Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-323)
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY 2001
MISS MARGARET
O'MARA, MR
STEPHEN LEACH,
MR WILLIAM
STEVENSON AND
MR FRANK
BRANNIGAN
Mr Barnes
300. In the memorandum that you submitted to
us, when you discussed the police information on intimidation,
you point out that this covers not just paramilitary and terrorist
activity but it covers general criminal offences, so it is not
easy maybe to work the figures out. Is there, in your own experience,
a spread that exists between these two areas; is the fact that
there is a culture of paramilitary and terrorist intimidation
liable to lead on to there being intimidation that is then associated
with other purposes and general criminal activity?
(Miss O'Mara) I think, in fact, this is one of the
reasons why the previous Secretary of State set up this Organised
Crime Task Force, that was being directed at much the same sort
of thought. In fact, what was concerning our Ministers was something
they have often talked about, a Mafia culture and they are concerned
that, very often, people who are engaged in one kind of activity
may then spread out into other kinds, which is, I think, what
you are talking about. And one sees it in the case of, by no means
the only one, the loyalist groups where we have seen drug-dealing,
and so on, going on, and it is sometimes quite difficult really
to decide what is what, and whether these things are being undertaken
for paramilitary reasons or actually by individuals getting into
sort of a thuggish and criminal sort of activity. So I think we
do see a read-across. And it is difficult to know—it is
sort of chicken and egg, really, I think, as to what comes first—whether
it is that there are people who, in another culture, might have
just gone into straightforward crime but are being dragged into
paramilitarism, or whether it is because they have come in through
the paramilitary route and have then got involved in organised
criminal activities. I suspect that it is probably going in both
directions.
(Mr Leach) Yes. Although it is not exactly the same
point, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the Criminal Justice
Review, which was published last year, does make very radical
proposals for new arrangements for community safety in Northern
Ireland, that is efforts, to reduce crime and the fear of crime
through local partnerships, but also through a sort of strong,
central impetus and guidance. And arrangements were put in place
in England and Wales through the Crime and Disorder Act in 1998,
but in Northern Ireland it is fair to say there has been a sort
of patchwork of different initiatives, different responsibilities,
but nothing really pulling it together. And so the Review recommended
an overall Community Safety Strategy, new local structures which
would help to deliver that, and very much build a sort of partnership
approach at local level, including the police but including other
agencies and voluntary agencies, in order to reduce criminality
and to reduce the fear of crime, including intimidation. And,
of course, the growing acceptance of the police by communities,
working with the police, is a very important element of that.
The Government has generally endorsed the recommendations of the
Review, but it has not yet announced detailed decisions, but it
is planned to announce those fairly soon. And, in going forward
on the community safety track, I hope that we would be able to
make a real difference at the local level and start to fill a
gap that has been there and has perhaps, to an extent, been in-filled
by local hoodlums and other influences that we would want to eliminate.
301. I suppose there are two areas. There is
what might be described as paramilitary plc, that people move
away from something that has claimed political justification for
what is being engaged in, to just outright crime activity, but
they come out of the same camp, as paramilitary intimidators;
and then there are those that it will just spread to, generally,
that it creates an easy culture around, that this is the pattern
that you follow, from others that are engaged in it. But maybe
I could turn to the paramilitary justifications that are sometimes
given for intimidation, where the argument would be, often, that
there is petty crime, vandalism, joy-riding, that is not picked
up by the police, and therefore they move in, in order to exercise
their own crude form of justice and execution, in those sorts
of circumstances. How is that being tackled, how is the Government
trying to contain those areas?
(Mr Leach) I think I might mention again the Community
Safety Strategy, which is meant to provide an effective forum
for local people, real community representatives but also statutory
agencies and the police, and the willingness of communities to
work with the police is very important in this, to build a forum
in which those fears can be expressed and action can be taken.
And I think that the community safety concept goes a little wider
than just crime prevention; it would mean designing out crime.
If there were continuing problems around because of a particular
car park, or because of the confluence of particular school buses,
that sort of thing, you would be able to take action because you
had the agencies there to resolve those problems, and therefore
stop what is perhaps more anti-social behaviour than crime—but
that would lead to a more positive culture within the community.
