and submitted by reporting officers prior to concluding their tour of duty, with custody cases appearing in court on the next working day and undertakings appearing within 8-14 days. Reports involving non-arrested accused (cited cases) should be prepared and submitted to the Procurator Fiscal within 28 days of the commission of the offence or date of detection. It seemed from the second round of professional interviews that this process was working well. Many professionals associated the efficiency and smooth working with the dedicated staffing arrangements and the experience of staff within the Procurator Fiscal office and police case management section. It was felt that interagency training for dedicated staff encouraged co-operation and that having named and known staff improved existing lines of communication. It was also associated with the dedicated resources that allowed police officers to prepare and submit reports prior to concluding their tour of duty.

3.4 As in all prosecutions, the Procurator Fiscal is the sole judge in deciding whether to prosecute and in what forum. The Procurator Fiscal reviews all police reports in respect of 16 and 17 year olds to determine whether a referral to the Youth Court might be appropriate. The Procurator Fiscal will decide first whether there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute. If a case is thought suitable for prosecution at the Sheriff Summary Court level the Procurator Fiscal will consider whether it is suitable for prosecution in the Youth Court. Jointly reported cases are discussed with the Reporter ¹⁴. More generally, any marking decisions in respect of potential Youth Court cases are made in liaison with the Reporter, social work department and the police to ensure that relevant background information is considered. Co-accused of any age of alleged offenders marked for prosecution in the Youth Court will also be prosecuted in that forum.

3.5 The procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were believed to be operating efficiently and effectively. An initial difficulty with police officers undertaking cases for days on which the Youth Court does not sit had been addressed through further training, though police continued to do this on occasion. The process of identifying potential Youth Court cases was reported to benefit from a good working relationship between the different agencies concerned: police, Procurator Fiscal, social work and Reporter. A strength of the procedures was regarded as the ability of the Procurators Fiscal to gain an oversight of the pattern of offending in any one case and to consider an offence in its wider context.

Cases Reported to the Procurator Fiscal

3.6 This section focuses on the marking decisions made by the Procurators Fiscal in relation to 2,236 cases reported by the police. This analysis provides an insight into the criteria used in the marking of Youth Court cases by the Procurators Fiscal. Note that the totals upon which percentages are based may differ slightly as a result of missing data.

3.7 Two police sub-divisions serve the Airdrie court. In the 2,231 referrals where a police reference number was provided, 1,445 (65%) were from the NA sub-division covering Airdrie and Coatbridge, whilst 783 (35%) came from the NC sub-division serving Cumbernauld. British Transport Police had referred 3 cases.

3.8 The majority of reports (1,931/2,227 or 87%) featured young men. Sixteen referrals concerned young people between 12 and 14 years of age (jointly referred to the Procurator Fiscal and the Reporter) who had been charged with serious offences and 39 involved 15 year olds (also jointly referred and discussed with the Reporter). Twelve referrals were 18 years of age and one was aged 19 years. The majority of cases, therefore, concerned 16 (1,068/2,224 or 48%) or 17 (1,088/2,224 or 49%) year olds. Procurators Fiscal indicated that they would not mark cases involving 17 year olds for prosecution in the Youth Court if they would be 18 years of age when the case came to court. For example:

"Accused could not be presented in the Youth Court because just about to turn 18 and would not appear before his birthday."

