States Assembly | P-201-2005

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

PDF version

STATES OF JERSEY

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

Lodged au Greffe on 20th September 2005 by the Home Affairs Committee

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to r ec eive the Criminal Justice Policy, as set out in the report of the Home Affairs Committee dated 20th

September 2005 and, in order to give effect to the recommendations made in the Policy –

(a ) to agree the action plans, as set out in the report, with regard to – (i ) c r im inal justice values on page 25;

(i i) c r i m inal justice statistics on page 34;

(i ii ) l o o k ing after victims on page 44;

(i v ) j o in t working on page 47;

(v ) e a r l y intervention on page 56;

(v i ) e n f o rcement on page 69;

(v i i) d e a li ng with offenders on page 86;

(v i ii ) re h a bilitation on page 97;

(b ) to agree the policy statement in the section entitled Prosecution' on page 72;

(c ) to approve, in principle, the additional funding required to implement the Policy and to charge the

Finance and Economics Committee, in consultation with the Home Affairs Committee, to assess the most appropriate source of funding.

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

REPORT CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................... 5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – OVERVIEW...................................... 16 POLICY CONTEXT – INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY.............................................................. 20 PILLAR 1 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE VALUES......................................... 23 PILLAR 2 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS................................... 26 PILLAR 3 – LOOKING AFTER VICTIMS............................................. 35 PILLAR 4 – JOINT WORKING............................................................. 45 PILLAR 5 – EARLY INTERVENTION................................................. 48 PILLAR 6 – ENFORCEMENT............................................................... 57 PILLAR 7 – PROSECUTION................................................................. 70 PILLAR 8 – DEALING WITH OFFENDERS......................................... 73 PILLAR 9 – REHABILITATION........................................................... 88

APPENDICES

RUTHERFORD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 99 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.... 102 PRISON POPULATION PER 100,000............................................ 104 COST OF CRIME TO VICTIMS.................................................... 105

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES JOINT WORKING................... 106 CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS – RISK FACTORS, OFFENDING

AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION...................................................... 107 POLICE & CUSTOMS 10 YEAR DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS.. 108 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCE CASE STUDY............ 109

Home Affairs Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

P O L ICY OVERVIEW

T h e formationoftheHome Affairs Committee in December1999 brought togethermostoperational departments with executive responsibility for the delivery of criminal justice services.The Probation and After-Care Service remains a departmentof the Royal Court but adopts a closeworking relationship with the Home Affairs departments. This union highlighted the need for a policy oncriminaljustice.When the States ofJerseyadoptedP.70/2002,whichoutlined the organisationofthedepartmentsunder ministerial reform, the responsibility for policy developmentwas allocated to the Ministry forHomeAffairs.
I n 2002, the Home Affairs Committee commissioned an independent review of the criminal justice process in Jersey. This helpedtocompareourexperience with other jurisdictions andprovide a statistical base forpolicydevelopment.The resultant Rutherford Report' made 10 recommendations, nine ofwhich have beentaken forward, andare referred toin the main part of the policydocument.
A s a backdrop to policy development, the Committee took the approach that criminal justice is an essential part of life. This policy acknowledges that offendingbehaviouroccursfor a complexity of reasons, that itcanbereduced,or in some cases, prevented;and it explores the alternatives available to complement the formalcourt system. Mostimportantly, it upholds theindependenceand integrity of the judicial system andprosecution role, and does notseekto interfere directly in the sentencing policy of the courts.
G i venthe action plansdetailedin this document,the criminal justice policy will have a 5-yearlife between the years 2006-2010. The policy is a key component in delivering Strategic Aim Three, Objective 3.8, of the States Strategic Plan:ToEnhance Quality of Life byachievinglow levels of crime.

P O L ICY CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK

T h e policyframework is basedon 9 pillars': values; criminal justice statistics; looking after victims; joint working; early intervention; enforcement;prosecution; dealing with offenders; and rehabilitation. These are depictedonthefollowingpage.
F o cusgroups, consisting of people who are involved in criminal justice across the spectrum, have metto share their experience on each of these pillars', thereby informing policy development. The Home Affairs Committee's policy oneach criminal justice pillar' is summarised in the following statements with their respective action plans.
W hendeveloping any policy, itisimportant to examinethevarious factors whichdeterminewhetherit can be implementedsuccessfullyand its impacton people. In ordertoassess the relative effect ofthese factors, a PESTEL analysis, whichdrawsoutthe political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors atplay, has been carriedout.

THE PILLARS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

P O L ICY STATEMENTS AND ACTION PLANS P il la r 1 – Criminal Justice Values

T h e Home Affairs Committee will uphold the values that society considers should underpin the component partsof the criminal justice process.Thesevalues translate into the followingkey aim of criminal justice policy –

T o en h a n c e the quality of life in Jersey by creating a safer community; reducing the fear of crime

and the level of crime, disorder, offending and re-offending; and to pursue policies which assist in the delivery of justice fairly, promptly and cost-effectively.

Action Plan

T h e Home Affairs Committee will –

S u p port early intervention initiatives to address the risk factors that give rise to offending.

S u p port the rights of the accused, particularly the right to legal representation in appropriate cases.

M in imise the stress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.

E n c ourage respect for the rule of law.

S u p port the Honorary Service in their parish duties.

R e d uce the risk of bias or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or age.

R e h abilitate and re-educate offenders to change their attitude and behaviour.

R e d uce the fear of crime.

H el p to protect the Island from the threat of terrorism.

P il la r 2 – Criminal Justice Statistics

C riminal justice policy development needs to be evidence-led in order to take account of trends in offending. Hitherto, departments have tendedtodevelop information systems in ordertomeet their own businessneeds.However,criminal justice is a complex and dynamic process and the ability toaccess a commondatabase would create efficiencies in documentmanagement, the removalofduplicationand accuracy of statistical information.Suchan integrated criminal justice system will take time to deliver; consequently, the Home Affairs Committee envisages a long term and a short-termstrategy.
In the longterm, the Committee aims to develop an integrated criminal justice information anddocument management system. A project of such complexity will require significant financial investment; a

Scoping Study was carried out in early 2005 and its recommendations are being considered by the Committee and

the Jersey Legal Information Board.

T heHome Affairs Department and other criminal justice agencies have had the foresight to produce criminal justice statistics annuallyusingsystems currently inplace. In keeping with Recommendation 2 of the RutherfordReport, a Criminal Justice Statistics Working Group has been set up to continue this work until an integrated solution isinplace.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

I m p lement the recommendations of the Integrated Criminal Justice Scoping Study as appropriate and bid for any necessary resources.

I n t he meantime, continue to produce co-ordinated criminal justice statistics annually using current systems through the Criminal Justice Statistics Working Group.

P il la r 3 – Looking After Victims

R ates ofreported and recordedcrimemean that manyvictimsandwitnesses of crimenever see the perpetrators brought to justice. Helping them is therefore more complex than simply assisting them through the court process. Jersey has developed a close network of agencies involved in providing support to those affected bytheconsequences of crime, for example, the States ofJerseyPolice, the Honorary Police, Victim Support, the Women'sRefuge,theBrookAgency, Citizens AdviceBureauand Crimestoppers. We also have statutory provisionfor the Criminal Injuries CompensationSchemeand Compensation Orders.As a result of the Crime and CommunitySafety Strategy, a Victims' Charter was developed in 1996 and the Victim Support Service set up.There is now a wide variety ofagencies involved, in one form oranother, in victim supportwhoare keen toworkmore closely together.For its part, the Home Affairs Committeeiscommitted to ensuring that everythingis done within the resources available to minimise the level of victimisation throughcrime prevention measures and to help people who have been the victims of crime. However, justice mustremain objective and victims should nothave direct input into the administration of justice. Accountalsoneedstobe taken of the needsof repeat victims and hate crimevictims.Researchcarried out by the UKHomeOffice for its strategyANewDeal for VictimsandWitnesses' provides a usefulandrelevantframeworkforreviewinglocalarrangements for victim support.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

E s t ablish a Victims' Agencies Forum to bring together agencies representing the victims of crime and witnesses.

U p date the Victims' Charter in order to take account of significant developments since its initial publication such as human rights and data protection legislation, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Law, restorative justice techniques, media interest, the increased jurisdiction of the lower criminal and civil courts and the UK's experience in developing the New Deal' initiative.

R ev iew the funding arrangements for the Jersey Victim Support Scheme in consultation with the Jersey Victim Support Committee.

C a r ry out a Crime Victimisation Survey every 3 years in order to gauge the public's perception of safety, the levels of unreported crime, the needs of victims, and the quality and extent of assistance given.

R e view the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Evidence and Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1997, to make it less restrictive so that victims and witnesses could present their evidence without fear of intimidation or retribution.

P il la r 4 – Joint Working

Jo int workingisnow a cornerstoneofStatesofJersey policy as well as a vital part ofthe criminal justice system which assures a common understanding of criminal justice issues, helpsto reconcile differencesin approach, minimises duplication of service, and provides value-for-moneybyensuring that resources are applied for best effect. Atoperational level, criminal justice agencieshaveworked hard to achieve this but there is a needfor better joint working atthehighest level.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

C o ntinue to strive for effective joint working, not only between the criminal justice agencies reporting to it, but also the partner agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

E s t ablish an informal forum for criminal justice policy and planning involving the executive, the judiciary and the prosecution.

