Conclusions and recommendations
Criticism of out-of-court disposals
1. Out-of-court
disposals are not designed to deal with serious offences, nor
with persistent offenders. It is alarming that they are used inappropriately
in up to 30% of cases, although there might be certain circumstances
where issuing an OOCD for a serious or repeat offence could be
justified. One of the attractions of OOCDs is that they save the
police time and administrative cost, allowing officers to spend
more time on the frontline, policing the community, but they must
not be used by police merely as a time-saving tool when the circumstances
of the offence suggest that prosecution is the right course of
action. This is especially the case when there is a pattern of
behaviour that needs to be addressed by the type of sentence that
only a court can administer. (Paragraph 13)
2. The way in which
OOCDs have originated, and how local police forces have used them,
has created a postcode lottery. It is wrong that an offence committed
in Cumbria should go to court, while the same offence, if it was
committed in Gloucestershire, might be dealt with by a caution.
(Paragraph 17)
3. The way in which
OOCDs are recorded by the police does not help to instil public
confidence in the system. If the reporting of a serious crime,
for example rape, has been dismissed, but an OOCD has been used
for a lesser crime, this is what should be recorded, in a straightforward
and clear manner. This will assuage fears that this tool is being
inappropriately used for serious crime. Furthermore, if worries
that OOCDs are being used inappropriately to deal with repeat
offenders are to be allayed, then the obvious and essential starting
point is for all issued OOCDs to be recorded on the Police National
Computer. (Paragraph 20)
Proposed reforms
4. The
reforms that have been made to simple cautions will go some way
to restore public confidence in this type of disposal. The introduction
through guidance of a high bar for their use when dealing with
serious or repeat offences should ensure that they cannot be used,
except in exceptional circumstances, for more serious or repeat
offenders. The new guidance has already gone some way to reducing
the number of simple cautions for indictable offences, and we
support the proposal that the guidance be put on a statutory footing.
(Paragraph 25)
5. We agree that the
current "organically developed" OOCD system is too complex,
which does not help police officers. The proposed new system benefits
from being a straightforward, escalatory process. In addition,
the new system emphasises disposals to which conditions and measures
are attached, which can address patterns of offending behaviour
and puts victims at the heart of the system. We believe the introduction
of a new system will mean that the police can start from a clean
slate, and show that they can tackle low-level offending appropriately.
(Paragraph 31)
6. Scrutiny panels
must be established in all police force areas, so that decisions
to use OOCDs are reviewed for appropriateness and consistency
across the country. In addition, the feedback the panels provide
will assist in identifying any extra training that police officers
require. Therefore, we recommend that the representative of the
police on the scrutiny panel be at least at the rank of Assistant
Chief Constable, so that they have the authority to implement
recommendations emanating from the panel. (Paragraph 35)
7. It is important
that the scrutiny panels have a range of experience in order to
assess the appropriateness of OOCD decisions. This should include
the experience of victims, whether that voice is provided through
a voluntary organisations or through victims themselves. This
input should help improve the feedback that the panels provide.
In addition, if the public are aware that victims are involved
in reviewing OOCD decisions, they may be more confident in the
system as a useful mechanism to deal with low-level offences.
(Paragraph 36)
Guidance to police officers
8. The
College of Policing is the key police organisation for producing
and disseminating guidance. The work that the College of Policing
has done to provide Authorised Professional Practice guidance
on the six OOCDs should bring more consistency to the practices
of police forces, if it is followed. If the new OOCD system is
fully rolled out, the College must be ready to provide the authoritative
guidance from the outset, so that the problems of the current
system do not reoccur. In addition, it must be involved in providing
officers with training on how to use these tools appropriately.
(Paragraph 39)
| 