3.9 When the pilot Youth Court was established it was envisaged that the majority of the business would be referred to the marking Procurators Fiscal by way of police custody or undertaking. In practice, however, only 5 per cent of those reported by the police (105/2,226) were being held in custody, 3 per cent (75/2,236) had been released on a police undertaking and the majority (2,046 or 92%) were report cases that, if marked for prosecution, would be cited to appear at court. Under 16 year olds were more likely to be reported from custody (33%) than those over 16 years of age (4%). The young person was the only accused in 88 per cent of cases (1,939/2,214). One hundred and eighty-five cases (8%) featured one co-accused while 90 (4%) featured between 2 and 4. Girls were almost twice as likely (20%) to have a co-accused than boys (11%)

Marking outcomes

3.10 According to the data provided by the Procurators Fiscal, 17 per cent of reported cases (378/2,183) involved 'persistent' offenders. However cases could also be prosecuted in the Youth Court if it would be appropriate in terms of enhancing community safety and reducing the risk of re-offending ('contextual criterion'). Sixteen per cent of cases (339/2,161) were deemed to have met this contextual criterion. Overall 23 per cent of cases (414/2,136) met at least one of the persistency or contextual criteria and 10 per cent (235/2,136) met both.

3.11 As Table 3.1 indicates, however, most youth prosecution cases reported to the Youth Court Procurators Fiscal were not marked for prosecution in either the Youth Court or another court. The most common outcome of marking was an alternative to prosecution (a fiscal fine or warning or a social work diversion programme). Ten per cent of cases were deemed not to merit prosecution while in 3 per cent of cases the young person was referred to the Reporter. Overall 19 per cent of cases (419/2,215) were marked for the Youth Court. Girls were more likely to be prosecuted at the Youth Court (25%) than boys (18%).

Table 3.1: Marking outcomes of cases reported to the Youth Court Procurator Fiscal (June 2004 - February 2006)

Source: Data provided by Procurators Fiscal

3.12 As Table 3.2 shows, prosecution in the Youth Court was closely related to whether a case was deemed to have met the relevant criteria. Although the Youth Court criteria do not make explicit reference to persistency as a criterion, prosecution in the Youth Court was most likely if criteria relating both to persistency and contextual background were met (where 90% of these cases were marked for prosecution in the Youth Court). The majority of cases marked for prosecution in the Youth Court (283/363 or 78%) were deemed to have met the criterion for persistency in that they had 3 or more charges in the previous 6 months, however these charges need not have resulted in prosecution ¹⁶. Additional comments provided by Procurators Fiscal suggested that when a decision was taken to prosecute cases that met the Youth Court criteria in another court, this was often because of the serious nature of the offending concerned:

"Too serious - potential high court."

"Too serious to place in the summary court."

Table 3.2: Marking outcomes (June 2004 - February 2006) by whether or not the case met the Youth Court Criteria (column percentages)

Source: Data provided by Procurators Fiscal

3.13 Discussions with the social work department about the case had occurred in respect of 90 per cent of cases marked for prosecution in the Youth Court (357/396) while 80 Youth Court cases (20%) had been discussed with the Reporter in accordance with the Lord Advocate's Guidelines ¹⁷. In 39 per cent of cases marked for prosecution in the Youth Court for which the relevant information was available (147/375 cases) other offences had been 'rolled up' for prosecution. This is slightly lower than the first 9 months of operation of the Youth Court, when 44 % of cases had other offences rolled up.

Young People Prosecuted in the Youth Court

3.14 Prior to the introduction of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court, the Implementation Group predicted that around 150 young people per annum would appear in it. This estimate was informed by the numbers of proceedings taken against 16 and 17 year olds in 2003 in Airdrie Sheriff Court, the number of Social Enquiry Reports ( SERs) prepared for Airdrie Sheriff Court by North Lanarkshire Council and the experience of establishing a pilot Youth Court in Hamilton.

Volume of cases

3.15 In practice, the volume of cases dealt with by the pilot Youth Court has been higher than expected. Analysis of the Youth Court database revealed that 543 cases involving 341 young people had been dealt with during the period from its introduction to the end of December 2005 (or approximately 240 young people over 12 months). Figure 3.1 gives the overall number of new cases prosecuted in the Youth Court by each month of its operation. The mean number of new cases per month was 29, ranging from a low of 19 in September 2004 to a high of 45 in March 2005. Figure 3.1 also shows the number of young people being prosecuted in the Youth Court for the first time in each of the months. The proportion of first time prosecutions ranged from an initial high of 90% in the first month of operation (27 of the 30 referrals for that month) to a low of 30% in November 2004 (6 of the 20 referrals for that month). The mean proportion of first time Youth Court prosecutions throughout the pilot period was 63%.

Figure 3:1. Total number of cases prosecuted and total number of first prosecutions in the Youth Court by month (June 2004 - December 2005)

Source: Youth Court database

Age, sex and number of prosecutions

3.16 The majority of young people prosecuted in the Youth Court were male (299/341 young people or 88%). Most young people were 16 (143 or 42%) or 17 (151 or 44%) years of age when they were first due to appear in the Youth Court ¹⁸. Only 6 young people aged 15 years were prosecuted in the Youth Court during the pilot period. Forty (12%) of those prosecuted in the Youth Court were 18 years of age or older ¹⁹. The number of times each young person had been prosecuted in the Youth Court is summarised in Table 3.3. Around 3 out of every 10 young people had been prosecuted on more than one occasion.

Table 3.3: Number of individuals prosecuted by number of times prosecuted in the Youth Court June 2004 - December 2005

Source: Youth Court database

Offending history

Adult criminal justice system

3.16 Because of their involvement with the criminal justice system each person prosecuted in the Youth Court had a Scottish Criminal Record Office Unique Reference Number. By extracting the year code from this number, the year when the person first came to the attention of the adult criminal justice system could be established. The analysis here was restricted to those aged 18 or less on first appearance (18 year olds were included as they may have been in the target age group when first identified for prosecution).

3.17 Table 3.4 shows how many years prior to their first appearance in the Youth Court the young person's SCRO number was created. Forty-three per cent of young people had had their number created in the same or preceding calendar year to that of their first appearance in court. However, the majority of the young people had first had contact with the criminal justice system at least 2 years before their first Youth Court referral. When compared with data from the first 9 months, the only significant difference observed was the increase in young people appearing in the Youth Court in the same year that their SCRO number was created (10% in first 9 months; 21% over entire pilot period). This suggests that over time the Youth Court may have been dealing with a higher proportion of young people with no prior adult criminal history.

Table 3.4: Comparison of year SCRO number created and first appearance in Airdrie Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005) among those aged 18 or less (column percentages)

Source: Youth Court database

3.18 Further details of previous involvement in the adult criminal justice system were available in respect of 117 young people who were sentenced in the Airdrie Youth Court between June 2004 and May 2005 ²¹. This analysis revealed that almost three quarters of these young people had no previous convictions (86 cases or 74%) ²² while 17 (15%) had one previous conviction, 7 (6%) had 2 and 4 (3%) had 3. Two other young people (2%) had 4 previous convictions and one had 11 (1%). At this first sight these data may appear inconsistent with the previous data relating to first contact with the adult criminal justice system. However, an SCRO number would have been created when the individual was first charged with an offence regardless of the subsequent outcome of the case. The data reported here, on the other hand, include only those offences that had resulted in the securing of a conviction.

Children's Hearings System

3.19 Although most of those appearing before the Youth Court were, in terms of adult convictions, first offenders, it is possible that they had previous contact with the Children's Hearings System in connection with prior offending. Information about previous involvement with the Children's Hearings System among those referred to the Youth Court was provided by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA) from the Referral Administration Database ( RAD). Data were available in respect of 292 young people ²³. Table 3.5 shows that around 6 out of 10 young people aged 17 years or younger ²⁴ when referred to the Airdrie Youth Court were recorded as having had a referral on RAD.