There is, separately, the proposals the Government is bringing
forward, well, I should say, the proposals in the Criminal Justice
Review, for the introduction of a system of court-based, restorative
justice, conferencing, for young offenders, which would provide
a much quicker and more flexible way of dealing with relatively
low-level juvenile offending. And, I think, as you say, it is
frustration, that it often takes a long time for the system as
it is currently to resolve those cases, that can lead to the paramilitaries
gaining some credibility, because, in a very repugnant way, they
can claim to take care of those offences. So I think the two things
work together in the Criminal Justice Review. There is the Community
Safety Strategy and the approach there, and the introduction of
restorative justice arrangements, which should not be confused
with the community restorative justice schemes, which are run
by groups on both sides of the community, but perhaps particularly
in nationalist communities, and they are groups which refuse to
recognise and work with the police and, to an extent, are trying
to establish an alternative criminal justice system. But we are
trying to bring in arrangements which would provide effective,
expeditious and fair and inclusive ways of dealing with young
offenders, and at the same time building a real community partnership
spirit and addressing anti-social and criminal issues. So I hope
that, subject to the Government's detailed decisions on the Criminal
Justice Review, and the rolling out of those, we will be able
to make progress in the areas you pointed to.
302. If maybe I could clarify action and initiatives
that have been made in reducing petty crime and prosecuting offenders,
because there is that distinction we have talked about, about
that which is paramilitarily linked and that which maybe is more
general. The avenues that you have talked about, on restorative
justice, the Community Safety Strategy, earlier mention was made
of a National Confiscation Agency, how do these fit in with that
type of pattern? Are they being directed generally to all petty
crime and prosecution of offenders, or do they have a paramilitary,
intimidation focus involved with them?
(Mr Leach) They would all have a general focus, I
think. The National Confiscation Agency, and those proposals,
of course, are targeted at organised crime, it is really the upper
end of the spectrum. And perhaps it is worth saying that that
is legislation which is being taken forward by the Home Secretary,
though it will, of course, apply to Northern Ireland, we are involved
in that, and I believe it is hoped to publish draft legislation
fairly soon. The community safety and restorative justice approaches
would be designed to cover not specifically at all crime with
a paramilitary connotation, but ordinary crime which, however,
under the present arrangements, and given the particular difficulties
with the people being unwilling to work with the police, may cause
a lack of confidence in the established criminal justice system.
It is designed to fill that confidence gap, to provide more effective
and inclusive resolutions of issues which are worrying the community,
in a way that is acceptable and in a way that, we hope, will mean
there is much less resort to paramilitaries, and paramilitaries
have much less purchase on the community in those areas.
303. I will open up a new avenue of questions
that others might follow, in terms of compensation provisions,
there is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and the Criminal
Damage Compensation Scheme. What proportion of people who have
been intimidated from their homes succeed in claiming from one
or both of these statutory compensation arrangements?
(Mr Brannigan) In fact, I can only give you approximate
figures, Mr Barnes, in relation to the schemes as a whole, not
in particular in relation to intimidation cases. In general, if
someone makes a claim under the Criminal Injuries Scheme, that
is injury to a person, 60 per cent of people who claim in such
circumstances actually succeed in getting compensation. It is
a much higher percentage in damage to property claims, because
it is probably much easier to see and confirm that the damage
actually has been committed.
304. Is there any type of pattern for those
who do not succeed, is there any type of shortcomings in applications
that are made? I know that people may use solicitors, etc., in
connection with it, and it might be that they have got a better
chance if they have got a solicitor?
(Mr Brannigan) Yes, in fact, the vast majority of
applicants, under both schemes, who claim, do so with the assistance
of a solicitor and, indeed, where there is criminal damage, they
have also other professional advisers, such as loss assessors,
etc. I do not think there would be a single, major cause of people
not getting compensation, but generally what would be the difficulty
is that, if we go back to the current cases under the criminal
damage scheme, the difficulty people who were being intimidated
from their homes will have, and particularly where they have left
without managing to secure the property, is that other parties
may have come in subsequent to them leaving and have destroyed
the property, or misappropriated the property. Their difficulty
is in vouching their loss. That is essentially the difficulty
they have. It is not that they will not succeed in getting compensation
but they will have difficulty vouching, to a reasonable extent
that, in fact, they did sustain the loss that they are claiming.
305. And there might be other sorts of problems;
there is the length of time that the claims might take and the
position that the intimidated people find themselves in, and if
people have fled then that might just be left as being some horrible
water under the bridge that they never make applications for?
(Mr Brannigan) Just coming back to an earlier comment
when we were talking about the possibility of under-reporting.
