MEMORANDUM 1
Replies by the Home Office to Questions
submitted by the Committee
VICTIMS AND
COMPENSATION
10. What work has been carried out to
assess the effectiveness of the work of Victim Support, set out
in Table 10.I, and with what results?
(i) Victim Support's performance is monitored
on an ongoing basis through scrutiny of the organisation's annual
report and accounts, its monthly newsletters and other publications;
from the quality of the decisions taken at the quarterly meetings
of the National Council and the monthly meetings of the Local
Funding Panel (which allocates Home Office grant to local schemes),
on both of which there is Home Office representation; and from
informal contacts between Home Office officials and members of
Victim Support's National Office.
(ii) A condition of Home Office grant aid
is that each local scheme and witness service is reviewed by National
Office `field' staff every three years. Each review looks at the
number of victims contacted, the quality of training of staff
and volunteers, the relationship with the police and courts, and
the general performance of the scheme. A report is made to the
Local Funding Panel to inform the decision on the renewal of grant.
(iii) Each year all schemes provide quantitative
performance information to the National Office, recording such
things as the number of referrals made by the police, the number
of victims contacted by letter, telephone or in person, the number
of victims who require ongoing support and the type of support
required.
(iv) A report by Coopers & Lybrand,
published in 1994 (copy placed in Library of House) found Victim
Support were providing a good quality service. More recent qualitative
performance information is currently less readily available, though
many local schemes do conduct customer satisfaction surveys, and
considerable anecdotal feed back from victims, the criminal justice
agencies which have dealings with Victim Support, and correspondence
from the public and Members of Parliament all indicate that the
service provided is greatly appreciated.
(v) A question was included for the first
time in the current British Crime Survey seeking information on
victims' satisfaction with Victim Support's service. The results
should be available towards the end of the year.
(vi) Victim Support commissioned a report
from consultants on the development of performance indicators
(both quantitative and qualitative) for local schemes and witness
services. The report was delivered earlier this year, and the
organisation is currently discussing internally how the recommendations
can be implemented as quickly as possible.
(vii) The annual Home Office grant conditions
letter to Victim Support setting out the terms and conditions
of the grant aid will be replaced next year by a Service Level
Agreement which will require more specific measures of performance
and accountability to be provided by Victim Support in future.
11. Please give the final outturn figures
for the number of applications for criminal injuries compensation,
case resolutions, final awards and cases outstanding for 1997-98.
What are the current figures for (a) average amount of award and
(b) where an award is agreed, the average time taken from date
of application to date of payment of award?
(i) The provisional (unaudited) outturn
figures for 1997-98 are:
|
| 1990 Scheme | 1996 Scheme
| Total |
|
| New applications received | Nil
| 77,743 | 77,743 |
| Cases resolved | 21,730 |
57,814 | 79,544 |
| Money awards paid | 13,552 |
31,528 | 45,080 |
| Cases outstanding | 22,854 |
80,978 | 103,832 |
|
(ii) In 1998-99, the average awards for April and May
(taken together) were £12,427 (for the 1990 scheme) and £2,599
(for the 1996 scheme).
(iii) Under the 1996 scheme the new Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority's performance target is to issue a first
decision within 12 months of receipt of the application in 90
per cent of cases. The Authority is currently achieving this target
in 86 per cent of cases. Applicants have 90 days in which to decide
whether to accept that decision.
(iv) Claimants dissatisfied with the first decision can
request the decision be reviewed at more senior level within the
Authority. If still dissatisfied, they can appeal to the new,
independent Appeals Panel. When the final decision is issued,
the Authority's performance target is to make payment within 28
days of receiving, properly completed, the form of acceptance
that is issued with each money award decision letter. The Authority
is achieving this target in 85 per cent of cases.
12. What proportion of the criminal injuries compensation
cases outstanding represents (i) a backlog to be addressed, and
(ii) the basic level of work in hand given the minimum reasonable
length of time required to resolve a case? What plans exist to
reduce the backlog?
(i) It is very difficult meaningfully to distinguish
between cases where ongoing work is in hand and cases which might
be considered to form a "backlog". Neither the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board, nor the new Authority deliberately
keep cases pending. If a first, or reviewed decision can be issued,
then it is issued. If a case is appealed, then it is slotted into
the respective hearings programme and is heard at the earliest
opportunity (having regard to the pressures on the two hearings
programmes and the convenience of all parties ie the applicant
and/or their representatives, the Board or Authority, and any
police or other witnesses). It is recognised that appeals are
taking a long time to come to hearing under the 1990 scheme. However,
appeals are being heard more quickly under the new 1996 scheme.