Table 3.5: Young people prosecuted in the Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005) having a record / referral on RAD by age at first appearance (row percentages)

Source: Data provided by SCRA

3.20 To explore why these young people had been referred to the Children's Hearing System, details of referrals which occurred up to the end of January 2006 were examined from RAD. To exclude from this analysis referrals that may have been linked to the operation of the Youth Court, 3 types of referrals were removed:

• referrals made jointly to the Procurator Fiscal and the Children's Hearing System, which had been retained by the Fiscal;
• referrals remitted by the court to the Children's Hearing System for disposal;
• referrals made on or after the young person's date of first appearance in the Youth Court.

Table 3.6: Young people prosecuted in the Youth Court between June 2004 and December 2005 who had had a referral retained by the Reporter before their first Youth Court appearance by reason for referral and age at first appearance (row percentages)

Source: Data provided by SCRA

3.21 As Table 3.6 shows, out of 293 young people aged 17 or younger on first Youth Court appearance, 46 per cent had had previous referrals made to and retained by the Reporter. More than 4 in 10 young people (43%) had at least one referral on an offence ground while 15 per cent had been referred on a non-offence ground (12 per cent (36) had referrals for both reasons). Those referred on offence grounds had had at total of 1074 such referrals to the Reporter before they made their first appearance in the Youth Court, representing an average of just over 8 referrals per young person. These referrals related to 1279 offences, an average of 1.2 offences per referral or 10 offences per individual. These figures suggest that while over half of the young people referred to the Airdrie Youth Court had no prior recorded involvement with the Children's Hearings System, almost half had had such contact, mostly as a consequence of offending which appeared to involve a substantial number of charges in many cases.

3.22 As Table 3.7 illustrates, 71 per cent of the young people referred to the Reporter on offence grounds had on least one occasion been accused of a group 6 offence, most commonly a breach of the peace (61%) or an assault. Between 30 and 40 per cent had, on at least one occasion, been accused of either a crime of dishonesty (mainly thefts and attempted thefts), group 4 crimes (mainly vandalism) or other crimes (mainly possession of an offensive weapon (14%), drug offences and resisting arrest). Referrals for the most serious crimes were, as would be expected, rare. In terms of their timing, offence referrals tended not to be recent; around a third (31%) of these young people had been referred to the Reporter within 6 months (180 days) or less of their first due appearance in the Youth Court. The average time from the most recent prior offence referral to first calling in the Youth Court was 319 days (around 11 months).

Table 3.7: Young people prosecuted in the Youth Court (June 2004 - December 2005) having an offence referral to the Reporter by crime / offence type (column per cents)

Source: Data provided by SCRA
Note: Because a young person could have had a referral for more than one crime / offence type, percentages do not add to 100.

3.23 Children's Hearings had made continued Supervision Requirements for 44 young people (15% of those aged 17 or under on first appearance in the Youth Court for whom data were available) between RAD roll out in 2002 and December 2005. Six (14%) of these young people attended a residential school while subject to a Supervision Requirement, 9 (21%) were resident at some point in a local authority home and 2 (5%) lived with foster carers. However, most young people had continued to live with a parent (80%, 35) or other relative (9%, 4).

3.24 Thirty-seven young people's Supervision Requirements were ongoing at the time of first appearance (13% of our under 18 sample), including 4 of the 6 15 year olds for whom data were available. Twenty-two had one or all of their Supervision Requirements terminated before they made their first appearance in the Youth Court (most - 17 - having been terminated a year or less before) and 7 others subsequently had their supervision terminated after appearing in the Youth Court.

3.25 To summarise, 61 per cent of those aged 17 years or younger when referred to the Youth Court had a record on RAD. Forty-three per cent had had a referral to the Reporter on offence grounds, with an average of over 8 offence referrals per young person. This suggests that while relatively few young people had a conviction in the adult court when prosecuted in the Youth Court, more had previous contact with the Children's Hearings System as a result of offending. Referrals most commonly involved offences such as breaches of the peace, assaults, vandalism and dishonesty. Just under one-fifth of young people referred to the Reporter since 2002 had been made subject to a Supervision Requirement (mainly non-residential). In most case these requirements had been terminated shortly prior to or following the young person's first appearance in the Youth Court.

