Recent Meetings Include:-  

  AGM 23/04/09

   An Address by  Mr Steve Pitts

  Project Manager for the Leicester and Rutland Local Criminal Justice Board

Mr Townsend introduced, Mr Steve Pitts who is the speaker for today. Mr Pitts is a native of Leeds and was in the Police Force for 30 years during which time he served in Leeds, London and Leicester where he gained considerable experience in public order and counter terrorism policing. He was exposed, in his career, to policing miners’ strikes in Yorkshire and riots/demonstrations in London .

He has headed up the Leicestershire County Force Specialist Search and Firearms Unit, worked with Indian Police Forces to develop Foreign and Commonwealth Guidelines on Forced Marriage, and worked in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.

He has a First class Honours Degree in Social Policy and as Chief Superintendent of West Leicestershire Area he was responsible for implementing neighbourhood policing and worked closely with district Council Chief Executives to improve the effectiveness of crime and disorder partnerships.  

Having now retired from the Police Force he has become Project Manager with the Local Criminal Justice Board. In this capacity he manages the Community Engagement Programme for the Courts Service and Community Justice Leicester Project.

  RETURN TO HOME PAGE

                                         An Address by  Mr Steve Pitts

  Project Manager for the Leicester and Rutland Local Criminal Justice Board

                     Raising Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System

Having thanked Mr Townsend for the introduction, Mr Pitts went on to say that one of the main priorities of the Criminal Justice Board was to increase public confidence in the Criminal Justice System, particularly in regard to fairness and effectiveness.  

It is generally acknowledged that without this confidence the public are unlikely to engage with the police in the detection of crime. What the public sees and what they hear from others will determine the extent to which they will assist the police and the extent to which they will become involved and sometimes could lead to witnesses not turning up on the day of trial. 

It is important to the CJS that they are an organisation that people want to work with. He went on to point out that if the CJS does not bring offenders to justice in a speedy and effective manner then some communities will dispense their own brand of justice an awful lot more quickly than the system will. 

Measuring the Levels of Confidence.

 Mr Pitts went on to explain that the chief form of measurement was the use of public surveys. He revealed that surveys carried out in 2003 showed that only 24% of the public considered that the CJS met the needs of victims whereas 70% thought that the rights of offenders were given greater priority.  He also noted that only 29% of the public thought the sentences were too lenient. However on closer examination the results showed that this is the single biggest issue as far as the public are concerned. With regard to effectiveness it was clear from the 2003 survey that the CJS was not considered very effective. Only 7% of respondents thought that the CJS was effective. The police ranked quite high at 51%, probation had the support of 15%, the CPS 6%, and the courts only 7%.                                                                     

Happily, since that time things have changed. A survey in November 2008 revealed that the Leicester & Rutland CJS is perceived by 64.8% to be fair. This is the highest score nationally for fairness and at 39.3% the local CJS is in the upper quartile for perceived effectiveness.                                                                    

However, courts are seen by only 25.7% of the public to be effective at giving punishments that fit the crime and by 38.6% as dealing with cases promptly. The overwhelming majority- 79.4% - think that the CJS is too soft on crime.                                                                

There is some good news in that a significant majority of the public believe that the CJS give proper consideration to the views of the victims/witnesses and the circumstances of the crime when handing out sentences.                                                                                  

Almost 80% believe that the CJS treats those accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty. This shows that the public generally have a high degree of confidence in the system.                                                                           

The public and the CJS Staff and other Agencies  

As the familiarity with an agency increases so does the public perception of its effectiveness. The Police are perhaps the most high profile agency and is generally easily accessed by the public and better understood. CJS agencies, on the other hand are relatively unknown by the majority of people until they become involved in a criminal issue at which time their dissatisfaction will increase.

 It is interesting that only 19% of people working in the CJS can bring themselves to speak highly of it and 49% of police are highly critical.  

The issues that concern CJS staff are very similar to those expressed by the general public and their perceptions are largely based around a lack of awareness of how each agency operates, their constraints and popular myths.  

Raising Confidence  

Mr Pitts summarised his thoughts by stating that the way to improving confidence lies with providing opportunities for engagement with the public through consultative bodies and initiatives.

Many groups and partnerships currently exist and these are working well,  but the Local Criminal Justice Board needs to seek out any gaps in the process so that they can ensure that barriers and perceptions are broken down across a wide section of the public.

Magistrates have done a considerable amount of work in this respect with the aid of Community Engagement projects such Saffron Lane . New Parks and Earl Shilton will be the next areas to experience this initiative. Involvement in all Joint Action Groups, representation on the County Confidence Board, and MIC involvement demonstrate a significant commitment to build public confidence.  

The LCJB is trying to ensure that it becomes more involved in joint engagement projects with the right people in the right places and by being more responsive. The piloting of Community Impact Statements and improving the way we do things should be of help in developing confidence as well as striving to improve the way the LCJB communicates with the public.                                             

6.     Questions

 Mr Townsend invited questions from the members.  

a) Mr Neil Townsend JP.DL.  

One of the perceptions in the mind of the public is that breaches of court orders, in terms of Fines and Community Sentences, are not followed up rigorously enough?

Reply:  

Enforcement is an issue, which is being worked on, and there have been improvements in the last few months and more robust measures for swifter action have been put in place.                                                                                                                                        

b)   Mrs Jane Hicks JP  

What do you think about making more use of the existing structures for Community Engagement ?                                                                      

Reply:

After the Saffron Lane project the residents, developed a high level confidence. This seems to suggest that by    more closely examining the outcomes of such initiatives we might be better placed to develop other initiatives. Certainly the LCJB should be looking into existing, well  developed systems of engagement and becoming a part of them.                                                                                                                                                        

c)  Mr Nigel Sudborough  CB. OBE. JP 

HM Government do not appear to have confidence that justice will be done through the courts and it seems quite happy to allow the Police to ‘deliver justice’. Given the low level of confidence from the public what do they think of the use of fixed penalties and so forth in the dispensing of justice?  

Reply: I have some concerns about the use of summary powers, which do not provide the opportunity to address some of the issues surrounding the committing of a crime. However the Criminal justice System can bequite demanding in terms of paperwork. Out of necessity there is pressure to cut this down so that police can be free for other duties.  

If you ask the victims about restorative justice you will see that it is quite popular. It is too early to say what the long-term effect will be, but there are some re-assurances I would seek in respect of issues, which are not readily dealt with by on the spot fines and so forth. Recording the frequency of offending being among them.  

d)  Mr N Watson  

I ask myself whether it is not an appropriate time for the public to ask themselves what are the benefits of ‘on the spot justice’  

Reply:  The public do not understand the system. They know that they want to see justice so if they see the courts as being too slow they may be drawn to the conclusion that courts are irrelevant. I believe that the vast majority of the public have no interest other than simply demanding justice.

7.      Vote of thanks

A vote of thanks to Mr Steve Pitts was given by Mrs M Wilson JP, Branch Chairman on behalf of all members and guests.

She said that it was a privilege and a pleasure to propose this vote of thanks for his presentation and for the set of fascinating statistics some of which were worrying and some very encouraging. It was pleasing to hear him recognise the good work of the Magistrates’ Association and that being done in areas such as Saffron Lane and MIC mock trials.  

It was very interesting to hear about his work and she hoped that he would be able to come back in a year or so when the answers to his initial questions might be very different.

There were no further questions.