Response by the Ministry of Justice
to written questions
Q 1 The consultation on the LRO ran for six
weeks from 22 August 2007 to 3 October 2007, the reason given
in the Explanatory Document (ED) for the shorter than recommended
consultation time being the "minor nature of the proposal."
However, as the LRO has been laid more than two years after consultation
the comparative delay caused by observing the full 12-week time
period for consultation would have been negligible. What is the
reason for the delay? Why were the views of civil liberties bodies
such as Liberty not specifically solicited in consultation?
We still believe that this proposed change in the
law is minor in nature and justified a shorter than normal consultation
period. Although we did intend to lay the order shortly after
the consultation period ended, we were prevented from doing so
largely because of:
(a) the decision to move from a negative procedure
order to an affirmative one, given the increasing media interest
in PNDs generally and the concern expressed by the Police Federation
in response to the consultation, involving a more complex procedure,
and
(b) the necessary diversion of personnel to concentrate
on other work on PNDs, including plans to extend the scheme which
were not, in the end, proceeded with given the concern expressed
and the range of other disposals now available to the police and
the courts; responding to the Home Office request to introduce
a PND for cannabis possession to coincide with reclassification
of the drug; responding to two Private Members' Bills on PNDs
for shop theft; revising the Secretary of State's guidance to
the police on shop theft and criminal damage, and issuing guidance
on cannabis possession.
We did not specifically seek the views of organisations
such a Liberty as we do not believe that there are any civil liberties
likely to be infringed by the order. We took into account all
responses to the consultation document, whoever from.
Q 2 The statistics in the ED do not include
recent figures for issuing Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs),
payment rates, number of elections for prosecution and number
of successful convictions in the case of election for prosecution.
Please provide these.
Please find attached figures for Penalty Notices
for Disorder (PNDs) showing:
the number of PNDs issued to offenders of all
ages by offence, England and Wales 2004-2007;
the number of PNDs issued to offenders of all
ages, by police force, all offences, England and Wales 2004-2007,
and
the number of PNDs issued to all persons aged
16 and over, by age group, outcome and year, England and Wales
2004-2007
PND data for 2008 will be available in the late autumn
of 2009.
The number of convictions of offences where the recipient
of a PND has elected for trial is not separately recorded. Once
a suspect chooses to go to court rather than pay the penalty,
the case becomes like any other reported for prosecution.
Q 3 The ED states that "PNDs are proving
to be a simple and efficient way for police to deal with low-level
anti-social behaviour…". Given that this is stated in
support of the measure, and given in particular the criticisms
that have been made that PNDs have a low enforcement rate (by
the Police Federation, for example), what is the objective evidence
for this assertion? Are there statistics to demonstrate that the
procedure involved in issuing and enforcing PNDs is translating
to better use of police time and/or a reduction in offending?
If so, please provide them.
We believe that PNDs enable the police to deliver
swift and effective justice for lower level criminality, freeing
up the courts to concentrate on more serious offences. Information
from the police shows that issuing a penalty notice takes an officer
approximately 30 minutes compared with 2 ½ hours to prepare
an evidential case file. The police officer is then freed up to
return to patrolling the street and does not have to attend court.
We do not have published figures to demonstrate the
effect of PNDs on reoffending, but the Justice Secretary wrote
to Anne McIntosh MP in January this year in response to a question
about reoffending rates providing some unpublished data. This
letter is attached.
It should be noted that there is no such thing as
"enforcement" of a PND. Once issued, the recipient has
21 days to choose how to respond - to pay the penalty or to opt
for a court hearing. This period is called in law the "suspended
enforcement period". Enforcement can start only once that
period is over. Either the case is reported for prosecution or
a fine is registered and enforced as any other fine.
We do not separately identify how many of fines arising
from PNDs are paid, but the payment rate for the year to date
of all fines is 81% (71% excluding administrative cancellations).
Even though we have anecdotal evidence that the payment rate for
fines arising from PNDs is not as good as that for fines generally,
some are paid and, when added to the 52% that were paid a penalties,
give a figure which we do not believe can be described, as the
Police Federation do, as a "continuous high non payment rate".
Q 4 What percentage of PNDs is issued by non-police
officers?