P il la r 5 – Early Intervention

E arly intervention toprevent criminality is a key area ofcriminal justice policyandonewhich, if invested in, will have a significant impactoncriminality in our Island. The States of Jersey made a significant commitment to this philosophy in 1999when it funded both the Crime andCommunity Safety Strategy and theSubstanceMisuseStrategy.Itcontinuedthecommitment this year in adopting, overwhelmingly, a report and proposition to bring these strategies together from 1st January 2005 in a new strategy, Building a SaferSociety'.
A lthough the focusofthe Bull Reportwason addressing the needsofchildren with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties, there is a clear interface with the criminal justice process where offending behaviour is concerned. The Home Affairs Committee embraces fully the work carried out by the Children's Executive in recommending changes to the youth justice system.
F inally on rehabilitation, theHome Affairs Committee iscommittedtothephilosophy of harm reduction and has carried this forward into thenew Building a Safer Society Strategy.TheCommitteealso expects to be able to consider,in2005, a follow-up report from the AdvisoryCouncilon the Misuseof Drugs on the questionofwhethercertain illegal substances shouldbedowngradedand the UK's experience in having re-classifiedcannabis.The Committee is mindful of the stance takenbyGuernseywho,atpresent, have decided not to reclassify cannabis, and ofrecentmedicalresearch in the UKwhichhasdrawn attention tothepsychiatricimpactofcannabis.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

I n partnership with the Health and Social Services Committee, take the lead in implementing the Building a Safer Society Strategy and monitoring its progress.

P l a y its part in implementing those recommendations of the Bull Report approved by the States of Jersey, in particular those relating to the establishment of a Youth Action Team.

A s a member of the Corporate Parent, continue policy discussions with the Royal Court and Youth Court, particularly with regard to court options and residential/secure care.

R e - consider the question of whether cannabis should be reclassified once the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has reported to the Health and Social Services Committee in 2005.

P il la r 6 – Enforcement

T heHome Affairs Committee has a prime responsibility for enforcement through the Statesof Jersey Police and the Customsand Immigration Department. A closeworking relationship will be maintained with other enforcement agencies, notably the Honorary Police and the Viscount's Department. The Committee endorses the 6 policing promises' that the States ofJersey Police has madeto the peopleof Jersey and will continue to survey thepublic regularly in order to identify their law enforcementconcerns and which areas to target. The public continue to identify drug trafficking as the greatest menaceto society and thereis a continuingconcernoveranti-socialbehaviour.Consequently,through the Joint Intelligence Bureau, both Customsand the Police will pursuethosewhoseekto profit from trading in illegal drugs. The authoritieshave had significantsuccesswithin the region of £4.5 million ofdrugs seized in 2003, and inexcess of £7 million in 2004.

Action Plan

In ordertoaddresstheenforcementissuesand challenges ahead, the Home Affairs Committee will –

B y the end of 2005, or when the future position of the Connétable s under Ministerial Government has been decided, develop the framework and law drafting instructions for a group to oversee policing matters as an alternative to the establishment of a Jersey Police Authority.

S u p port the States of Jersey Police in the achievement of its Policing Plan objectives.

P l a n for the anticipated rise in crime (estimated at 11%) over the next ten years as a result of projected demographic changes.

D u ring 2006, bring in the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law, 200-, to combat anti-social behaviour, but support the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry in dealing with less serious anti-social behaviour and nuisance.

D u ring 2006, analyse the nature and effect of anti-social behaviour in Jersey and, in consultation with others, seek appropriate solutions.

M a ximise intelligence collecting and sharing with other jurisdictions in order to combat imported crime, particularly drug trafficking.

P il la r 7 – Prosecution

T his policy takes a holistic view of criminal justice and its place in thesocialand political context.Itis not a judicial services review, although this may become a subject for discussion atthenewforum envisaged under Pillar 4 – Joint Working.
H aving consulted the Attorney General at an early stagein the policy setting process,theHome Affairs Committee will notpursue the RutherfordReportrecommendation that a public prosecution service be created. This couldnotbe justified on cost grounds and would result in Centeniers losingtheir traditional role of presenting casesin the Magistrate'sCourt.
R egarding the futuredevelopment of Parish Hall Enquiries, the Committee supports theirstatus as an investigatory rather than a judicial body.Todootherwisecouldcompromisetheirtraditional and valuable role in dealing with offenders outside the formal criminal justice system and inbeing able to meet the provisions of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. The Rutherford Report made specific recommendationson the role ofthe Parish Hall Enquiry in dealing with young offenders. Since then, a

better understanding has been developed between agencies on maximising appearances at Parish Hall level prior

to charging. Similarly, since publication of the Bull Report, the Committee has had the benefit of being a partner in taking forward the recommendations of the Children's Executive detailed in Pillar 5 – Early Intervention. These recommendations will have a bearing on any future changes to the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry rather than recommendations 5 and 6 of the Rutherford Report.

P il la r 8 – Dealing with Offenders

J erseyisunique in having a prosecution process – the Parish Hall Enquiry – which is not a judicial process and is held todetermine whether ornot a prosecution should bebrought in court.In the caseof children particularly, this often enables reintegration to take place through a process which begins and ends in the community.Voluntarysupervision has been highly successful in this regard, and latterly, restorative justice techniques have been augmented through the Victim-OffenderConferencing Initiative. Within the formal court system, binding over orders with appropriate conditions, probation and community service (which is a direct alternative to custody) have been successful over many years.
T hegrowth in Jersey'sprisonpopulation is of particular concern to the Home Affairs Committee and may be exacerbated by the anticipated rise in crime as a result of demographic changes. From a purely financial perspective,thegrowthinnumbersexperienced in recentyears is unsustainable particularly as we are entering a period of stringency in public expenditure.Whetheranoffender should bedeprivedof their liberty is, however, far toocomplexand serious a matter to bereduced to a book-balancingexercise. The challenge for the Committee is to create the conditions in which punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation can be brought to bear in the mostcost-effective way. In theCommittee'sview,the Island is notdoingenoughtoeducate, re-skill and rehabilitate prisoners both during theirsentenceand after release. Furthermore, Jersey isout-of-stepwithmostother established Western democracies in not giving prisoners an opportunity to show that they can lead a life free from offendingat an earlier stage in their sentence.
T he Committee has considered a rangeofmeasures that couldbe introduced to reformtheframework in which custodial sentences are served. However, many of them would fail to provide the necessary safeguards ofproperpreparation for releasewhilst in custody and supervision thereafter. TheCommittee will therefore pursue a range of measures after due consultation with the judiciary, criminal justice agencies andother interested parties.
O ther than the collection of parking fines, the Island hasnot developed disposal through administrative means. A separategroupunder the Attorney Generalhas already considered whether there are grounds for a system ofpleading guilty by post andisnotrecommending its introduction. Similarly, a compelling casehas yet to bemadefor the introduction of enforcement cameras to Jersey in relation tomotoring offences. The Committee will notpursue this without a political debate on the matter. There is a case, however, for peopletobe able to pay finesmoreconveniently, notably through electronic means.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

I n c onsultation with the Honorary Police, Probation and After-Care Service and others, continue to support the Parish Hall Enquiry system and consider further ways in which it can be strengthened.

I n v estigate greater use of the Electronic Monitoring Scheme (Tagging') of prisoners which has been highly successful since its introduction in April 2003.

R eq uest the Royal Court to review its sentencing policy in respect of drug trafficking offences in the light of principles applied in other jurisdictions and the experience gained since sentencing principles were first formalised in the Court of Appeal landmark judgment of Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 as amended by subsequent judgments.

U rg e the courts to take positive steps to maximise the use of community penalties and to reserve custody for dealing with the most serious offences, where the protection of the public is a major consideration and where offenders have a history of not responding to community penalties.

M a ximise the use of transfers where prisoners can demonstrate links with England and Wales, thereby reducing significantly the cost to the public.

I n v estigate whether a more customer-friendly' approach to the payment of parking fines and fines for other minor offences might be made available through fixed penalties.

I n v estigate the suitability of enforcement cameras for Jersey and whether their introduction would be cost-effective.

I n conjunction with the Law Officers' Department, investigate ways of expanding powers in relation to civil asset forfeiture.

P il la r 9 – Rehabilitation

W hilst in many cases a custodial sentencecannotbe avoided, itis nevertheless the case that custody often results in offenders losing their employment,accommodationand contact with family and friends.The development of alternatives to custody, suchasProbationandCommunity Service, have been beneficial in assisting offender rehabilitation. TheProbationandAfter-Care Service has played a vital role in this and half their work is nowconcerned with rehabilitation. Since2001, a close working relationship has been built up with the Prison to the extent that there is now a Prison ProbationOfficer. Sentence planning has been piloted in the Young Offenders' Institute and various programmes are run to aid prisoner rehabilitation.
T heHome Affairs Committeebelieves there is much morescope for prisoner rehabilitation inorder to reduce recidivism rates. Currently, 50% ofadultsand70%of young offenders will be reconvicted within 12 months.The fact that thepresenttotalannualrunning cost budget for the Jersey Probation and After- Care Service (approximately £1 million) is similar to the amount of moneyspentonaccommodating prisoners in the UK in 2004 graphically illustrates the levelofunder-resourcingin this vital area. Despite the limitations on funding, all prisoners are offered voluntary contact with the ProbationandAfter-Care Service on release. The Service is experiencedat helping offenders to gain access to accommodationand employment opportunities as wellas services moredirectly related to theiroffending.There are a rangeof services available to ex-offenders but, without professional assistance, they are notalways able to access them. It is therefore disappointing that few prisoners take up the offer of assistance from the Probation and After-Care Service post release. Before the appointmentof a Probation Officer atHMPrisonLa Moye, only one or two prisoners requested voluntary after-care each year; the numbers are now increasing but are still in single figures.Thislackofresponseisonecompelling reason for placing post- custodial supervisionon a statutory footing.
P illar 8 – Dealing With Offenders, outlines a differentframeworkwithinwhichcustodial sentences could be servedwhere greater emphasis isgiven to rehabilitation. TheHome Affairs Committee has been careful tostudythe provisions of the UK's Criminal Justice Act 2003 inwhich the system of parole will be reformed.The Committee seesno need to replicate thoseprovisions precisely; however,it will be important toadopt a system whichdovetails with that in theUK,not least so that the Island can revert to transferring the majority ofprisoners with demonstrable links with England and Walesso that prisoners will be more willing to request transferto prisons in England and Wales knowing that they will receive similar treatmentintermsofrelease as thoseprisonerssentenced from the English courts. TheCommittee intends, therefore, to introduce a system of discretionary supervised release along the lines described in paragraph 12.35 but subject to the recommendation made by the joint Home Affairs/Law Officers' Departmentworkinggroup.
T here will be a cost to introducing such a system; however, depending upon the future prison population,

these costs could be offset by the savings that will accrue from fewer prisoners needing to be transferred to

prisons in England and Wales and, of those that are, most requesting such a transfer and demonstrating links with England or Wales. An additional 3 Prison Officers will be needed for sentence planning during the custodial part of the sentence. Thereafter, an additional 3.5 Probation staff will be required to take on the heavier supervisory role whilst prisoners are released on licence. Better value for money should be achieved in terms of lower re-offending rates.

