CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTOR
S. O.P. and Police Training
Behind the force policy are the force’s standard operating procedure’s (SOP’s), which are set by the FPPU using guiding documents from the Scottish Executive, Central government and ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers). The FPPU identify best practice for the force and tailor it for policing in the Newville region, incorporating feedback from police officers in the community and the local Domestic Abuse units. SOP’s are put into both new officer training and ongoing training in the force divisions. Each division has a training team, to whom the FPPU “dictate exactly what has to be
disseminated” to the officers in each division. The FPPU offer direct guidelines for officers, advising them on how to use existing powers to respond to domestic abuse. Their training materials are said to
communicate that domestic abuse is a serious violent crime while offering learning tools to help street police judge situations in the community. Tools such as guidelines on what factors would increase someone’s risk of offending or causing serious harm; guides as to what they can and cannot do under the law and by sharing test cases, that did or did not result in conviction in court, as models for officers to draw in when they are attending incidents or reporting to the PF. The training is said to emphasis the “clear force policy that, when in doubt you will record it as a domestic abuse incident.” It also encourages officers at local police stations to remand perpetrators of domestic abuse in custody until they appear in court due to the likelihood that they would re-offend otherwise, as “per the Lord Advocates instructions”.
Pro-Arrest Policy
The FPPU opts to operate a pro-arrest policy for cases involving domestic abuse. In practice this means that officers are encouraged to arrest the ‘perpetrator’, whenever they are called out to an incident and there is evidence that domestic abuse has occurred, whether or not the ‘victim’ wants to press charges.
This policy is used in other police forces around the world and is hoped to send a message that (i) domestic abuse is not socially acceptable and (ii) even if the person abused is too fearful to press criminal charges, the state will do so on their behalf. The unit officer is aware of the criticisms levied against the force for using such a policy. They know that concerns centre on the policy as disempowering for those who are experiencing abuse. The NGO sector specifically have criticised the policy as forcing women into a situation when the timing may be wrong, arrest may well escalate violent behaviour and she may not have anywhere to go to ensure her safety, and that ultimately the policy may place women in more danger. The policy officer recognises the legitimacy of the criticisms yet feels that the police are “duty bound to protect people and stop crime. The force can’t turn a blind eye to violence or corroborate with the symptoms of abuse”. They explained that the police do not need the person experiencing abuse to agree to take a case to court:
“we’ve never ever brought a case to court, in a murder trial, when we’ve had the complainer stand in the witness box, because he is dead. We do not need the
complainer (victim) to give evidence in court, we need two complainers (witnesses)”.
When asked if they feel that the pro-arrest policy deters women from contacting the police, they explained that “year upon year our figures for domestic abuse have steadily risen, from 14,000 complaints
in 2002-3 up to 20,000 in 2003-4” and that they are convinced that it is reporting of incidents that has increased, not the rates of domestic abuse.
Statistics
The FPPU record the number of incidents of domestic abuse reported to the police, subsequent number of arrests made and cases reported to the PF for collation at the national level. Similar figures are recorded throughout Scotland, but unfortunately the unit do not record the percentage of arrests that were made using the pro-arrest policy, compared to ‘victim’ request.
Joint Protocol between Newville P.F. office and the Newville Police Force
A protocol was agreed between the Procurator Fiscal offices and the Police force in Newville on their ‘procedures and practices’ in cases of domestic abuse. The document of protocol states that a
programme of training will support staff adoption of the principles and standards set down by the protocol.
The domestic abuse policy officer interviewed made no mention of such training, or details of the protocol, the extent to which any joint protocol is operationalised is not known. The protocol officially recognises the P.F. and police force role in investigating, reporting and prosecuting cases of domestic abuses. The protocol states that Newville Police will treat cases as high priority and were possible provide and immediate response by police officers. The police will investigate the crime thoroughly and actively pursue anyone who has committed abuse. The pro-arrest policy is outlined along with the commitment to record incidents, offer advice on safety and community resources and to refer ‘victims’ on to the domestic abuse unit for follow-on contact. According to the protocol, all cases with sufficient corroborated evidence will be reported to the PF with all relevant historical information. The PF office will request that additional evidence be pursued if necessary to corroborate the charges. If no case can be brought due to insufficient evidence, the PF will notify the police in advance of releasing the ‘accused’ from custody, so that the
‘victim’ may be notified in advance for safety. When there is sufficient evidence the PF will favour prosecution over an alternative disposal of the case and cases will proceed in the higher level courts, the Sheriff or High court. In these cases the PF will either oppose bail or consider setting restrictive bail conditions and requesting an early trial. If the accused is granted bail the PF victim services or police force
must notify the ‘victim’ that bail has been granted, within 24 hours of the court decision. When a ‘victim’
retracts a complaint, the PF office must investigate to determine if this is due to “overt or implicit pressure from the accused”. The PF can decide to continue with or without the ‘victim’s’ complaint. Any decision to not continue apparently must be made by a senior member of the PF’s staff.
If we take the views of those who work in the area of domestic abuse seriously, based on their experience aiding people dealing with abuse or who have abused, then the practices laid out in the protocol, particularly of the PF office, would seem to be something to aspire to as opposed to a reflection of actual practice.
Direct Regional level Responses to Domestic Violence
Getting to Court
Incidents of domestic abuse are dealt with as a crime if the incident of abuse is reported to the police and charges are then pressed against the perpetrator and the Procurator Fiscal decides to take the case forward to one of the criminal courts.
Figures of reported incidents of domestic abuse have been recorded annually throughout the Scottish police forces since 1999. The Scottish Executive published a statistical bulletin containing the figures for reported incidents of domestic abuse in 2004(Statistical Bulletin, 2005). The bulletin shows that there were 43,678 incidents of domestic abuse reported to the police throughout Scotland in 2004.
This was a 10 per cent increase upon the figures recorded in 2003 and is said to reflect a “steady increase in incidents reported since 1999”.
Rates of Reported Abuse and Criminal Justice Uptake
Of the 43,678 incidents reported to the police, half (21,795) led to a crime or offence being recorded, most commonly as the offence of petty assault (9,701; 22 %) or breach of the peace (17%). Only 10 percent of all incidents (4,497) were recorded as a crime [see Figure 3].
Figure 3. Recording of domestic abuse incidents reported to the Scottish police as an offence or crime in 2004
Of the incidents recorded as a crime or offence by the police (50% of the total reports), 63 percent (13,632) were referred to the PF “with a view to charges being brought against the offender”, that is 31 percent of total incidents reported. Of the remaining cases were a crime or offence was recorded, 6 percent resulted in a police warning, 24 percent involved “some other type of action” e.g. referral to an NGO or victim support, and 6 percent resulted in ‘no further action’. It is not clear from the bulletin what was the outcome of the 50 percent of incidents not recorded as a crime or offence [see Figure. 4].
Figure 4. Disposal of incidents of domestic abuse reported to the Scottish Police AND recorded as a crime or offence
From these figures we can determine that 31 percent of domestic abuse incidents reported to the police were referred to the PF in 2004, representing only 4 percent of all the cases reported to the PF Services in Scotland that year (total 321,34024). Of the total number of reports received by the PF Service in Scotland in 2003-04, only 40 percent proceeded to the courts. The number of domestic abuse cases that were prosecuted by the PF is not known, but inferring from the percentages above, it is likely to be only a fraction of the cases, with an even smaller number resulting in prosecution of some sort.
Another indicator of how small a percentage of actual incidents of domestic abuse are responded to in the criminal justice system is the fact that the number of incidents of domestic abuse reported to the police in 2004 (43,678) reflects just over half of the same number of requests for information or support for domestic abuse made to Scottish Women’s Aid in the same year (83,226 requests) (Scottish Women’s Aid, 2004) [see Figure. 5]. Using these comparison figures, with an awareness that requests to Women’s Aid
24Retrieved July 8, 2008 from the Crown Office website: http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk/About/corporate- info/Caseproclast5
under-represent instances of domestic abuse, we can crudely estimate that less than 16 percent of incidents of domestic abuse are considered for prosecution by the PF office, and fewer still taken forward for prosecution or resulting in legal chastisement of the abuse (potentially less than 7% following percentages outlined above).
Figure 5. Number of reports of Domestic Abuse recorded by 3 Scottish Agencies in 2004: the Police, Women’s Aid and the Procurator Fiscal Service (PF).
The small percentage of domestic abuse incidents dealt with through the criminal justice system aside, for those 31 percent of reported instances of domestic abuse that we know go forward to the PF for consideration, there are established procedures for response within the system, discussed below.
Court process
As described above, the PF has full discretion over whether or not to prosecute a domestic abuse case ‘in the public interest’. The PF can decide on what count to seek a prosecution, with the potential for reducing the charges brought in order to secure a guilty plea. The PF can also determine whether or not to grant someone bail while they await a trial date, and the conditions attached to the bail. The disposals available to the court (or possibilities for prosecution) depend on which court the charges are sent to, the Sheriff or High Court, as discussed previously. Sentencing can take the form of a fine, an interdict, a rehabilitation programme or a prison sentence and other less common disposals. As part of the PF service
there is an office with the sole remit of assisting people through the court process, called Victim Information and Advice (VIA).
VIA
Victim Information and Advice (VIA) is part of the Procurator Fiscal (PF) Service. VIA was set up to support victims of crimes as the case involving them moves through the criminal court process. The PF service has a policy of mandatory referral of domestic abuse cases to VIA whenever the PF determines to bring such a case to court for prosecution. In the Newville VIA office cases of domestic abuse had very recently been allocated to a designated worker as part of their general workload, this worker was
interviewed in the current study. As yet the worker has not received any training on the nature of domestic abuse, they are instead learning as they go.