(ii) The number of cases outstanding fell from 106,600
at 31 March 1997 to 103,800 at 31 March 1998, and at the end of
May 1998 was down to just over 103,000. Within this total were
some 22,000 residual cases under the 1990 scheme, mostly cases
awaiting appeal. The plan is to clear the vast majority of 1990
scheme cases by 31 March 2000, when it is expected that the Board
will be wound up. (Any residual cases (eg where the medical prognosis
remains uncertain), or cases which have to be re-opened subsequently
(on eg medical grounds) will be transferred for clearance under
the old rules by the new Appeals Panel under the transitional
provisions of the new scheme.)
(iii) The new Authority has been set challenging performance
targets for the current financial year. Against a forecast intake
of 81,600 new applications, it has been set a target of resolving
78,000 1996 scheme cases, in addition to supporting CICB in clearing
a target of 14,000 cases under the 1990 scheme. By the end of
the year, the total number of cases outstanding should have been
reduced from 103,000 to around 94,000.
13. What is the reason for the substantial forecast
rise in criminal injuries compensation to be paid for in 1998-99
relative to 1997-98?
(i) The forecast increase is based on the expectation
of a significant rise in the average award payable under the 1996
scheme and a continuing rise in the average award in the residual
1990 scheme cases that will be resolved.
(ii) Because the more complex (and almost by definition,
more expensive) cases take longer to resolve, comparatively few
larger awards have yet been made under the 1996 (tariff) scheme
since its inception on1 April 1996. However, a more representative
mix of awards should be achieved this year, and the average award
is accordingly expected to rise significantly.
(iii) As the number of cases remaining to be resolved
under the 1990 scheme continues to decline, so the proportion
represented by the most complex cases is expected to rise, leading
to a continuing increase in the average award during the current
year. As the mix of the diminishing residue becomes increasingly
atypical of what it has been historically, the difficulties in
forecasting what the average awards will be are compounded.
14. Please list the figures for the number and value
of compensation orders made in each of the last five years. What
estimates can be given for the proportion of such orders which
were complied with?
(i) No figures are yet available for 1997. The figures
for 1992-1996 are:
|
| Number of | Total Value
|
| Year | Orders
| (£M) |
|
| 1992 | 106,300 |
26.25 |
| 1993 | 96,500 | 23.01
|
| 1994 | 96,600 | 28.00
|
| 1995 | 93,000 | 24.89
|
| 1996 | 94,800 | 19.86
|
|
(ii) No central statistical record is maintained of the
number or value of compensation orders complied with, nor have
any recent estimates of compliance been made. The Crown, County
and High Courts do not provide such information and, while information
from magistrates' courts on total quarterly arrears (costs, compensation,
legal aid contributions and fines) is collated by the Lord Chancellor's
Department, no breakdown of these figures is available. There
is accordingly insufficient data available to attempt an estimate
of compliance.
INTERNATIONAL
CO -OPERATION
15. What have been the practical results of the international
agreements on confiscation of criminal proceeds and drug traffickers'
assets? With which countries which are causes for concern does
the UK not have such agreements?
(i) Around £20 million is currently held under
restraint for overseas countries, and some £750,000 has been
realised in the United Kingdom following the enforcement of overseas
confiscation orders. Assets totalling about £700,000 have
been realised on our behalf by other countries, following requests
by the United Kingdom for the enforcement of UK confiscation orders
against assets located abroad.
(ii) Since 1994, assets totalling around £1.5 million
which were originally held under restraint in the United Kingdom
at the request of the United States authorities have been repatriated
to enable (US) domestic forfeiture action to be taken. The United
Kingdom has in return received approximately £5 million in
the form of gifts and asset shares from the United States.
(iii) In general, countries where UK criminals are known
to deposit the proceeds of their crimes and countries from which
large sums of criminal money enter the UK financial systems will
be targeted. A bilateral agreement may not be necessary if, for
example, a country has ratified the 1990 Strasbourg Convention
on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds
of Crime or the 1988 Vienna Convention Against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Where a bilateral
confiscation agreement is thought desirable, we require reciprocity
to be established ie that the partner country has powers in
place to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking
and/or serious crime, both domestically and internationally. Agreements
are not therefore in place with those countries which have so
far failed to enact the necessary legislation. Our policy is to
take every opportunity to encourage such countries to pass the
necessary legislation.