T heHome Affairs Committee recognises the link between poor educational ability and high ratesof recidivism. In accordance with a proposal formulated by Deputy Jennifer Bridge and Professor Edward Sallis, itwishesto create a PrisonEducation Unit to deliver a range of educational services including basic skills, nationalvocationalcourses,distancelearningandcareersguidance.
F inally on rehabilitation, theHome Affairs Committee iscommittedtothephilosophy of harm reduction and has carried this forward into the new Building a SaferSociety' Strategy. TheCommittee is currently examining the recent Prison Health Needs Report which may highlight further action required. The Committee also expects tobe able to consider this year a follow-up report from the Advisory Council on the Misuseof Drugs onthe question ofwhethercertain illegal substances should bedowngraded and the UK's experience in having re-classified cannabis.

Action Plan

T heHome Affairs Committee will –

I n 2 006, seek approval for new post-custodial supervision legislation in order to introduce a system of discretionary supervised release.

E n s ure that funding for an additional 3 Prison staff and 3.5 Probation staff required to implement post-custodial supervision is included in the 2006 Resource Plan.

S u b ject to the approval of new legislation, introduce a system of discretionary supervised release in 2006.

S e e k funding in the region of £100,000 to establish a Prison Education Unit in partnership with Highlands College.

E x p lore further life-long learning opportunities for prisoners in consultation with the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

C O N SULTATION AND DELIVERY

P rior to the Criminal Justice Policy beinglodgedfordebate, there will be a 4-month consultation period which will allow for views from all members of society to begleaned.TheHome Affairs Committee will adhere to the followingtimetablefordelivery –

Timetable for Delivery

Sep 2003 – Mar 2004 Policy development through Focus Groups

Apr – Jun 2004 Policy drafting

Jul – Sep 2004 Home Affairs Committee reviews first draft

Oct 2004 Second draft prepared

Dec 2004 – Feb 2005 Home Affairs Committee reviews second draft

Mar 2005 Home Affairs Committee approves consultation document

Apr – May 2005 Consultation with members of the judiciary and prosecution

Jun – Aug 2005 Consultation with States Members and the public

Aug – Sept 2005 Review comments and prepare final draft

Oct 2005 Home Affairs Committee approves and lodges the Criminal Justice Policy for States of Jersey debate

F I N A NCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

A dditional financial and manpowercosts will be incurred in implementing this policy fully, but these are not excessive. The most significant costs are associated with the introduction of post-custodial supervision legislation, forming anindependent group to oversee policing matters and establishing a Prison EducationUnit.Totalrevenueimplementation costs amountto £480,000, but £250,000 has already been granted through the 2006 revenue allocation process in order to fund the provision of6.5 additional staff tointroducesupervisedrelease.Ideally, revenue growth will be approved to fund the remaining £230,000. Should this not be forthcoming, the Home Affairs Ministry would need to review future budgetary priorities orseekotherfunding streams for particular policy aims.Some policy measures are already funded, the most significantbeingthe Building a SafetySociety' Strategy. A summaryof the existing funding and implementationcosts is givenatAppendix 3.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – OVERVIEW

B A C KGROUND

H i storically, criminal justice policy and practice in Jersey has evolved through the office of the Attorney General partly in his capacity as the Partie Publique. This role is vitally importantin that it ensures that the publicinterest is served inthejudicialprocess.Hitherto, the executive has played a largely passive role in criminal justice policy matters with its involvementconcentratedon delivery of various aspects of the criminal justice process through its operationaldepartmentsandtaking legislation through the States of Jersey. Prior to 2000, executive responsibility for the delivery of criminal justice services was fragmented across States of Jersey Committees, i.e.: StatesofJerseyPolice(DefenceCommittee),HM Prison (Prison Board), Customs (Finance and Economics Committee) and Probation and After-Care Service (Probation Board). These services were drawn together under the Home Affairs Committee shortly after its creation in December 1999 although, in the caseof the ProbationandAfter-CareService, this extends to financial responsibility only with operational responsibility remaining with theProbation Board.Whetherbyaccident or design, thecomplementary, and sometimes conflicting, responsibilities and objectives of these operational departments highlighted the need for an over-arching policy on criminal justice matters.Consequently,whentheStatesof Jersey adopted P.70/2002, whichoutlined the organisation of departments under ministerial reform, responsibility for criminal justice policy was allocated tothenew Ministry for Home Affairs.
S i nce there wouldbe very few changes to the composition ofoperational departments in the Home Affairs areaduringthe transition to ministerialgovernment,in 2002 the Home Affairs Committeedecided to press ahead with the formulation of a criminal justice policy for Jersey. Thiswas a bold stepgiven the complexity of thetaskandthefact that there was nopre-existing policy; however, the prize would be a criminal justice policy lodged for debate by the time the States of Jersey transferred to ministerial government. Given the action plans detailed in this document,thecriminal justice policy will have a 5- year life betweentheyears2006-2010.Thepolicy is a key componentin delivering Strategic Aim Three, Objective 3.8, of the States Strategic Plan:ToEnhance Quality of Life byachievinglow levels of crime.
It i s acknowledgedthat, in developing this firstCriminal Justice Policy for Jersey, manyof the objectives are of Island-wide significance. This is particularly true of Pillar 5 whichdeals with early intervention. Within this Pillar, strategies to positively impact upon risk factors will require considerable further exploration and consultation encompassing the States sector, voluntary partners and the public. It is therefore importanttorecognise that the Committee is seekingsupport for the principles which underpin this Criminal Justice Policy, accepting that partnership work to achieve the higherlevelaspirations will continue for many years into the future. TheActionPlans described attheendofeach section describe the role and contribution of the Home Affairs Committeeintaking these matters forward.

P O L ICY DESIGN

B e aringin mind that this was un-troddenturf' in that the Island had noformalcriminal justice policy, the Home Affairs Committeecommissioned Professor AndrewRutherford,DeanofLaw at Southampton University, to carry outanindependentreview into various aspects of the criminal justice process.The purpose of the review wastoprovide a focus for future policy setting and a statistical base from whichto carry out informed debateand decision making. His report, entitled Review ofCriminal Justice Policyin Jersey' (hereinafter referred to as the Rutherford Report') was published in October 2002. The Rutherford Reportmade ten recommendationswhich are reproduced atAppendix 1. The Committee took an early decisionnotto pursue Recommendation 4 because ofthe cost implications and the impacton the traditional role of the Honorary Service.Theotherrecommendationswere taken forward into policy design and are referred to intherelevant part of the policy document.
In designing this policy, the Committee's objective has been to translate the criminal justice principles and priorities ofgovernment into courses of action whichitbelieves will deliver the desired changes.In so doing, the Committeehassought to design a policywhich will look tothe future, take a holistic approach, use the available evidence upon which to base decisions, be inclusive of the views of

professionals and the public, and ensure that solutions are both cost-effective and joined-up. Consequently, this

policy should not be confused with a judicial services review which would concentrate solely on the judicial process. Rather, the Committee has taken the approach that criminal justice is part of life, is a key part of the fabric of society and paints a broad canvas. A myopic approach would contend crime happens, offenders are dealt with by the courts and are subsequently punished. This policy takes a more enlightened approach by questioning why crime takes place, assesses the depth of its roots, whether it can be prevented, and what alternatives are there to complement formal court action and the penal system. Moreover, it seeks to uphold the independence of the judicial system and does not seek to interfere in the sentencing policy of the courts.

I n formulating the policy, a cradletograve'approachwastaken by first examining criminal justice values that are relevanttooursociety, then looking at a logical progression from early intervention, through enforcement and how offenders are dealt with, to rehabilitation. The importance of sound criminal justice statistics and the needsof victims are alsorecognised. This led the Committee tofound its criminal justice policy on nine specific pillars' which are represented diagrammatically below and covered in the remainingchapters.

THE PILLARS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

C O N SULTATION

T h isdraft policy has been prepared on the basis that consultation with the main stakeholdersin the criminal justice process is vital from the beginning.Consequently,focusgroupsoneachofthe criminal justice pillars met over a 9-month period in order to inform policysetting. The composition ofthesefocus groups is given at Appendix 2. Subsidiary focus groups were held where specific matters were highlighted for examination, i.e.: parole and dealing with young people. These focus groups proved invaluable and the Committee is indebted to all those who took part.We are now entering the main consultation period duringwhich opinion will besought from States of Jersey Members, the Scrutiny Panel, the judiciary, criminal justice professionals, the private and voluntary sector and the generalpublic. It isintended that briefings will be held for the publicand the media's assistance will besoughtin gaining wide coverage. We envisage that this process will take four months to complete, resulting in a draftpolicy documentwhich will take account of the views received through consultation. The Committee aimsto lodgetheCriminal Justice Policy in September2005. The complete timetable fordeliverycan therefore be summarisedasfollows –

Timetable for Delivery

Sep 2003 – Mar 2004 Policy development through Focus Groups

Apr – Jun 2004 Policy drafting

Jul – Sep 2004 Home Affairs Committee reviews first draft

Oct 2004 Second draft prepared

Dec 2004 – Feb 2005 Home Affairs Committee reviews second draft

Mar 2005 Home Affairs Committee approves consultation document

Apr – May 2005 Consultation with members of the judiciary and prosecution

Jun – Aug 2005 Consultation with States Members and the public

Aug – Sept 2005 Review comments and prepare final draft

Oct 2005 Home Affairs Committee approves and lodges the Criminal Justice Policy for States of Jersey debate

F I N A NCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

A d ditional financial and manpowercosts will be incurred in implementing this policy fully, but these are not excessive. The most significant costs are associated with the introduction of post-custodial supervision legislation, forming an independent group to oversee policing matters, and establishing a Prison Education Unit.Totalrevenueimplementationcostsamountto £480,000but £250,000 has already been granted through the 2006 revenue allocation process in order to fund the provision of6.5 additional staff tointroducesupervisedrelease.Ideally, revenue growth will be approved to fund the remaining £230,000. Should this not be forthcoming, the Home Affairs Ministry would need to review future budgetary priorities orseekother funding streams for particular policyaims. Some policy measures are already funded, the most significantbeingthe Building a SafetySociety' Strategy. A summaryof the existing funding and implementationcosts is givenatAppendix 3.