Information from the Home Office shows that, in the
year up to August 2007, 27,711 fixed penalty notices (FPNs) were
issued by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). These comprised
PNDs and other FPNs. No information is available on the number
issued by Accredited Persons. PCSOs and Accredited Persons have
limited powers to issue PNDs compared to those of a police officer.
Q 5 What figures are available on cases in
which PNDs have been issued in circumstances outside of police
guidance—for instance, to non-first offenders? Has revised
guidance had an effect on these figures?
Information about PNDs issued otherwise than in accordance
with the guidance is anecdotal only. The Secretary of State issues
operational guidance to the police on the issue of PNDs and the
exercise of the discretion given to officers under the PND law.
The guidance is detailed, but does leave the police with a degree
of operational discretion. For example, for many offences there
is no ban on repeat issue of PNDs - the guidance just says that
this may not be appropriate if a suspect has been issued with
a number of tickets in the recent past. It would not be in the
public interest to prosecute an individual for littering, when
a PND was an option, just because a year previously he had received
a ticket for letting off a firework outside permitted hours.
It is too soon to see any effect of the issue of
new guidance on shop theft and criminal damage, restricting tickets
to first offenders only. Overall, there are provisional figures
indicating a small decrease in the number of tickets issued for
notifiable offences (those deemed serious enough to be recorded
by the police) between year ending March 2009 and December 2008.
Q 6 Of those who elect for prosecution rather
than acceptance of a PND, what percentage have been acquitted?
This information is not available (please see also
2 above)
Q 7 What are the current figures on roll-out
of personal digital assistants? What percentage of forces are
already using them or plan to use them? What additional percentage
of forces will use them if the measure is adopted? How much on
average does a PDA cost when purchased by police force procurement?
This order has been introduced at the request of
a number of police forces, including the British Transport Police
and Greater Manchester Police, requesting the removal of the statutory
requirement to conform to a prescribed design of PND ticket, so
that they can introduce personal digital assistants (PDAs). This
was reflected in the responses from the police to the consultation.
The extent to which PDAs are in use, or planned, is an operational
matter, but the requests for de-prescription for this reason have
increased since the consultation. The National Policing Improvement
Agency website, link below, explains the advantages of PDAs generally.
In particular, their benefits are said to include improved efficiency,
effectiveness, visibility, information management, accuracy, time
saving and identification.
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10500.htm
Supplementary response dated 2 November 2009:
With reference to the number of PDAs currently in
use, I have just heard from the NPIA. They tell me that the figure
of 27 last May has now increased to about 37, with an increase
to all forces expected next year. They also tell me that about
40,000 devices are in use. I hope that is sufficient for the Committee's
purposes.
Further supplementary response dated 3 November
2009:
Since yesterday I have heard that there are currently
39,418 mobile devices deployed to frontline officers across 39
Home Office forces and that they expect to cover all forces by
March 2010.
Q 8 How would destandardisation of the PND
form allow more flexible working with local authorities, as submitted
by Norfolk Constabulary?
We are following this up with Norfolk and hope to
have an answer by am on 29 October. [No response was forthcoming
as at 10 November 2009]
Q 9 What kinds of variation between forms
is likely should the measure come into effect? Please provide
examples of variations that forces have proposed to adopt.
We have no information about exactly what new force
forms would look like. They are no doubt waiting for the law to
change before preparing any new designs. In the main, we expect
forces to change the design of the form rather than make significant
changes to the content. All officers will be aware that every
case dealt with by PND has the potential to go before a court,
so evidence to support a prosecution must always be available.
Some of the consultation responses talked about forms in different
languages, in large print and with the ability "to reflect
local needs/issues".
Q 10 Is or are any police force(s) proposing
to remove the evidence section from the PND form (a concern raised
by Greater Manchester Police)?
The part of PND tickets on which evidence may be
collected is not prescribed at the moment. Prescription applies
only to the first two pages of any ticket. As stated above, evidence
needs to be available in every case to support a prosecution,
so there is no possibility that there will be no provision made
for recording it.
Q 11 Please provide a brief summary of the
history of different guidance notes for PNDs.
Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section
6 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is as follows:
