Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Tuesday 18 May 2004
[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]
Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Conditional Cautions: Code of Practice) Order 2004
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Conditional Cautions: Code of Practice) Order 2004.
It is pleasant to see you in the Chair, Miss Begg. It is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship as a Minister. I look forward to our proceedings.
The code of practice governs the conditional cautioning scheme for which provision is made in part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Publication of the code is a statutory requirement under section 25 of the Act, and the scheme cannot be implemented until both Houses have approved it.
Part 3 of the Act allows the Crown Prosecution Service, and other specified prosecuting authorities, to give a conditional caution in certain circumstances. The basic requirements are that the offender is an adult, that he or she admits the offence during a formal interview, and that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. It is also necessary that the offender agrees to the caution.
When it is possible to set appropriate conditions—for example, conditions that help to address offending behaviour or that make reparation for the impact of the offence on the victim or the wider community—the public interest may be met more effectively by the offender carrying out those conditions than by the offender being prosecuted. There is a statutory system for enforcing such conditions, in that if suspects fail to comply with the conditions they may and usually will be prosecuted for the original offence.
Just as they are in respect of existing cautions, the seriousness of the offence and the offender's criminal record are important considerations. However, the determining factor will be the overall impact or value of the proposed condition. The key issue is whether some action on the part of the offender would be conducive to reparation or rehabilitation, and he or she appears able and willing to carry out that action. If the action, coupled with a caution, is an outcome preferable to prosecution, a conditional caution is be likely to be appropriate.
The Home Secretary is required to publish the code of practice in draft form, which was done on 19 February, following preliminary informal exchanges with key partners in the criminal justice system. Public consultation took place between then and 31 March.
Column Number: 4
Thirty responses were received, and further minor revisions to the draft code of practice were made in the light of those responses. The Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed the amended draft, and it was laid before Parliament on 19 April 2004.
The matters that the code must cover are set out in section 25 of the 2003 Act. It sets out advice about the sort of case in which a conditional caution is likely to be appropriate and gives detailed guidance on the procedures to be followed. The code makes it clear that it will be for the CPS to decide whether a conditional caution is appropriate, taking into account victim's interests and views, and that it will be for the police to administer it.
Although the code is expressed largely in terms of the police and CPS, the 2003 Act allows conditional cautions to be given on the authority of other specified relevant prosecutors, and the code applies equally to them. The relevant prosecutors listed in section 27 of the Act consist of those Departments that have a prosecuting function. However, provision is made for adding to the list by statutory instrument, and consideration will be given to requests by other official bodies—for example, local trading standards officers—to be specified for the purpose of using conditional cautions.
Conditional cautioning will work only if the conditions imposed are met and the actions performed by the offender. The code prescribes stringent arrangements for monitoring compliance. It will be for the offender to prove to the police that the conditions have been met, and the police will report to the CPS any cases in which they have not been met—including those in which the offender claims to have a reasonable excuse. It will then be for the CPS to decide whether a charge should be brought; the expectation is that it usually would be.
If the code is approved by Parliament, there will be a phased implementation of the scheme in a number of areas under the management of a conditional cautioning project board, which is to be chaired by Peter Neyroud, chief constable of Thames Valley police. The board will initially select several locations in which the scheme will operate from this summer. Implementation will take different forms in different areas. Some will use the basic conditional cautioning scheme set out in the code; others will involve the use of restorative justice or the drugs intervention programme, on which separate supplementary guidance will be issued.
The package of material available to areas that participate in the first phase will include the code of practice and the Home Office circular putting conditional cautions and simple cautions in the context of other disposals; it will also contain guidance on the use of conditional cautions in relation to drug offences and the use of restorative justice, the Association of Chief Police Officers gravity factors, and operational guidelines for use by the various agencies in each area. The scheme will be evaluated in the initial areas to find out how it works best, to determine good practice and to assess resource and
Column Number: 5
funding requirements. If it is decided that the scheme should be implemented nationwide, there will be an opportunity to refine the guidance—including the code, if necessary—before that happens. I ask the Committee to support the order bringing the code of practice into force.
2.36 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I, too, welcome you, Miss Begg. It is a pleasure to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship.