That very much did happen at the beginning of the Shankill incidents.
It was several months before we would have had the initial documentation
from the applicant's solicitors, because the victims were frightened
to give their new address, and so the progress on the claims was
particularly slow. Also, from the Agency's point of view, we need
to go and see and confirm the damage, and it was difficult to
confirm the damage when we did not know where the applicants were,
and, to a great extent, they did not know what had happened to
their property.
Mr McGrady
306. Could you confirm that persons who are
alleging intimidation, who have not suffered physical injury,
are almost certain to fail in their application for compensation?
And, if that is so, has the Government any intentions of expanding,
or developing, the area of compensation to include those who have
been intimidated but who have not suffered physical injury?
(Mr Brannigan) The rules on the non-physical injury,
Mr McGrady, are that the applicant has to have been present when
the incident took place. That is a particular difficulty if we
are talking about some of these intimidation incidents which have
occurred when a telephone call was made. It is debatable whether
or not the person was present at the time. They also have to have
sustained a serious and disabling mental condition, that is one
of the strictures contained in the legislation. It is not the
fact that you have been involved in an act of intimidation, what
we are trying to measure is the consequences upon you of that
incident, and very often that will not be manifest for quite some
time. Our general rule of thumb of gauging whether the person
has suffered a serious mental and disabling condition would be
the number of times they had to go to their GP, or, indeed, if
they had to have psychological counselling, or if they had to
take drugs, etc. People will only succeed in getting compensation
for non-physical injuries whenever they are able to satisfy those
tests.
307. Would it be fair to ask you how many successful
claims there have been in the category that you have just described?
(Mr Brannigan) I am sorry, I do not have the actual
figures. My feeling is that people generally have the fortitude
to deal with the minor incident and put it behind them relatively
quickly. If they proceed to make a claim, with no probability
of getting compensation for at least a couple of years, those
psychological cases tend to succeed, because the people have been
suffering quite severely. The evidence is that people will be
able to show that they who sustain physical injury, get through
it much quicker, the serious psychological illnesses take much
longer to resolve, and, indeed, tend to succeed for that reason.
308. I understand there is a requirement for
claimants both under criminal injuries and criminal damages to
have full co-operation with the police in the pursuit of their
particular claims. Does this make it very difficult for cases
of genuine intimidation, who have a problem in that respect, to
have their case processed to success. Are they treated any differently
from other cases?
(Mr Brannigan) The test of reasonableness comes into
it; all applicants are expected to assist with the apprehension
and prosecution of the offender, but, in many instances, the offender,
particularly in cases of intimidation, will come masked, they
will not be known. But I think it is the general assumption that
where you can give evidence to the police of who the offender
is, the expectation is that you will make reasonable attempts
to help with the prosecution of that offender.
309. Does it make a difference who makes the
interpretation?
(Mr Brannigan) Initially, the Agency would make the
interpretation, and, if our decision is not acceptable to the
applicant and his adviser an appeal can be pursued. All our decisions
are reviewable on appeal to the county court and higher. I must
confess, it tends to be a subjective test, taking all the circumstances
into account could the claimant reasonably be expected to be able
to identify the offender.
310. I think you used the word I would have
used, it is a subjective judgement, very much so?
(Mr Brannigan) It is, indeed; yes, indeed.
311. I am just interested that the Probation
Board for Northern Ireland have indicated that they have stopped
making referrals to the Base 2 project, on the basis that it is
a practical fact that it could appear to give some support, either
tacit or tangential, to the victimisation of people, and therefore
give some credence to the paramilitaries in their operation. Do
you share their concerns in that respect, or do you think it is
a good thing that they have adopted this attitude, or not?
(Mr Leach) It is correct, I think, that they no longer
have an involvement with Base 2, because of concerns that that
might sort of facilitate paramilitary coercion, and I think now
they become involved in these situations where the individual
who may be under threat, being intimidated, is under the supervision
of a probation officer, and in that case, necessarily, they do
become involved. I think I would say that the increasing effort,
as we would see it, of the criminal justice system, is not to
facilitate relocation but to attempt to deal with the causes of
the problem. So that, if someone is under threat because of alleged
criminal activity or other anti-social behaviour, the attempt
should be made to get that person into a programme which would
address the issue through that intervention and would mean that
the threat would be lifted; and if there was an immediate threat
which needed a response, then there are options there. For example,
if someone is on a probation order then they can be breached and
taken into custody, if someone is on bail they can get off bail,
and so on; there are initiatives which are designed to achieve
this. There is a community reintegration project, which I believe
NIACRO may have mentioned to you, they are managing it with Government
support and involvement of the Probation Board, which is an attempt
to address the causes of community concern about an individual,
and focuses on maintaining people in the community rather than
facilitating their departure from it.