POLICY CONTEXT – INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

IN T R ODUCTION

D e signing a criminal justice policy requires an analysis and reconciliation of a rangeof conflicting priorities and risks. Judgementsmust then be made to arrive atthemostappropriateand cost-effective options. Tensions are boundtoarise within ourcriminal justice system, the most strikingexampleat present being the need to reconcile court sentencing policy, particularly with regard to drug trafficking, with the need to manage the prison populationat sustainable levels. Intermsofrisk,wehave already made a judgement, for example, that employing a rangeofmodest intervention policies through the Building a Safer Society Strategy will be reflected inlowercrime levels than would otherwisebe the case. The policy alsoneeds to beput into context against the various factors whichbearon policy formulation. This is best done through a PESTEL' analysis which draws out the political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors atplay.

P E S TEL' ANALYSIS P o li t ical

T h e Island's aim is totransfer to ministerial governmentby the endof2005. Business conducted through the new Ministries' will be liable toscrutiny through Scrutiny Panels, with greater transparency and accountability achieved through the Public Accounts Committee. Hitherto, the Home Affairs Committee's involvement in the criminal justice process has beenmainly through the work of operational departments, in particular the States of Jersey Police, HM Prison, the Customs and Immigration Department and the ProbationandAfter-CareService.However,Home Affairs will become responsible for the formulation ofcriminal justice policy itself. Jersey does not currently have a formal policy but, historically, the principles of good justice have been upheldby the office ofthe Attorney General in his role as the Partie Publiquewherebyheseeks to safeguard the public interest. Thus, the governmental transformation that we are currently engaged in requires the Home Affairs Committee to take responsibility for the future shapeof criminal justice policy and its implementationbytheagenciesunder its control.
Je r sey's criminal justice policy alsoneeds to be alive to significant changes taking place inUKpolicy. The UK Government has been particularly active in recent years in making changes to the whole spectrum of law and order ranging from communitysafety initiatives throughpolice reform to the power of the courts. However, it wouldbe a mistake to read across into the Jersey system everynew initiative emanating from Whitehall.The Island mustexamine critically newdevelopments before thinking of adopting them here incaseweachievethesame objective in a different way already or they are simply not right for Jersey. Wemust not assume automatically that theUK'sproblems are ourproblems. We face different challenges from whichit follows that other remedies will oftenbemore appropriate. In fact, our criminal justice challenges are more akin tothosefacedby Guernsey and theIsleofMan than the UKor mainland Europe.

E c o n omic

J e rseyhas a stable, low crime society which contributes significantly towards maintaining economic prosperity. Risingcrime would have a negativeeffectoneconomicprosperity. Jersey is entering a period of stringency in public spending wherebydepartments have been requiredto review the services they provide to the public. There is little scope for drastic savings in the criminal justice area, which incorporates thejudicial system andoperational departments delivering front-line services. This is due to the lackofeconomiesofscale; wide statutory responsibility; a custodial system that hastocaterfor all categories of offender; and the ability of other jurisdictions to invest morefundinginthe criminal justice area, notably policy formulation.However, there isscope for prioritising tasks and putting better systems in place, for example, tomanage the prison population more cost-effectively.There are alsovalue-for-

money issues such as the balance between custody and community penalties, although it is accepted that the

judiciary must be free to judge whether a custodial or community penalty is appropriate in individual cases. In the current financial climate, the challenge is to ensure that the criminal justice system, and the various agencies within it, operates efficiently without compromising its effectiveness.

S o c ia l

T h e Imagine Jersey' consultation processcarried out in early 2004 indicated how the public perceives the state of criminal justice in Jersey. Very few delegates placed law and order high on the list of challenges facing the Island intermsof desired change.Indeed, the fact that manypeopledidnoteven mention itas a specific objective couldindicate that the Jersey community hascome to expect a feeling of well being, a high standard of policing and a judicial system of the first order.Thatshouldnotbe a signal for complacency sincethere are othersocialproblemswhich need tobefactored into a criminal justice policy, for example, those on lowwages in a high-costsociety, the special needsofyoung people andthe persistence ofdrug trafficking. We mustalso learn from theUK's experience withextended opening hoursas they try to address the problems associated with bingedrinking'. It is vital that policies interact and Home Affairs will therefore continue to play a part in the Social Policy StrategyGroup. We must also bear in mind that, on the 1stMay 2004, the EUacquired ten moremember states predominantly from Eastern Europe.

T e c h nological

A d vances in technology will continue to help the criminal justice process operate more efficiently and have a bearing on policy making. DNA profiling, for example, has had a profound effect on crime detection. This has worked its way through toimproving the chances of successful prosecutionwhich,at the end of the chain, can impact upon the incarceration rate. Theadventof electronic monitoring of prisoners has proved to be a useful adjunct tocustody and was introduced in Jersey in April2003. This initiative has been highly successful with 61 prisoners having been tagged' up toDecember 2004, 46of whom completed the licence period successfully. Although such advancescomeat a price, weshouldbe ready to fund new techniques which improve the likelihood of bringing criminalsto justice, asin the case of DNA profiling, orprovidemanagerialoptionsandfinancialsavings.TheUKisintending to bringin satellite tracking as the next generation of electronic monitoring.Itis too early to say whether this would be a viable or appropriate option for Jersey. Regarding information technology, the Home Affairs Committee is currently working with the Jersey Legal Information Board (JLIB) to analyse criminal justice businessprocesses with a view toimproving efficiency and achieving greater integration of the criminal justice system.

E n v i ronmental

A t first sight, environmental factors would seem to have little influence on criminal justice policy. However, the relevance ismoreapparentwhenplaced in a quality of life context.Forexample, the general ambience oftown life is affected by our ability to design out crime' in a planning context. People's perception oftheWaterfrontas a safeplacetogoand the attractiveness of the town environment will be greatly influenced bythewayinwhich the areaisdevelopedinthe future and levels ofpublic disorder often associated with the concentration of hostelries and nightclubs in the Weighbridge area.The Alcohol Strategy has been adopted and it contains policies which are designed to improve the environment. Forexample, a key aim is to reduce alcohol-relatedcrime and nuisancein the vicinity of drinking venues, the town centre and other public places by providing good practice advice to the Planning Departmentand licensees, and managing the environment through CCTV. Further afield, there would surely be anenvironmentalimpact if it becamenecessary to consider either a prisonextension or a second prison on a green field site.

L e g is lative

T h e Rehabilitation ofOffenders(Jersey) Law 2001 wasbrought into forceon the 1st December 2002. The Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey)Law2003 is proving influential and calls upon

enforcement agencies, including the Honorary Police, to be fully conversant with its provisions. The Regulation

of Investigatory Powers (Jersey) Law 2005 will have a similar impact. There are clearly cost and manpower implications to such new legislation.

T h eremayalsobe new legislation whichflows from the developmentof criminal justice policy, for example, in order to create additional sentencing optionsfor the courtor to update Prison legislation. All new legislation has a leadtimeintermsofdrafting instructions, law draftingand consultation and this will need tobetaken into accountin the timescalesfor policy implementation.Legislation taken from the UK often needs to be tailored to meet Jersey'srequirements.

PILLAR 1 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE VALUES

W hatwe, as a society value, should underpin the criminal justice process.Establishingthese values was therefore an early consideration. Approximately120 people were specifically invited to provideopinions, as well as the general public. These included all States ofJerseymembers,membersof the judiciary and other officers associated with the criminal justice process from which emerged a consensusasto the principal values. In no particular order, those identified by respondents were –

• J u s ti ce

• R e s p ect for human rights and dignity

• P r o te ction for the public, victims and witnesses

• F r e e dom from prejudice

• R i g h t to legal representation

• R i g h t to a fair trial

• R e s p ect for the rule of law

• A w a reness of cultural diversity

• R e h a bilitation

• D et e rrence from offending

• F a i rn ess

• I n te g rity

• I m p a rtiality

• E q u a lity of treatment

• P r o f essionalism

B a sedupon these values, the key aim of criminal justice policy is –

T o e nhance the quality of life in Jersey by creating a safer community; reducing the level of crime,

disorder, offending and re-offending; and to pursue policies which assist in the delivery of justice fairly and cost-effectively by –

S u p porting early intervention initiatives to address the risk factors that give rise to offending.

S u p porting the rights of the accused, particularly the right to legal representation.

M in imising the stress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.

E n c ouraging respect for the rule of law.

S u p porting the Honorary Service in their parish duties.

E l im inating the risk of bias or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or age.

R e - habilitating and re-educating offenders to change their attitude and behaviour.

R e d ucing the fear of crime.

H el ping to protect the Island from the threat of terrorism.

T h ereisan element of risk associated with the performance and delivery of these objectives in that implementation is not entirely in the hands of the Home Affairs Committee. For example, through effective policing, it canexercisedirect control over reducing the level of crime, disorderandoffending. Ontheotherhand, it must let the judiciary decide upon a sentencing regime which delivers justice for all and protection to society. The constitutional principle oftheindependenceof the judiciary in a democratic society needstobepreserved,asdoes the judiciary'sright to decidethe sentencing policy of the court. That is not to say, however, that the actions of the judiciary do not impactupon the aimsof the executive and vice versa. It is important, therefore, that a dialogue remains openbetween the two so that there is some correlation betweenpolicy and the workof criminal justice agencies on the one hand,and the criminal justice process and sentencing policy on the other. This particular objective is coveredin greater detail in Pillar 4 – Joint Working. Similarly, the above supporting objectives are translated into policy aims in the following chapterscovering the remaining eight criminal justice pillars'.

