Panorama prompts formal review of cautions system
Panorama's recent programme, , examined the use of cautions and on-the-spot fines in cases that were more serious than their intended use, including violent assaults.
On the eve of the programme, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced a of the entire cautions system in England and Wales.
This week, the , along with the and the , released more details on what the review - to be led by the - will examine.
The review will consider:
- How often out-of-court punishments are being used.
- If they are being employed across the regions in a consistent way and if not, why not.
- Whether or not any conditions on the cautions, including fines, are being observed by the offenders.
- Whether or not the use of cautions is working as a deterrent and whether or not the victims retain a level of satisfaction with the justice system.
Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, said: "This review is an opportunity both to tighten up on any poor practice but also to improve public understanding of the role and value of out-of-court disposals."
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "Out of court disposals are an important tool for the police and can often be the most appropriate sanction when dealing with low-level offences. However, it is vital they are used appropriately and consistently by police forces across the country."
It was announced that an update on the review will be made to Parliament in March 2010.
Comment number 1.
At 16th Dec 2009, John Guest wrote:Subject: Panorama prompts formal review of cautions system......or did John Guest? R (on the application of Guest) v DPP 2009 (Or did both parties!?)
/blogs/panorama/2009/12/panorama_prompts_review_of_cau.html
I rarely " blow my own trumpet", but given that Panorama is blowing its own, I wonder how far all of this would have gone without R (on the application of Guest) v DPP 2009? The answer I think is precisely nowhere!
The judicial review made it very clear that ABH was not open to a conditional caution (EVER!) (See transcript) extract of Goldring L.J below.
8. The Director's guidance on Conditional Cautions
9. The introduction states:
"This Guidance is to enable Custody Officers and Crown Prosecutors to decide how a person should be dealt with when:
• A Custody Officer determines that there is sufficient evidence to charge an offender with an offence, and
• A Custody Officer or an officer involved in the investigation considers that a Conditional Caution may be appropriate in the case, and
• A Crown Prosecutor considers that a Conditional Caution may be appropriate in the case and the offender may be suitable for a Conditional Caution."
10. The guidance, by paragraph 3, applies only to offences specified in Annex A. Annex A states:
"The following specific offences may be considered for diversion by way of a Conditional Caution:
Summary only offences
Any summary only offence, including (as examples)
• Common assault ..."
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is not one such offence
It follows that the when DPP then stated in your program that:-
"The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for issuing cautions, the Guest ruling has changed the way that it deals with this.
ABH and GBH are no longer suitable for caution.
I have issued guidelines for the staff to apply."
Hello.....,(!!) the guidelines were already there, the DPP changed nothing at all, he dodged the issue that 39,000 cases had been inappropriately dealt with in the last year!!! The guidelines were already in place! (Just being ignored!) 39,000 cases that should have been heard by magistrates at the very least! It begs the question as to the ability of the DPP (& possibly the Attorney General) & their apparent inability to accept they have changed nothing......how can you change a guideline that is already in place? (Just being blindly ignored!)
With reference to my Judicial Review he (The DPP)says "It was a mistake, we acknowledged it was a mistake, we have sought to put it right."
It didn't seem like that to me or the High Court Judge, & Court of Appeal Judge when the Director of Public Prosecutions opposed most forcefully my judicial review on March 5th 2009. The DPP acknowledged it was a mistake when he had no other alternative! (After losing the judicial review in a spectacular and damning ruling against the CPS).
Whilst Messrs Straw, Johnson, Scotland & Starmer review the situation via the medium of the Office for Criminal Justice Reform I have one question,:-
What are they reviewing? If their own guidelines had been lawfully followed then there would have been nothing to review.......(I wonder what the cost of this fruitless exercise will be?)
Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, said: "This review is an opportunity both to tighten up on any poor practice but also to improve public understanding of the role and value of out-of-court disposals."
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "Out of court disposals are an important tool for the police and can often be the most appropriate sanction when dealing with low-level offences. However, it is vital they are used appropriately and consistently by police forces across the country."
If the attorney General thinks 39,000 offences that should have been prosecuted is just "poor practice" then one has to question her suitability for her job......not for the first time! I can also assure her I do indeed understand the value of "out of court disposals", one more kick from my attacker & I might have been disposed of!
I have a direct & honest question to all the above named, to Panorama, & indeed to anybody who reads this.
If I had not challenged the Watts caution & taken it to judicial review & won, R (on the application of Guest) v DPP 2009 (I do see it as a victory of justice over incompetence .....or worse....) what would have happened ?........No program, no review, just more of the same bad practice......more victims robbed of justice. I would for my own peace of mind like to know! (And in all honesty feel that I have made a change for the better.)
Goldring L.J summing up in my judicial review:-
57. In this case, decisions were taken without regard to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the Director's guidance on Conditional Cautioning and the Secretary of State's Code of Practice. It seems to me astonishing, as it would no doubt to many members of the public, that the Crown Prosecution Service could seriously contemplate not prosecuting someone who, it was alleged, deliberately went to a person's house at night, attacked him inside that house with some ferocity (including kicking him) in the presence of his (obviously very frightened) partner. I very much hope that this was a one-off aberration and not typical of the manner in which the Crown Prosecution Service discharges its heavy responsibilities in respect of conditional cautioning.
Sweeney J.
59. On the material before this court, it seems to me that, if the decision to prosecute and the conditional caution are quashed and the £200 returned, this case falls far short of a high degree of certainty that any resultant prosecution would be ruled to be an abuse of process. Rather the reverse. The affront to justice, thus far, of the decision not to prosecute would be put right. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Director, apparently by two senior local lawyers, does not appear to be able to see that.
Full transcript of judicial review........perhaps read from start to finish it can been seen that the DPP was less than candid when interviewed, and left unchallenged on the program......
The Justice Secretary & Attorney General along with the Home Secretary are trying to close the stable door when it is already closed! If they just followed their own guidelines.....
Link to Judicial review (Above).
It is equally interesting that although found guilty (Subsequently), my attacker, Christopher Roy Watts, of Surrey Road Bournemouth, has never had his photograph in the media and received a SIX WEEK suspended sentence! Now that truly is justice!!
Regardless, the program did provoke a response albeit unchallenged by Panorama from the government, for that a sincere thank you.
John Guest
R (on the application of Guest) v DPP 2009 (March 5th 2009)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Dec 2009, John Guest wrote:Just to level the playing field, given that the photograph of my battered face was in 2 national newspapers, Panorama, & Bournemouth echo.
I include a link below to my attacker's C.V !! Where he lies about his age (He was born in the late 1950's), but at least you do get to see his photograph!
Link to Christopher Roy Watts of Surrey Road, Bournemouth, who assaulted me on 4th April 2008.
John Guest
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)