312. The Probation Board indicated also, I think,
that they were greatly concerned about the slowness of justice,
whereby people in breach of probation orders, on the streets,
because of the continued "anti-social behaviour", become
the victims of the paramilitaries to a higher degree maybe than
other people. Is there no methodology by which this gap in the
Probation Service and the decision-making can take these young
people into proper care, custody, or whatever it is, to take them
off the streets?
(Mr Leach) The restorative justice approach which
the Criminal Justice Review recommends would provide a much quicker
method of disposal in respect of juvenile offending, and also
a more inclusive one, in that the conferencing system would include
the agencies, it would include the supporters of the victim, if
the victim wished to attend, and it would provide, we hope, not
only a speedier outcome but one which, as it were, the community
would be more satisfied with, as resolving the aftermath of the
offence. And, rather than someone doing something and perhaps
being arrested and then nothing being heard of it in the community
for 18 months until there was a court hearing, this would be a
more inclusive approach, which would, we hope, not only reduce
offending but also would reduce, as it were, community antagonism
to the offender, which might then result in some sort of paramilitary
intimidation or attack.
Chairman: I have supplementary questions, in
the light of the most recent answers, both from Mr Beggs and from
Dr Palmer. As I have no way of knowing what their supplementary
questions are, but as both the chronology with which they indicated
to me they wanted to ask and in alphabetical order comes out in
the same order, I am not, in any way, precluding Dr Palmer from
asking a question, but I am going to call Mr Beggs first.
Mr Beggs
313. Thank you, Chairman. In your memorandum,
it states that a "Notice of Intention to Claim Compensation"
form is to be completed and sent to the Compensation Agency, the
RUC and any other interested parties within ten days of the incident.
Bearing in mind that families sometimes literally flee for their
lives, the last thing on their mind is picking up a form on the
way; maybe they have to travel a considerable distance to get
shelter and comfort with their extended family, and we want to
see every genuine victim receiving compensation to which they
are entitled. I notice that over 59 applications, in respect of
the Shankill, were unsuccessful, for a variety of reasons; has
anyone been denied compensation because they failed to get in
this Notice of Intention in ten days, or is there sufficient commonsense
and flexibility to enable circumstances to take account of late
applications?
(Mr Brannigan) There are statutory time limits for
various stages of the processing of the claim; one important one
is that, both under the criminal injury legislation and under
the criminal claims legislation, the matter must be reported to
the police. You can see the reason for that. The serving of the
Notice of Intention, which is the preliminary form simply sets
out "I've sustained injury/damage", but, if necessary
more important, under both schemes, is the serving within time
of a Notice of Application. But, I think, for all intents and
purposes, you have a year in which to make a criminal damage claim
and three years within which to make a criminal injury claim.
The time limits are subject to discretion; and, again, if the
Agency does not apply its discretion correctly the courts on appeal
can review time decisions as well. In all honesty, time limits
are not usually a difficulty. They can be in some cases, when
we are getting to the year after the incident, as far as the criminal
damage claim is concerned, or when it is close to three years
after a criminal injury incident. But, for the type of case that
we are discussing now, it really should not be a problem.
314. You will be aware that, a few years back,
there were very large numbers of fraudulent applications for trips.
Are you satisfied, or has there been any evidence to suggest,
that perhaps circumstances have been created for the purpose of
enabling claims to be made for compensation for criminal damage?