The Home Affairs Committee will uphold the values that society considers should underpin the component parts of the criminal justice process. These values translate into the following key aim of criminal justice policy:

T o e n hance the quality of life in Jersey by creating a safer community; reducing the fear of crime and the level of

crime, disorder, offending and re-offending; and to pursue policies which assist in the delivery of justice fairly, promptly and cost-effectively.

Action Plan

To achieve this key aim, the Committee will lead or support policies and initiatives which:

Support early intervention initiatives to address the risk factors that give rise to offending.

Support the rights of the accused, particularly the right to legal representation in appropriate cases.

Minimise the stress and inconvenience to victims and witnesses.

Encourage respect for the rule of law.

Support the Honorary Service in their parish duties.

Reduce the risk of bias or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or age.

Rehabilitate and re-educate offenders to change their attitude and behaviour.

Reduce the fear of crime.

Help to protect the Island from the threat of terrorism.

PILLAR 2 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS

IN T R ODUCTION

P o licydevelopment should beevidence-led if it is to be objectiveand take account oftrends in offending. As the RutherfordReport highlighted the collection of criminal justice data in Jersey has, hitherto, been fragmented and inconsistent. Departmentshave tended to develop information systems to meet theirown needs rather than for wider benefits. Insodoing, departments have sought only tobettermanage their ownbusiness;however, this does not help us to understand a criminal justice process which is dynamic and in which the rolesof departments such as the States of Jersey Police, Probation andAfter-Care Service and the courts are inextricably linked.
T h ereareseveral reasons whythe collection of criminal justice statistics hasnotdeveloped in a more holistic way. Criminal justice is a particularly complexarea with many variables; offenders, offences, antecedents, sentences, counting rules, etc.Itisonlyin recent years that the technology has existed to draw the threads togetherin a coherent and useful way. The costof such systemsremains prohibitive and the art of the possible' has meant measures being applied tomeetdepartmentalneeds rather than to inform the criminal justice process. Integrated information systems of such capability also require leadership at a high level to create the vision and drive a project forward.

T H E LONGER TERM VISION – AN INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (CJS)

T h e Jersey Legal Information Board (JLIB) has supported the need for a core management and information system for a number of years and has been advised by Professor Richard Susskind, Information TechnologyAdviserto the Lord Chief Justice, on approachesto developing such a system.
T o gether with JLIB, the Committeehasgiven its in-principlesupport for the vision of an integrated CJS and agreed that it would oversee the project given that it is better placed than the JLIB to progress future funding bids.Itwas agreed that the project shouldcorrespond with the States ofJersey's current change programme.
S o me progress has already been made. The technological infrastructure is in place to support collaborative, electronic working.The data tobe collected has been identified andsome process workhas been undertaken. Change programme work, in particular process re-engineering, will provide a frameworkwithinwhich this work might beundertaken and above all, there is a keennessamongstkey people to develop the waywe work. An integrated CJSis currently beingdevelopedin Northern Ireland through theCausewayproject. Causeway is a joint enterprise by the criminal justice organisations of Northern Ireland that aimstoimproveperformanceby sharing information electronically. Their vision is that all information shared within the CJS will be accurate, consistent, up-to-date and accessible electronically by staff whohave a need touse it.
T h ere would be little point, especially in the current financial climate, in attempting to justify a sophisticated, cross-departmental, IT solution without a clearand compelling businesscasebeing made. Consequently, a Scoping Study was undertaken from December 2004 to February 2005 to determine a sensible direction for Jersey and the costs/benefits, etc.The study wascarried out byDr.DebbieKing, formerly Jersey's Chief ProbationOfficer,andDouglas Mason of the ComputerServicesDepartment. The Study Teamconcluded that they couldnotrecommend the implementation of a sophisticated,fully integrated criminal justice system at this point, but recognised that this would be a desirable aim for Jersey in the longer term. Though benefits to integration were identified, they were not considered sufficient to outweigh the costs, difficulties, and risks of integration at this time. Instead, recommendationshavebeenmadewhichshould help to address someofthese issues in waysother than full systems integration, butwhichcould lay the foundations for a fully integrated criminal justice system, if and when the environmentbecomesmorefavourable.They considered this tobe a more realistic and achievable aim at present.The report and its recommendations are being considered bytheCommittee and JLIB.

T h e Rutherford Reportenvisaged that "a reliable, robust and consistent set of crime and criminal justice statistics be in place on an annual basis by the year 2005." The Home Affairs Committeetakesthe view that the achievement of this objective is not solely dependentupon the bigbang' solution of a fully integrated system.Indeed,muchis already being done to co-ordinate the production ofannual statistics on a moremodestscalethroughtheCriminal Justice Statistics Working Group whichbringstogether the planning and statistics specialists of all the criminal justice agenciesand the courts. Although the quality and accessibility of data varies between agencies, this has not precluded the production oflongitudinal statistics toinform policy making and planning.Consequently, the following statistical analysisseeksto provide a comprehensive picture of criminal justice trendsin Jersey, focussingon five main areas: the States of Jersey Police, the Magistrate'sCourt, the Youth Court, the Probation andAfter-Care Service and the Prison. As this consultationdocument goes to print, theHome Affairs Departmentis in the process ofanalysing the results ofthe Jersey CrimeSurvey2004.These will bepublished separately and referred to in this policydocument once updated for lodging au Greffe' for debateby the States of Jersey.

S ta t e s of Jersey Police - Recorded Crime Trends

S in ce the introduction oftheOPENsystem of recording offence data in 2001, the States of Jersey Police has begun to develop a comprehensive electronic database of recordedcrime showingthe nature of offences and offenders. Recorded crimes are those that arerecordedby the Policeanddonot denote all crimes that are committedin Jersey. There are a numberof reasons for this but, principally, it is because some crimes go unreported and therefore do not cometo the attention of the Police. Although unreported crime is estimated tobe around 40%of all crimes, official Police statistics provide reliable data oncrime trends.
S o cietyismostconcernedabout the recordedcrime level; the level ofoffencesagainst people and their property; and whether public disorderis prevalent. Chart 1shows that despite the popular belief that crime is rising, there has been a significantdecrease in recorded crimesince 1993. Chart 2 shows that acquisitive crime (i.e. wherepropertyor goods are acquired in theprocess) is showing a markeddecrease since 2001, whilstoffences against theperson and against property haveshown little change. Chart 3 would suggest that the public perception that public orderoffences are on the increaseisnotborne out by the trend in recorded offences.

Chart 1

Recorded Crime

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 Recorded Crime 3000

2000

Number of Crimes1000

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2004 Year

Chart 2

Types of Recorded Crime

3000

2500

2000 Aquisitive crime

Offences against the person 1500

Offences against property 1000 Drug offences

500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Chart 3

Public Order Offences

1400 1200

1000

800

Public Order Offences 600

400

200 0

M a g i strate's Court – Trends in Appearances and Sentencing

D ata for the Magistrate'sCourthas been obtained from a manual analysis of all charge sheets. Chart 4 shows therehave been markedly fewer offenders appearing in theMagistrate's Court since the late 1990s. This accords with the downturn in recorded crime over the same period. Chart 5, which shows the categories of offences dealt with in the Magistrate'sCourt,also highlights the downward trend in court appearances with the exceptionofbreachesof Court Orders.
T he sentencing trends in Chart 6reflectthesharpfall in the numberofshort custodial sentences up tothe mid 1990s and the increasing use of Probation and Community Service Orders as an alternative to custody. The overall riseincommittalstotheRoyal Court reflects increased offending oranincreased detection rate in relation to offending. The apparent drop in committals in 2001was caused by the increased jurisdiction of the Magistrate'scourt to 12 monthsand£5,000whichcame into effecton 26th October 2000.

Chart 4

No. of People Appearing at the Magistrates Court 1992 - 2004

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

No of people appearing at Magistrates Court

2002 2003 2004

Chart 5

Chart 6

Y o u t h Court

In 2004, statistics from the States of Jersey Police[1]show that therewas a 19% increase over 2003 in the number of youths caught offending, and a cumulative increase of72%since 2002. Despite this increase, there has only been a smallincrease in the number of youthsappearingbeforetheYouthCourt indicating that the majority of additional offendingis being dealt with at Parish Hall Enquiries.
T able 1 shows trends in the categories of offences beingdealt with bytheYouth Court. The most significant factors are –

R is e s in acquisitive crime, offences against the person and public disorder.

A si gnificant rise in the number of Court Order breaches.

D r u g abuse problems that might be affecting the young are not resulting in court appearances.

A h igh percentage rise in finance related offences, but the numbers are relatively small.

Table 1 – Offence Type

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change

97-03 Acquisitive 28 31 23 40 37 55 57 104% Against the Person 21 31 24 35 44 42 37 76% Financial 4 2 11 9 10 15 21 425% Against Property 11 14 12 13 11 10 11 0% Public Disorder 15 9 4 13 32 16 36 140% Traffic 76 76 56 71 92 61 71 -7% Drug Offences 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 -100% Other 0 0 1 1 5 6 14 140% Breach 6 8 9 4 20 46 30 400% Total 162 172 140 189 251 251 277 115%

T able 2 analyses Youth Court offences from Table 1 in termsofhow they were dealtwith.Rather than focus on the total numbersandtypesofoffences, this table enables an analysisof the changing pattern of sentence/disposal over the period. Themostsignificantfeaturesare –

F in e s form 18% of sentences in 2003 as opposed to 12½% in 1997.

P ro b ation has doubled in use having risen from 16% of sentences in 1997 to 30% in 2003.

Y o u th detention has risen only slightly over the period – from 2.4% of offences in 1997 to 3.6% in 2003.