The worker contacts each ‘victim’ reported in every domestic abuse case brought in front of the courts, as soon as they receive a disposal from the first court appearance. Contact is made via the telephone. Ongoing telephone based support is offered to support people through the court process. The Support is offered in the form of information and emotional support. Information is shared as to the community-based supports available to those dealing with domestic abuse; advise on the court process, the bail process and progress of the case concerning them as it progresses through the court system. Emotional support is offered through informal counselling. The worker reported that not all those telephoned opt to take up the supports offered. The small number who do, however, tend to use the support services heavily.
These people are “sometimes terrified of the abuser breaking their bail conditions, want to drop the charges they brought for fear of further harm and often just want to talk to someone”.
The worker deals with up to fifteen cases a week, predominantly affecting women. Interestingly the worker reports receiving more cases on a Monday, and suggests this is possibly as court is not in session over the weekend. The number of cases received by the worker was roughly estimated at interview and based on only three months of their working on the issue of domestic abuse. Accurate figures are recorded by the clerks’ office of the PF service. These figures, however, were not made available to the researcher upon request and have not been located in public records. Taking the worker’s estimates as a rough guide, the number of domestic abuse cases reaching court in Newville may be as few as 780 per year
reports made to the PF by the Newville police force in 2004, potentially highlighting once more the small percentage of domestic abuse crimes prosecuted through the justice system.
Abuser Intervention Programme
A small team of six Criminal Justice workers, employed by the Newville Social Work Department run the Newville domestic abuse male offender programme. This is a court mandated, intensive, group intervention programme to challenge violent behaviour in men convicted of domestic abuse. The Scottish Executive funds the programme.
A senior worker on the programme was interviewed in this study. They explained how the programme operates, the programme limitations and strengths as well as reflections on the key challenges they face in their work.
The programme was designed by two university based criminal justice scholars, one of whom runs the programme to date. There is a core team of programme workers supported by forty other criminal justice workers, representing a third of Newville’s total criminal justice workers, who have opted to be trained in the programme techniques.
It is worth reflecting that in the entirety of the community responses to domestic abuse available in the Region and local community, this programme was the sole response in which the work was directly with men who are abusive; all other provision is aimed at the women who experience abuse.
Accessing the Programme
The programme is ran to tackle the behaviour of men who have been convicted of a crime involving domestic abuse. The programme can only be accessed upon court order; men cannot access the programme voluntarily. It is offered as an alternative to custody and is viewed as a ‘heavy community disposal’, requiring a 2-year probation order. The programme is considered amongst other available disposals by a criminal justice team. The worker estimates that around 50-60 percent of cases involving domestic abuse that go through the court are recommended to the programme. If felt appropriate as an alternative to custody the programme will be recommended to the Sheriff, who has agreed with this recommendation in a little over 70 percent of cases. According to the worker “the number of referrals (to
interview had a 10-month waiting list. Initial plans were to hold four programmes per year, but demand meant that 21 programmes were ran in the less than four years since first offered. The worker reasoned that this should not be surprising as a “quarter of all violent crime in Scotland that is recorded and gets through court, is domestic violence”.
Programme Format
At the time of this research, a new programme was being started each month, with twelve men in each group. The groups meet weekly for six months, led by one male and two female workers. The gender mix is seen as very important in order to model healthy mixed-gender relationships, avoid male workers colluding with perpetrators and also to convey that domestic abuse is unacceptable to men as well as women. Men are prepared for entering the group over a period of several months. They work either one to one with a probation officer or with a mixed gender team of programme workers, due to “some of the risks and denials presented”. At the end of the six-month programme, men are seen on an individual basis for one more year to tackle some of the concepts that they have had difficulty with.
Participants and Outcomes
They aim to work with men to reduce and ultimately change their violent and abusive behaviour.
The men who are sent to the programme are assumed to be the “high risk ones, the scary ones, they will threaten you (as a programme worker)”. These are men who have been found guilty of crimes of stalking, sexual assault and serious physical assaults. The worker reported that, despite their high-risk status, some of these men can and do change, although the programme does not have clearly defined outcomes of success. Research was referenced, from this line of work, which showed similar programmes to result in an end to violent acts, but only a slight decrease in abusive, controlling or manipulative behaviours of the men involved. The worker interviewed hopes that the men in their programme will cease all violent, abusive and controlling behaviours as a result of the programme.
The team do not work with “men in denial” of their abusive behaviour, and not all men complete the programme. In the workers experience, those men who drop out of the programme are typically higher risk to start with. Most worryingly they say is that research on such intervention programmes has
highlighted that men who start but don’t finish the programmes become even higher risk perhaps due to