(Mr Brannigan) To deal with the criminal damage case,
first of all, I think I mentioned earlier that the difficulty
that the applicants have in finding sufficient material to vouch
their loss. For example, we cannot take the situation where a
householder will supply us with a list of house contents and say,
these were lost, or destroyed. We have to take, frankly, a pragmatic
approach. We cannot simply deny the claim on the basis that there
is no evidence that the applicant's property was damaged. We take,
I hope, what is a commonsense approach, but bear in mind that
it is public money which we are discharging, and in that respect
we take every safeguard to ensure that we pay compensation only
really when, in fact, the person is entitled to it. As far as
criminal damage is concerned, invariably, the remnants of the
property, in some form, will be produced. The matter is somewhat
more difficult as far as the criminal injury claim is concerned,
it is not so difficult if, as a result of the intimidation, you
have been struck and you have sustained a physical injury, that
will be confirmed by your solicitor sending you to see a doctor
who will provide a medical legal report, so that is confirmed
in that way. The greater difficulty, it is a limited difficulty
really, is that people can sham the fact that they are suffering
from a psychological illness, and that is why we have to be sure
that it is indeed a serious and disabling mental condition. At
this stage, the Agency is not really near to resolving that type
of case arising out of the Shankill intimidation; it will be some
way down the line before we do that. To answer your question,
we take every reasonable step to prevent fraudulent claims but
we have to remain aware of the terrifying situation.
315. I would hope that the good Lord would not
follow on with his own judgement for fraudulent claims. Can I
ask how it came to be determined that, if the amount of compensation
payable is less than £1,000, in the case of criminal injuries,
no compensation is paid, and the amount of compensation payable
must be at least £2,500, in the case of non-physical injury?
(Mr Brannigan) I am not absolutely certain, but I
believe there are historic reasons. I think it goes back to the
time in Northern Ireland when there were many thousands of claims
put in for nervous shock caused when people had been walking by
a building when it had been bombed. It was very difficult to make
realistic assessments as to whether a substantial injury or minor
psychological injury had been sustained.
Dr Palmer
316. My question follows on, actually, from
one of Mr Beggs's, and also the very helpful replies earlier by
Mr Brannigan. Accepting, as Mr Brannigan says, that psychological
effects of some kind of trauma of the kind we are describing often
can only really be verified and only developed to the full extent
after a period of time, is there not a risk that the process will
put the applicant in something of a dilemma because of the time
factor? So that, on the one hand, he, or she, has to apply within
this, normally, two or three-year time limit; on the other hand,
if he applies too early there is a possibility that it might be
turned down, on the grounds that it is really too early to say
that lasting damage has been caused, and then he will not be able
to claim again later, once it has been turned down, I think. On
the third hand, if he waits until it has developed then he is
sort of running right up against the deadline. So is not this
all going to put additional pressure on him?
(Mr Brannigan) I guess it would do. One of the safeguards
against that is that all applicants are paid their legal costs,
and one expects them to rely on the advice given to them by their
legal representatives, which could be, and this is what is absolutely
crucial, not settle at the early stage, because the psychological
injury must have completely resolved. Settlement at too early
a stage is not in anyone's interest, because, regrettably, the
claim cannot be reopened after it has been resolved. So there
is a happy medium there; and the pressure is on the Agency, as
you can imagine, to try to resolve the matter as quickly as possible,
but, by the same token, we hope that the applicants are taking
the independent advice of their legal advisers.
317. Might there be a case for adjournment,
in some such cases, where the original application was put in
before the deadline but both parties agreed that the matter should
be resolved after a further year?
(Mr Brannigan) I do know of some tragic cases where,
indeed, that has occurred. It is not the period within which the
claim has to be resolved, it is the period within which they claim;
the clock stops from the first days. But I had experience of,
I think it was last week or the week before, a very substantial
claim for psychological injury, and that indeed did happen, time
was marked for a couple of years until the true position was assessed.
Chairman: The course of events has produced
a further supplementary question from Mr Barnes.
Mr Barnes
318. If I am correct, I understood, from what
Mr Brannigan said, that, although there was a considerable period
in terms of dealing with the compensation claims, one requirement
was that it should be reported to the police within ten days?
(Mr Brannigan) Yes, that is right. The reporting periods
are different under both schemes. Under one, the requirement is
to report it forthwith, or within 72 hours, unless there are circumstances,
unless there are good grounds for not doing so, and that is looking
back into the subjective nature of the schemes.
319. So, certainly, in many cases of the type
of intimidation that is getting someone into exile and suddenly
disappearing into Britain, then that proviso, as to why there
were good reasons for it not being done at that particular time,
must have to be stressed quite strongly?
(Mr Brannigan) If we are talking about a criminal
injury claim at the three-year point after the incident, that
is absolute and cannot be extended, either by the courts or by
the Secretary of State. But I cannot envisage, in any circumstances,
it would not be possible, at some stage, even to put in the preliminary
Notice of Intention within that period to keep the claim open.