T h e proportionate rise in remands to the Royal Court has been small – an increase of only 1%.

Table 2 – Sentences

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Change 97-03

Fine 20 18 13 26 47 45 52 160% B/Over 73 66 39 83 72 48 59 -19% B/Over – Les Chênes 1 1 3 4 7 1 0 -100% C/Service Order 9 16 20 14 35 28 20 122% C/Service & Probation 1 0 0 1 1 8 10 900% Royal Court 9 17 15 14 4 10 18 100% Probation 26 35 23 37 67 69 84 223% Attendance Centre 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 -100% AC & Probation 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% Youth Detention 4 9 8 2 8 14 10 150% BOTLI 1 1 5 0 3 2 2 100% Probation – Les Chênes 5 5 7 4 6 6 0 -100% Acquittal/Discharge/Dismiss 1 3 6 3 1 20 22 2100% Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -100% Total 162 172 140 189 251 251 277

P r o b ation and After-Care Service – Trends in Rehabilitative Sentencing

T he Probation and After-Care Service's Annual Report 2004 contains a wealth of useful statistical information. Inparticular, it details the following trends in rehabilitative sentencing –

1 . T h e re were 223 new Probation Orders made in 2004. Although this is slightly fewer than in the

peak years of 2000/2001, the total number of cases heard by the Magistrate's Court has dropped significantly over the period (see Chart 4).

2 . A similar comparison can be made with the peak years of 2000/2001 in respect of Community

Service Orders. A total of 189 Orders were made in 2004, which is 9 more than in 2003.

T he Annual Report contains an interesting analysis of the factors considered to be contributory to offending taken from the casesinwhichProbation have assisted in all three courts. This information bears out the importanceof addressing risk factors asexplainedin Pillar 5 – Early Intervention.

H M Prison La Moye

T he size ofthe prison populationatLaMoyewas highlighted in the RutherfordReport.At that time, Jersey's prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 150, rising to 208 when prisoners

accommodated and paid for in prisons in England and Wales were taken into account. The mean prison

population rate for European countries is 140 per 100,000 inhabitants. Only 18 months later, Jersey's prison population rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 216 for prisoners incarcerated at La Moye, rising to 248 when corrected for prisoners in England and Wales (see Appendix 4). Our incarceration level is more than twice that of Western European states such as Holland, France, Italy and Germany, and also of island states such as the Isle of Man and Guernsey.

C R I M E IN JERSEY – WHAT THE STATISTICS SAY

P eopleget their information aboutcrime from many different sources; they mayhave had personal experience; they mayknowsomeonewho has been a victim oroffender; the media influences people's perceptions of how safeour island is, asdoannual reports from our criminal justice agencies.As in many other communitiesthe variety of information sources can leadtosomeconfusionabout the true picture of crime andcriminalityin Jersey.
F irstly, it is generally perceived that crime is increasing in our Island. The reality is that, overthe11-year period from 1993-2004 there was a 15% drop in recordedcrime and a 33% drop in Magistrate's Court appearances. In 2004, overall recorded crimewas 4.6% up on the 3-yearaveragefor January toJune. However,caremustbetaken in deducing that crimeison the increase.Recent changes to the wayin which assaults in particular are recorded have had a marked influence onthe figures. For example, the Police now record cases of minor assault with no injury and no desire from the victim to make a complaint. Similarly, the Police can now identify hot spots' using the technology available to them. Perversely, focused policinginthese areas can have the effect of increasing recordedcrimein the short term.
S econdly,youthoffending is seen as a particular problem in Jersey. Unfortunately, the States of Jersey Police has only been able to keep reliable data onthe ages of offenders for the past 2 years,so it is too early to show anylong-term trends. Nevertheless,itis a fact that 32%ofdetectedoffences in Jersey in 2004 were committedbyyouthsunder the age of 18. Suchan increase isnotdue solely to demographic change. The States of Jersey Policehas had an increased detection rate and employedintelligence-led tasking to target crimeanddisorderhotspots.TheStatesof Jersey Police consider they are apprehending a

greater number of existing offenders rather than there being a significant surge in youth crime.[2] Youth Court statistics do show a remarkable increase in appearances from 2000 onwards; however, as Table 2

shows, there has been no corresponding increase in the percentage of children being placed in youth detention or referred to the Royal Court whereas the Court's use of Probation has doubled over the period. This indicates that whilst more young people are appearing before the Youth Court, the percentage of those committing serious offences remains fairly static. However, the statistics in relation to Probation are probably distorted for 2 reasons. Firstly, the lack of a secure sentencing option or secure Children's Home accommodation for youths under 15, other than 2 welfare placements available at Greenfields, has meant that persistent offenders have been placed on Probation repeatedly. Secondly, the increase in the sentencing jurisdiction of the Youth Court on 26th October 2000 created a situation in which youths who were under 17 and who, therefore, under the terms of the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, could not be sentenced by any court to more than 12 months at the Young Offenders Institution, could not be sentenced for a longer period by the Royal Court than the sentence available to the Youth Court. Consequently, the Youth Court generally stopped committing those under 17 to the Royal Court.

F inally, there is a commonmisconception that beating crime means locking up criminals. Jerseyhas the reputation ofbeing a somewhat punitive society but custodial sentences for drug trafficking tend tobe longer in Jersey than in other jurisdictions. Jersey'sprison population ratefor2003of 248 per100,000 population putsit in the upperquartileofprison populations in Europe.58%ofsentencedoffendersin the Prison have a drug offence astheir primary crime. 41%ofprisoners are serving more than 4 years. However, the reconviction study conductedon behalf oftheProbationandAfter-Care Service shows that custodial sentences do not rehabilitate those at greater risk of re-offending with 69% having been

reconvicted within 2 years. The figure for young offenders was 85%[3].

Criminal justice policy development needs to be evidence-led in order to take account of trends in offending. Hitherto, departments have tended to develop information systems in order to meet their own business needs. However, criminal justice is a complex and dynamic process and the ability to access a common database would create efficiencies in document management, the removal of duplication and accuracy of statistical information. Such an integrated criminal justice system will take time to deliver; consequently, the Home Affairs Committee envisages a long term and a short term strategy.

In the long term, the Committee aims to develop an integrated criminal justice information and document management system. A project of such complexity will require significant financial investment; a Scoping Study was carried out in early 2005 and its recommendations are being considered by the Committee and the JLIB.

The Home Affairs Department and other criminal justice agencies have had the foresight to produce criminal justice statistics annually using systems currently in place. In keeping with Recommendation 2 of the Rutherford Report, a Criminal Justice Statistics Working Group has been set up to continue this work until an integrated solution is in place.

Action Plan

Implement the recommendations of the Integrated CJS Scoping Study as appropriate and bid for any necessary resources.

In the meantime, continue to produce co-ordinated criminal justice statistics annually using current systems through the Criminal Justice Statistics Working Group.

PILLAR 3 – LOOKING AFTER VICTIMS

IN T R ODUCTION

"The greatest task facing the criminal justice system was to protect the vulnerable."

Mr. Justice Moses, Soham Murder Trial

T o o often, in the past, victims andwitnesses have been treatedwithout due consideration byagencies within the criminal justice system.Itis a factthat,in most criminal justice systems,once a victim reports a crime, they have very little, if any, involvement inthe investigation, prosecutionandoutcome of their case. Theymayhavebeen asked to provide witness statements to the Police andthecourtsbut it is very rare for them to be provided withany information about the progress of the caseincluding the outcome.

V I C T IMISATION IN JERSEY

S ta tistics from the Jersey Crime Survey2004 show that approximatelyonein 4 respondents to the survey had been a victim of crime in the preceding 12 months. Furthermore, the chanceofbeing victimised, during the 12-month period, forthesame type ofcrime a second time ismuch greater than normal i.e. becoming a repeat victim. For example, according to respondents,thechance of havingsomething stolen from your car a first time is one in 49;however, the chance ofbeing victimised a second time is onein5. The chance ofhavingyourhouseburgled is one in47; the chanceof it happening again is onein4.For sexual assault the probabilities are a onein72chance of becoming a victim and a one in 3 chanceof becoming a repeat victim.Repeat victimisation istherefore a key issue.
O n ly 54%of respondents reported the incidentto the Statesof Jersey Police. Official police statistics[4] show that, just over30%ofrecorded crimes led to a prosecutionwhichmeans that approximately one in 11 households who reported being victimised would have seen an offender prosecuted. 60% of respondents to the Jersey CrimeSurvey stated that they avoided certainareasatnight because of a fearof victimisation. 22%ofpeople felt unsafe walking intheirownneighbourhoodafterdark.
In developingpolicy proposals, wemustbe careful not to overlook issues such asviolence against staff and so-called hidden victims'. It is unfortunate that there is an increasing incidence ofviolenceand hostility against professionalstaffsuch as nurses, social workers, doctors, police officers, prison officers and othergroupswho are legitimately carrying out their duties onbehalfof the widercommunity.These staff groups deservesupport in the difficult work they undertake and are entitled to protection just like any othermember of the community. It is essential that we do notallowabuse against healthand social care staff, in particular, to be legitimised because the individual perpetrator maybeexperiencingpersonal, social orphysical difficulties.

T H E IMPACT OF CRIME:

T h e focusgroupon Looking AfterVictims' defined a victim assomeonewhohassufferedby reason of a crime. Taken literally this couldbe interpreted asmeaningeveryone in society.We all have to pay for insurance, to putlocks on doors and windows,we are taxedto pay for the police and otheremergency services. Crime clearly has an impactonusall. This policy concentratesontheresponseof criminal justice agenciesand their partnersand, therefore, a specific definition of a victim hasbeendeveloped.For the purposes of this policy, a victim is defined as Someone who has suffered physical, emotional, financial or spiritual harm, either directly or indirectly, real or threatened, as a result of a crime.'
C e ntral to any discussion on the placeof the victim within the criminal justice system isan understanding of the impact that crimehason victims, their friends andfamily,and society as a whole.Inthe1988, British Crime Survey(BCS) respondents wereasked if they had hadanyemotionalreactionsto their victimisation. The following table illustrates the proportion ofall victims affected in variouswaysby their victimisation.