3.26 Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (S. 49 (3) (b)) the Sheriff is required to request that the Principal Reporter arranges a Children's Hearing to obtain their advice as to the treatment of a young person who is subject to a supervision requirement from the Children's Hearings System and who pleads guilt to or is found guilty of an offence. According to the Youth Court database, 47 referrals to Airdrie Youth Court involving 19 different young people featured a young person who was subject to a Supervision Requirement from the Children's Panel. All except one of those subject to such requirements were under 17 years of age. Also, 5 of the 6 15-year-olds referred were subject to a Supervision Requirement. Just as the majority of those prosecuted in the Youth Court were male, most of those subject to Supervision Requirements (16/19) were young men.

Charges faced

3.27 Each charge faced by young people was coded using the Scottish Executive's standard crime and offence coding (2005 version). Cases prosecuted in the Youth Court until the end of December 2005 featured 1372 charges (of which 1369 could be coded in this way). The number of charges featured in each case is summarised in Table 3.8, which shows that less than 4 out of every 10 cases involved a single charge.

Table 3.8: Number of charges per referral

Source: Youth Court database
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.28 Table 3.9 summarises the charges faced by standard crime and offence category. As would be expected for summary business, relatively few young people faced the most serious charges covered by Groups 1 and 2. However, it is worth noting that a significant increase in the proportion of offences coded as crimes of violence appears to have occurred since February 2005; these accounted for less than one per cent of charges in the interim report on the first 9 months of the court's operation. Overall, most charges were classed as miscellaneous offences such as petty assaults and breaches of the peace (which was the most common single charge accounting for 31% of all charges (423/1369)). Only 4 per cent of charges (51) related to the carrying of offensive weapons. Most charges in Group 5 involved possession of drugs (6% of charges; 84) (a marginally lower proportion of charges involved resisting arrest (6% of charges; 82)).

Table 3.9: Charges prosecuted in the Youth Court June 2004 - December 2005 by crime and offence categories (column percentages)

Source: Youth Court database
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.29 The percentages of young people who had at least one prosecution in the Youth Court for charges in each of the standard crime and offence categories are summarised in Table 3.10. This shows that three quarters of young people had been charged at some point with a miscellaneous offence. Again, a significant increase in the proportion facing charges relating to violent offences was seen towards the end of the pilot (the comparable figure from the interim report was 4%). Sixty-four per cent of young people (218/341) had been referred to the Youth Court at least once for a breach of the peace while 13 per cent of young people (44/341) had faced an offensive weapon charge.

Table 3.10: Percentage of people appearing in the Youth Court June 2004 - December 2005 who had at least one charge in the crime and offence categories (column percentages)

Source: Youth Court database
Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 as young people could have charges in a number of different categories.

Summary

3.30 Accused detained in police custody or released on undertaking were reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the police. In these cases and in cases where an accused had a possible citation to attend court, the Procurator Fiscal decided whether to prosecute and in what forum. Procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were said to be operating smoothly as a result of good working relationships between the agencies concerned.

3.31 The majority of youth cases reported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal were not marked for prosecution. Prosecution in the Youth Court was most likely if a pattern of persistent offending was established and other contextual factors suggested that such a course of action would be appropriate.

3.32 The volume of cases dealt with by the Youth Court was higher than expected, with 543 referrals of 341 young people between June 2004 and December 2005. Most of those prosecuted in the Youth Court were male (88%) and were prosecuted on a single occasion (69%). Just over half of the young people (57%) had first come into contact with the criminal justice system at least 2 years before their first Youth Court appearance. While almost three-quarters of young people (74%) had no previous adult convictions, 43% had at least one previous referral to the Reporter on offence grounds. The charges most commonly prosecuted in the Youth Court included breaches of the peace, petty assault, carrying offensive weapons, possession of drugs and resisting arrest.