Chairman
320. The appearance of the Minister's name on
the screen means really we are about to have another division;
if we do, I shall bring these proceedings to an end. But, without
in any way engaging in self-indulgence, I do actually have one
or two questions I would like to ask, if the Minister, downstairs,
allows me to do so. The first is, are you conscious of any previous
study, a comparable study to our own, on the scale of the problem?
(Miss O'Mara) I am not, personally, are you Stephen?
(Mr Leach) No, I am not.
321. If not, as you have indicated, why do you
think that calibration has not occurred?
(Mr Stevenson) If I may venture a response to that.
In terms of the victims issue in general, it seems to be the case
that until we had the ceasefires, people did not really think
about the issue of victims too much, people were coping, they
were perhaps even in some denial about what was going on in Northern
Ireland; and I think, in terms of the intimidation, that might
also have been the case as well. And only since the ceasefires
and the political process have we begun to look seriously, I think,
at the individual needs of those who have been affected, and I
suspect research into some of the issues has found in that respect
as well.
322. I am grateful to Mr Stevenson for that
surmise, more than surmise, about why it might have been. Serendipitously,
he has led into what was going to be my next question anyway.
The statistics we have seen in the past, from others, have indicated
a markedly different pattern for paramilitary activity during
the first ceasefire to the one that immediately preceded and followed
the Good Friday Agreement. Assuming that there is a disparity
between them and there is a difference between them, the only
evidence we have been able to detect so far as to why that disparity,
difference, differential, has occurred, amounts simply to testing
the water, of seeing what people can get away with. Now, if you
accept the premise, and, I agree, I am not putting questions statistically
or qualitatively to you, but I am simply rehearsing previous evidence
we have been given, do you think that the interpretation of why
the differences occurred is accurate?
(Mr Leach) My own view, Chairman, would be that there
is, perhaps, on the Republican side, a relatively steady level
of intimidation, and I would need to consult the figures in respect
of other crime, but in intimidation, I think, it is fairly steady,
but continuing. Whereas on the loyalist side it has a number of
peaks which would have affected the figures, and one thinks of
the annual Drumcree events, in particular, perhaps 1996, 1997
and 1998, as involving a considerable degree of intimidation,
including of police officers and members of the security forces.
And then the recent Shankill feud I think would have had a considerable
effect on the figures, that would have been a spike as well. But
I do not think I can speculate further than that.
323. If you had any further thoughts on those
statistics, it would be interesting, actually, to see what your
thoughts were; and if it turns out that the premise is accurate,
and I leave aside the underlying reasons, which Mr Leach has alluded
to, do you think that that ascending level actually is serious,
and, secondly, what do you think are the prospects of curtailing
it?
(Miss O'Mara) To the extent there is an ascending
level, of course, we would regard that as serious, there is no
doubt about that. In terms of the prospects of curtailing it,
I think I would point back to what we were saying about structural
reform of the police, all those things. One does not want to look
for pie in the sky, but, nonetheless, these things are being done
for a reason, community policing we regard as important precisely
because it will achieve these results, we hope. When we think
about some of the other issues that we have mentioned, the reason
for taking forward all this action against organised crime is
hoping to achieve changes there. So we are hopeful that these
things will produce some results. But, equally, we are not pretending
that we are going to do it overnight, because I think a lot of
these things we view as long term.
(Mr Leach) Yes; and perhaps just to add to that. As
Margaret said, with the changes in policing, and I do think a
very key element in this is going to be the willingness of those
communities to work wholeheartedly with the police, with the Northern
Ireland Police Service. But, along with that, there are the changes
in the criminal justice system, the much greater focus on community
safety at local level, in an integrated way, with an overall strategy,
central guidance and dynamic but local structures, restorative
justice arrangements, which will, we hope, bring a more effective
and inclusive way of dealing with minor crimes, and therefore
increasing community confidence. Other changes, which I have not
mentioned, such as the removal of the prosecution function from
the police and expansion of the DPP's Department into the Public
Prosecution Service. All those taken together, I think one can
discern the possibility of a sort of virtuous circle, which would
lead to a really significant transformation in the situation.
But any of those elements could go wrong or could perhaps not
be implemented with quite the positive results we hope. But I
do think the policing changes are the key one.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. The range
of supplementary questions which have been asked from different
corners of the room are themselves an index of how much we have
appreciated your evidence, and the fact that it has stimulated
and provoked further questions that had not been perhaps in people's
minds before the evidence session began. We are much in your debt.
Thank you very much indeed.
|