Personal Crimes Household Crimes Victim experienced emotional reactions 66% 51% Victim affected very much' or quite a lot' 44% 27% Victim affected for at least a week 27% 12% Victim's worst reaction:

n u is a nce 3% 30%

an g e r 10% 18%

sh o c k 26% 5%

fi n a n cial loss 3% 13%

fe a r 13% 8%

in v a s ion of privacy 1% 9%

se n t im ental loss 1% 3%

in j u ry 7% 0% Source: BCS (1988)

T h e table shows that victims' reactions tocrime are more orless as would beexpected.Over60%of victims of personal crime stated that they had suffered some form of emotional reaction. A higher percentage ofvictimsofpersonalcrime stated that they wereaffectedforat least a week.The2000BCS confirmed that the most common reaction for victims of burglary, domestic violence and stranger violence wasanger.Thefollowingchartsummarises the findings.

Chart 7

Nature of emotional reactions of victims of Burglary,

Domestic Violence and Stranger

80 Violence

60 Burglary 50

40 Domestic 30 Violence 20 Stranger 10 Violence

Difficulty

Anger Shock Fear Sleeping

Source:

BCS 2000

V a rious studies have attempted to quantify the cost (in monetary terms) of different typesofcrimeon [5]

victims. A study conducted by the Home Office in 2000 estimated a range of costs, including costs in anticipation of crime and those as a consequence of crime. These costs are summarised in the table at Appendix 5, and extrapolated for offences in Jersey in 2001. The Home Office model suggests that the cost suffered by victims in Jersey in 2001 could be estimated at c. £28 million.

C U R RENT PROVISION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME IN JERSEY

T h e followingareexamplesof the waysinwhichvictimsare offered support in Jersey. There are many other agencies giving support to the victims ofcrime, often as part of a more general support service – good examples,bynomeansexhaustive,areBrook, Citizens AdviceBureau, Samaritans, Shelter Trust, Alcoholics Anonymous, Jersey Addiction Group. Discussions are continuing with representatives from Jersey Police (States and Honorary), Health and Social Services,ProbationandAfter-Care Service and

Prison to introduce a multi-agency panel to consider the small number of individuals who pose the greatest risk in

terms of serious offending or harm to others and identify ways to minimise the risk to the public. It is anticipated that the new procedures will be in place by the summer of 2005. The Attorney General will shortly be issuing revised draft guidelines for prosecuting counsel in relation to the treatment of victims.

S ta t e s of Jersey Police

T he Police are the firstpoint of contact with thecriminal justice process for mostvictims. The attending officer will provide the victim with a leaflet containing information oncrime prevention, victim support and other support agencies. ThePolicekeep the victim informed ofcourtdates and, at the conclusion of proceedings, will advise victims, in writing, of the outcome. If a victim is required to attend court as a witness then the Witness Notification Clerk will provide them with a booklet explaining the process.
In thecaseof a serious crimesuchasmurder,orwhere a childisinvolved, the Police have specialist staff including theFamily Protection Team, Family Liaison Officersand Victim Liaison Officers to offer advice. In some cases the information gathered from the victim in relation tothe harm sufferedas a result of criminal activity will assist the courtduring criminal proceedings.
T he Police ProceduresandCriminal Evidence (Jersey)Law 2003, requires a system of appropriate adults' to be in place to assist in dealing with detained persons who are deemedtobe vulnerable in, for example, interview situations. Health andsocial care professionals are currently fulfilling this role but this is proving to be a distraction from their normal work. A joint working group is reviewing the provision ofappropriate adults which, following the UK's experience may, subject to consultation, be provided byvolunteergroupsor through agencies such as the Citizens Advice Bureau.

J er s e y Victim Support Scheme

Je rsey Victim Support provides emotional and practical support to victims of crime. The service is both confidential and free. Victim Support volunteers are trained to the national standard. Jersey Victim Support currently deals with approximately 400 referrals per year.

J er s e y Rape Crisis

Je rseyRapeCrisis provides male and female victims of rape and sexualabuse with both emotional and practical support. It operates a 24-hour free-phone number and is operated by appropriately trained Victim Supportstaffandvolunteers.

J er s e y Women's Refuge

T heRefuge offers safeaccommodationtowomen and children suffering domestic abuse.Trained staff and volunteers maintain a 24-hourservice, with help,adviceand counselling. Jersey Women'sRefuge also operates anOutreachServicewhich raises awarenessof the issues surrounding domestic abuse; provides training for agencies in the private, voluntary and public sectors;and supports womenand children inthecommunity.TheRefugeis recognised as a leader in best practice asevidencedby their invitation to run a domestic advice workshopin Gibraltar inMay 2004.

C o m pensation

V ictims who have sufferedpersonal injury, loss ofearningsor loss ordamagetopropertymay qualify for compensation.There are 3 sourcesofcompensation available to victims ofcrimein Jersey depending upon the circumstances:

A C ompensation Order against the offender

T h e c o u r t m ay order the offender to pay compensation in addition to the sentence imposed for the

criminality of the offence. The victim cannot apply for this directly.

A ci vil action

W h a te v e r t h e result of the criminal case, a victim can sue the offender for damages in the Royal

Court. The increased jurisdiction of the Petty Debts Court allows general damages to be claimed up to a maximum of £10,000.

C r im inal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS)

If a v ic t im h as been injured as a result of an offence they can apply for compensation from the

CICS. In 2003, the CICS' budget was raised by £100,000 to £284,000. The current maximum amount payable is £100,000 although the CICS Board would prefer to see this raised to £250,000. The States of Jersey is unlikely to approve this during the present climate of budgetary stringency. The effect would be for one large award to take up virtually all the budget. Exceeding the budget would impact on front-line services funded by the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee would not, therefore, accede to this.

R e p a ration

T he Probation and After-Care Service runs the Jersey Victim-Offender Conferencing Scheme as a restorative justice initiative which has seensome remarkably positive results in the 2 years it hasbeen running. It currently deals, almost exclusively, with young offenders, and results from satisfaction surveys show that both offenders and victims find the experience very useful. (see Pillar 8 – Dealing with Offenders').
T hefocusgroupdiscussions highlighted the fact that much commendablevoluntaryworkgoeson across a rangeof support agenciestomeet the needsof victims. However,suchagencies are largely independent of each other andsometimes find difficulty in accessing andunderstanding the criminal justice process. Independence,of course, has been their strengthin that they provide unique, practical support outside the public gaze. It would be helpful, however, if government facilitated the coming together' of these agencies on a regular basis in order to shareexperience and create a more effective interface with the Courts and the criminal justice agencies.The advantages of this were recognised by the UKGovernment in its 2002 White Paper Justice ForAll' with its aim of creating a better dealfor victims, witnesses and communities'.

C U R RENT THINKING IN HELPING VICTIMS

[6]

T heUKhas published its national strategy for delivering improved services to victims and witnesses . It starts from the premise that the criminal justice processneeds to become more attuned to the needsof victims and witnesses, but recognises that thoseneedsextendbeyond what criminal justice agenciescan offer on theirown.
It states that "victims of crime need to feel that the criminal justice process is accessible and responsive, seeks to make amends as far as possible for the damage done by the crime, and will protect them from further harm." The report continues that victims "want to be treated with respect, discretion and consideration they want to be treated as individuals, with the response being appropriate to them and proportionate to the crime." The report states that victims need practical help, emotional support, compensation or reparation for injury and loss.
T he report highlights thefact that somevictimshave particular needs.Forexample –

C h i ldren and Young People: Many children and young people experience victimisation and the

consequences can be serious both at the time and for their later development, including the potentially increased risk of turning to offending behaviour. Children may have particular difficulty understanding and articulating the need for help and may be fearful of the consequences of, for example, telling parents or others in authority.

R e peat Victims: Repeat victimisation is still underreported. However, targeting repeat

victimisation can both help to reduce the distress of some of the most vulnerable and intimidated victims, and be

an effective strategy against persistent offenders.

V i c tims of Domestic Violence: Domestic violence has the highest rate of repeat victimisation of any crime, with over 50% of incidents being repeats.
M in ority Ethnic Communities: Language difficulties, unfamiliarity with the criminal justice process, pressure from within their communities and fear of intimidation or stigmatisation can make reporting a crime incredibly difficult for victims of hate crime.
H id den Victims': It should also be recognised that many victims, such as those mentioned above,

the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled, are often unable or unwilling to report abuse to the police or other authorities. For these victims we need to ensure that there are mechanisms in place to identify hidden victims' and to provide support and advice outside of the formal criminal justice process.

T hereport focuses on five key issues which are relevant to Jerseyandwhichcould form the basisof a victim strategy –

1 . C l arifying responsibilities and accountability of criminal justice agencies: What criminal

justice agencies, including the Honorary system, are responsible for, and to whom they are accountable, in the context of dealing with victims and witnesses needs to be clear as should the type and level of service, and the division of responsibilities between agencies.

2 . C a se preparation, progression and management: Good case management, from reporting to

disposal, is essential so as to achieve certainty in listing arrangements and to ensure minimum inconvenience to victims and witnesses.

3 . S u p porting victims and witnesses and keeping them informed: Victims and witnesses need to

be well supported and informed. This includes consistent and timely referral to Victim Support. It includes developing a needs assessment approach to identify victims and witnesses who require more support and/or are at risk of non-attendance. It includes the need to better understand the particular experience of those victims mentioned above, such as victims of hate crime.

4 . M a king it easier for victims/witnesses to give evidence: It should be easier for victims and

witnesses to give evidence. Wider use of TV links, the use of intermediaries and some restrictions on cross-examination should be available to provide the most vulnerable witnesses, such as victims of domestic violence, sexual assault etc. the opportunity of presenting evidence without fear of intimidation or retribution.