The Minister is aware that I am unlikely not to welcome the proposal, as I gave it a very warm welcome when we debated it in the course of long deliberations during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. It had my wholehearted support then, and I am pleased that we have moved to the stage of producing a code of practice so that we can get conditional cautions up and running.
I hope that the Minister will excuse me if I raise two points that struck me when I read the code. At paragraph 2.5 the point is made that the conditional caution should be issued as soon as possible after a person has been arrested and the decision has been taken that his offence is one on which he can be charged. That looks good on paper, but I have a horrible niggle that it will be more difficult in practice to achieve such speed. The Minister probably agrees that speed will be important. I shall be grateful if he sets up a system to monitor how long it takes for conditional cautions to be administered. It might not always be possible to do it at once, but it would be extremely undesirable to end up with weeks going by while the CPS made up its mind and the immediacy of the decision was thus removed. The effectiveness of the measure will depend on its being able to be used quickly.
Paragraph 3.3 states that
''It is not intended to establish a progression so that a conditional caution is regarded as the logical next step for an offender who has received a simple caution.''
I agree entirely with the Minister about that, as to do so would call into question the value of simple cautions, but how do the Government envisage ordinary cautions operating once the conditional cautioning system has been introduced? It is likely that in most cases it will be valuable to impose conditions on a caution—indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether, if no conditions are imposed, the police will have been doing their job. We need to keep the matter under review.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) (Lab): As I read the code of practice, conditions can be imposed only if they are intended to rehabilitate or to repair. There must be some offences, such as urinating in a public place, in which there is no condition that would be appropriate to either of those purposes.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is arguably correct if somebody were to urinate in a public place without causing inconvenience to anybody who could be identified as having been inconvenienced. However, if that same
Column Number: 6
person urinated against the wall of a restaurant and incensed its owner, a condition that might be attached—I certainly hope that it would be—is sending the person round to apologise. That is why I raised the matter with the Minister. There might be offences that adversely affect no one. However, I would like to think that conditional cautions were being used flexibly, to ensure that restorative justice was put into the picture
2.40 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. I also welcome the Government's proposals. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we warmly welcome the expansion of such programmes, given that we have argued for that for some time. Such an approach in the criminal justice system is gaining support, not only among those in the profession who look at the evidence to see if the outcomes are effective, but among members of a doubtful and sceptical public. People who listen and see that the new approach can make a difference are, I hope, also being won over.
I have two or three questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. The code of practice rightly refers to considering how the victims can be involved. How have the pilots and other work on involving victims progressed and how many victims are willing to take part? When visiting Scandinavian countries, I have been extremely surprised by the willingness of victims to take part in the process and encouraged by the satisfaction levels of victims who have been involved. It will be interesting to know what the pattern is in this country, where the technique is slightly newer and where those involved might find the process surprising or unnerving. Some information on the take-up rate would be useful.
Are there any plans to add to the scheme by holding family conference sessions? Facing a victim is important from two perspectives. Doing so can not only comfort the victim, but make the offender face up to the person against whom they committed the offence. There is also great value in making individuals who have committed a crime face a parent, uncle or similar person. Where there is no victim able or willing to participate, what role can family conferencing play in meeting those objectives?
Paragraph 5.2 of the code of practice deals with ways in which reparation may be made under the 2003 Act through work in the community. That includes the usual things that we hear about, such as cleaning graffiti, restoring goods and financial compensation, but how creative are the Government prepared to be? Are they willing to ask local community groups to nominate projects in their communities? That way, the work would not be geared towards a specific victim with a broken greenhouse, for example. Individuals who had committed a crime would pay back to the whole community. Asking parish councils or neighbourhood watch groups to work with the probation service on nominating community projects
Column Number: 7
would be a valuable step in making the public realise that they are getting something back from those who have committed a crime in their area.
With that in mind, what thoughts does the Minister have about being public about such work, for example, by ensuring that local newspapers are aware of what reparation has been made, or, where appropriate, by mounting plaques and messages announcing that a piece of work has been done as part of such a project? In that way the community would be able to see who has done something and why.
Finally, will the Minister comment on the financial implications of the proposals? We will not, I hope, be incapable of implementing such good ideas because the necessary resources are not present on the ground.
2.43 pm
| 
