Real Policing

A retired Surrey officer kindly sent me an article which appeared in last week’s Mail on Sunday.  The article, entitled ‘Half of all Criminals Aren’t Even Hauled Before a Court,’ revealed that last year only 40-50% of offences bought to justice involved conviction in the courts.  This figure was down from 68% in 2003.  The article questioned the apparently arbitrary practice of cautioning an offender in lieu of sending them to court.  It also questioned the proportionality of cautioning for such offences as rape, violent assault and threats to kill.  The most telling statement in the article, which I am in no doubt is the cause for what many may regard as soft justice, concerned the Government’s counting rules and how cautions carry the same weight as court convictions.  Few would argue currently that quantity has not replaced quality. Such is the levelling effect of targets that there is no longer a distinction in terms of gravity.  It’s either a detection or it isn’t.  What is alarming is how the relative functionality of the justice system and its ability to cope is dependent upon the status quo and current undesirable practices.           

For those who are unfamiliar with the caution process allow me to explain.  A caution is authorised and administered by a sergeant although in some cases it may be authorised by the local Crown Prosecutor.  A caution can only be administered as a result of an offender’s admission of guilt.  Where there is no admission a caution cannot be offered.  I say offered as the caution itself has to be accepted by the offender, which in most cases it is.  It’s not likely that someone of reasonably good character and a previously clean slate would refuse a caution just to have their day in court.  A caution is not a conviction although it remains on a person’s record for a period of five years.  The offender also has to be suitable for a caution which means that any offending history must meet certain criteria.  It is possible for a person to be cautionable for an assault whilst having been cautioned within the previous five years for a disimilar offence, such as criminal damage.  However, it is not permissible to caution ad infinitum and more than two cautions within a five year period on a person’s record is uncommon. 

Certainly, a caution would not be suitable for particularly serious offences in addition to those where there exists what are known as ‘gravity factors.’  If the gravity factors are such that they demonstrate an intent to commit a serious offence then it is possible to bypass a caution and simply charge a person who has no offending history.  An exception to this would be where there was an admission of guilt from the offender but the aggrieved was unwilling to support police proceedings.  I can only assume this was the justification for cautioning twenty-two rapists, although I remain rather sceptical about the other eight-thousand.  Where there is an admission of guilt to an allegation of rape or other offence of similar gravity, it is debatable whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service ought to authorise charge anyway.  However, the CPS have their own government targets to reach and would not be inclined to authorise charge where there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution.  What is unsettling is the realisation that without the arbitrary use of disposal methods such as cautions an already over-burdened criminal justice system would almost certainly succumb to considerable pressure if those who ought to be charged actually were.  In view of the fact that the CPS are struggling to manage their current caseload, with many cases taking several months or even years to come to trial and the Government seeking alternatives to prison, the criminal justice and penal system simply could not cope with an increased workload or, for that matter, more convictions, particularly those justifying a custodial sentence due to the severity of the offence or the prolific offending history of the defendant.   

To be sure, the methodology relating to case disposal whether or not there is a realistic prospect of a prosecution, is indeed arbitrary, sometimes unjust and almost certainly driven by the need for police forces to satisfy centrally imposed detection targets.  Why else are street cautions for cannabis possession and fixed penalty notices for shoplifting, criminal damage or disorderly behaviour (half of which apparently go unpaid) meted out so readily? Why else are cautions given to those who actually ought to be charged along with those who are more deserving of a discretionary ticking off than a caution?  Exactly why those who were not hauled before the courts but should have been is just as much a matter of public concern as those being criminalised who shouldn’t have and has more to do with generating detections in order to satisfy government targets than bringing offenders to justice.  As a result, only a reported forty-two percent of the public believe criminal justice agencies are effective in punishing criminals.  Therefore, approximately two-thirds have been alienated from the justice system and those who serve to protect them.  The Government and indeed the public need no more proof that policing according to targets has failed parlously.  Justice according to targets has fared no better.  Regardless of how distasteful the idea of soft justice is it is an unfortunate necessity in order to prevent the justice system in its currently weakened state from entering into complete meltdown.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=469115&in_page_id=1770&ct=5