16. In 1997 requests for (i) extradition and (ii)
mutual legal assistance from the UK exceeded requests by the UK
by over two to one. Are those ratios typical of other recent years,
and if so what reasons exist for this?
Extradition
(i) Comparative figures for extradition requests made
and received by the UK in the past five years are as follows:
|
| Requests made
| Requests received
|
| by UK
| by UK |
|
| 1993 | 39
| 100 |
| 1994 | 51
| 102 |
| 1995 | 49
| 102 |
| 1996 | 45
| 117 |
| 1997 | 47
| 109 |
|
There is no hard evidence as to why the UK consistently receives
more than twice the number of extradition requests as it makes.
It is right to observe, however, that the UK has always been a
major international, business, travel and tourist destination.
Records show that in 1996 73.5 million passengers passed through
the immigration control (63 million of whom were EC nationals):
with this number of passenger arrivals, it is perhaps unavoidable
that a very small number are also fugitives from justice.
(ii) In the year to date the gap between requests made
and received appears to have narrowed. Forty requests have been
received and 32 have been made.
Mutual legal assistance
(i) The number of mutual legal assistance requests, which
have passed through the United Kingdom Central Authority, addressed
to and from the United Kingdom are:
|
| | Requests to the UK
| Requests from the UK |
|
| 1995 | 2,368 | 1,018
|
| 1996 | 2,438 | 1,065
|
| 1997 | 2,424 | 1,192
|
|
The primary reason for the discrepancy between incoming and
outgoing cases is that requests from the UK largely concern the
seeking of evidence in serious criminal investigations and proceedings.
Many requests made to the UK concern relatively minor offences,
such as traffic violations, and include the service of procedural
documents, such as court summonses and judgements, upon UK residents.
The UK courts have tended not to use mutual assistance channels
to serve similar documents upon overseas residents.
17. What have been the number and proportions of
extradition applications made by the UK in each of the last five
years which have been refused? What reasons have tended to underlie
these refusals?
(i) The table below shows that the UK has made 231 extradition
requests over the last five years, only 12 (5 per cent) of which
have been refused:
|
| Requests made by UK
| UK Requests Refused
|
|
| 1993 | 39
| 1 |
| 1994 | 51
| 4 |
| 1995 | 49
| 1 |
| 1996 | 45
| 2 |
| 1997 | 47
| 4 |
| Total | 231
| 12 |
|
(ii) Reasons for refusal included:
— passage of time since alleged offences committed
and/or offences statute-barred from prosecution;
— inability of requested country to extradite own
national;
— third country's extradition request took precedence
over UK's; and
— fugitive had already spent longer period in custody
in connection with extradition proceedings than to which he would
have been liable on extradition and conviction in UK.
18. What targets exist for the time taken by the
UK Central Authority to process a request for mutual legal assistance?
Are these targets met?
(i) The UK Central Authority has targets for two priority
elements of its casework: the transmission overseas of requests
from UK prosecuting authorities and courts (to assist UK investigations
and proceedings) and for the service of summonses upon UK residents
for them to attend court overseas (to ensure the recipient has
maximum notice of their required attendance at court).
(ii) The first target is for 85 per cent of outgoing
requests (from the UK) to be transmitted overseas within 10 working
days of receipt by the Central Authority. In 1997-98 the Central
Authority achieved 93 per cent.
(iii) The second target is for 85 per cent of incoming
requests for service of summons (from overseas) to be served within
10 working days of receipt. In 1997-98 the Central Authority achieved
only 52 per cent. The reason for this shortcoming has been determined.
Requests were being dealt with in order of hearing date not date
of receipt by the Central Authority. Responding to requests in
that way penalised those overseas courts who gave advance notice
to UK resident witnesses or defendants whilst accommodating those
courts giving less advance notice.
(iv) The Central Authority is currently developing its
indicators of the time taken to process mutual legal assistance
requests. Targets will be introduced. They will take account of
the fact that most requests require action by both the Central
Authority and other UK agencies.
| 