5 . T a c kling witness intimidation: Witness intimidation is a significant problem in the UK. We have

no data available locally but, given the size of our community and the fact that we live on a small island, the potential for witness intimidation is great. We need to ensure that the court environment protects victims and witnesses. The new Magistrate's Court will significantly improve facilities in this regard. There needs to be early identification of the possibility of intimidation with the police and the courts working together to protect the most vulnerable.

It isofparamountimportance that wedevelop a local strategy for ensuring that servicesto victims and witnesses are high quality. This could be achieved in partnership with the Victim Support Service commencing with a reviewof the existing Jersey Victims' Charter.

J er s e y Victims' Charter

T heVictims' Charter contains11 principles which form The Statementof Rights for Victims' –

1 . T h e interests of victims should be balanced against those of the defendant.

2 . V ic tims of crime and, where relevant their immediate family, must not be discriminated against on

the basis of age, gender, sexuality, disability, culture, race, religious belief, occupation, political opinion or the nature of his or her complaint.

V i ct i ms must have the right to –

3 . R e s pect and recognition at all stages of the criminal justice proceedings;

4 . R e c eive information and explanation about the progress of their case;

5 . P r o vide information to the court responsible for decisions relating to the defendant; 6 . A sk for their physical safety and their psychological well-being to be protected;

7 . A sk for protection from any intrusion into their privacy;

8 . R e c eive information regarding their rights and the services available;

9 . H av e access to free victim support services;

1 0 . A p ply for compensation both from the offender and from the state;

1 1 . H a ve access to health care services.

T heVictims' Charter was a significantstep forward when it wasintroduced in 1996. Sincethen,much has beendoneto address the rights of victims, notleast through public fundingofthe Victim Support Service; the availability of information at all stages on caseprogression; the availability ofcompensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Compensation Orders; and the sensitive handling ofvictims' health needsas a result of violent or sexual crime.
H owever,the Charter needs updating to take accountofdevelopmentsinthe 21st Century and the Home Office New Deal' research. Firstly, with the advent of theData Protection Law, there issometimes a perception that the crime,once reported, is nolonger the victim's crime' and that the best a victim can hope for is to be a witness in the case. Participation in the criminal justice process can be a key ingredient in helping the victim come to terms with what has happenedtothem.Therestorative justice process,in use in Parish Hall Enquiries, is a goodexampleofhow victims canremain the most importantpersonin the case.
S econdly, victim impactstatements need to be routinely available to thecourtsinorder that the impactof crimes onvictims can betakenfully into account during sentencing.The Attorney General has agreed with the Royal Court the protocols to be used in producing victim impact statements. They are professionally produced, usually by a psychologistor psychiatrist, and only with the agreementof the victims.
T hirdly, media intrusion remains a difficult areaandsomewhatof a double-edgedsword'. Victims must be madeaware,atanearlystage,ofthe likely media interest. Although they may not be named in media reports, other publicity will often lead to their identification. Domesticviolence is a particular areawhere the namingof the offender can leadinexorably to the identification of the victim. In allbutexceptional cases, the courts are loath to shackle themedia'sright to report on courtproceedingsinwhat is a public forum. In a broader sense, publicity canoftenbe beneficial. Forexample, the reportingof domestic violence cases raises publicawareness that domesticviolenceis a crime and will betreated seriously by the courts. Moreover, victims of domestic violence often feel that justice has been done when the perpetrator'sname appears in the newspaper.

F ourthly, although compensation is available, funding is becoming tighter as budgetary pressures start to bite. Despite this, funding is provided currently through the Building a Safer Society Strategyat a levelof approximately £30,000 per annum and the Committee will aim to continue this level of support. However,when the Service was set up, ithadbeenthe intention that, as a charitable trust, itshould become self-financing in time by seeking private sector support and donations. This is a particular challenge for the Service'sCommitteewhich is aware that public sector financial support is likely to becomemore difficult to sustain.
I n so far as keeping victims informed of the progressoftheircaseis concerned, there is an efficient system for notifying victims of the first court appearanceof the accused; however, the system does not work as well where cases are remanded to a later date. There is a need to establish where the responsibilities of the States of Jersey Police transfer to a centenier or the LegalAdviser in orderto ensure continuity in the treatment ofvictims.Intermsofprovidingcompensation,victimswillbe better able to pursue a civil claim now that the jurisdiction of the Petty Debts Court has been increased to allow claims for personaldamages to bemadeupto£10,000.

M e a s uring Our Success in Looking After Victims

It is possible to have an efficient criminal justice processand yet not meet the needsof victims. Therefore, we need a separatemethodofmeasuringourperformance in looking after victims' needs. A number of performance measures are already in place: thePolice Satisfaction Survey, the Jersey Crime Victimisation Survey andvalidationsof service carriedoutby Jersey Victim Support.

Rates of reported and recorded crime mean that many victims and witnesses of crime never see the perpetrators brought to justice. Helping them is therefore a lot more complex than simply assisting them through the court process. Jersey has developed a close network of agencies involved in providing support to those affected by the consequences of crime, for example, the States of Jersey Police, the Honorary Police, Victim Support, the Women's Refuge, the Brook Agency, Citizens Advice Bureau and Crimestoppers. We also have statutory provision for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Compensation Orders. As a result of the Crime and Community Safety Strategy, a Victims' Charter was developed in 1996 and the Victim Support Service set up. There is now a wide variety of agencies involved, in one form or another, in victim support who are keen to work more closely together. For its part, the Home Affairs Committee is committed to ensuring that everything is done within the resources available to minimise the level of victimisation through crime prevention measures and to help people who have been the victims of crime. However, justice must remain objective and victims should not have direct input into the administration of justice. Account also needs to be taken of the needs of repeat victims and hate crime victims. Research carried out by the UK Home Office for its strategy A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses' provides a useful and relevant framework for reviewing local arrangements for victim support.

Action Plan

The Home Affairs Committee will:

Establish a Victims' Agencies Forum to bring together agencies representing the victims of crime and witnesses.

Update the Victims' Charter in order to take account of significant developments since its initial publication such as human rights and data protection legislation, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Law, restorative justice techniques, media interest, the increased jurisdiction of the lower criminal and civil courts and the UK's experience in developing the New Deal' initiative.

Review the funding arrangements for the Jersey Victim Support Scheme in consultation with the Jersey Victim Support Committee.

Carry out a Crime Victimisation Survey every 3 years, in order to gauge the public's perception of safety, the levels of unreported crime, the needs of victims, and the quality and extent of assistance given.

Review the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Evidence and Procedure) (Jersey) Law, 1997, to make it less restrictive so that victims and witnesses could present their evidence without fear of intimidation or retribution.

PILLAR 4 – JOINT WORKING

IN T R ODUCTION

T h e componentpartsof criminal justice are referred to bysomeas a system' and by others as a process'. The distinction we would draw is that a system' is achievedwhenthe separate processes' of decision taking, from the initial response to an offence through to the dispositional of sentenced offenders, are linked up.
W i thin thecriminal justice system, effective communication is a prerequisite for successfuljoint working and, in this instance, ithastwofoci. Firstly, it is aboutensuring that all agencies within the system are communicatingand have a common understanding. Agencies have been allowed to develop theirownIT structures with the result that it is often difficult for them to share even basicinformation.To some extent this has been recognisedby the Jersey Legal Information Board (JLIB) and it is hoped that the change programme currently under way inthepublicsector will encourage a more integrated approach.
S e condly, differing organisational cultures canbe difficult to reconcile i.e. betweenthoseagencies with a punitive, enforcementapproach and those with a more social, preventativeapproach. Fortunately, the work undertaken in implementing the Building a Safer Society Strategy – and the Crime and Community Safety and SubstanceMisuse Strategies before it – has ameliorated many of the cross-cultural issues. The formation of the Children'sExecutive, and in particular that oftheYouth Action Team, will further work to break down the barriers.

E X I S TING NETWORKS

T h ere are a great many agencies across all sectors which have a potential impact on the aims and objectives ofany criminal justice policy. In Jersey, we are fortunate in that we have a strong tradition of joint working, especially at the operational level. The diagram atAppendix 6 highlights the numerous interactions which Home Affairs departments have on a regular basis with other departments and agencies within andoutsidethe Island.
Jo i ntworkinghasbeen a particular strength in the criminal justice field for a considerable period of time. Aside from themore routine contacts highlighted in the diagram, all the agencieswithinthe criminal justice system, together with Health andSocialServices,Education,SportandCultureandHousinghave met on a regular basisat political, strategic andoperational levels since 1995, as part oftheircommitment to the Crime andCommunity Safety andSubstanceMisuseStrategies.At the operational level, the Senior Officer Group,whichhas13 membersandisresponsible for implementing the latest strategy, hasmet bi- monthly since 1995. It is recognised as one of the most successful multi-agency partnershipgroups operating in the States of Jersey. Whilstthere have been some difficult issuesto resolve, over the past 3 years the group has worked well together culminating in the States of Jersey's adoption of the new joint strategy Building a SaferSociety'.
J o int working is a simple enoughconcept but it is difficult andcomplextoimplement successfully. Within the criminal justice agencies themselves, there are a numberof good examples.The States of Jersey Police engage the Honorary Police in weekly tasking briefings; speeding and drink drive' campaigns; and joint, high visibility policing in the town. They have recently produced a joint MemorandumofUnderstandingin the conduct ofoperations. Work with the Children's Service involves joint training, caseconferences and intelligence sharing.TheCustoms and Immigration Departmentand the States of Jersey PoliceworktogetherontheJoint Intelligence BureauandtheJoint Financial Crime Unit to makethebestuseof intelligence andco-ordinateoperations. Virtually allProbation'seffort involves partnership working. Their unique relationship with Parish Hall Enquiries is particularly effective whilst a partnership with the Prison and Securicor enabled electronic monitoring to be introduced in Jersey. More recently, the Children's Executive, comprisingsenior officers oftheHome Affairs, Probation and After-Care, Education, Sport and Culture and Health and Social Services

Departments, have worked together effectively to draw up an implementation plan for the Bull Report[7]

recommendations.

D e spite the desire ofagencies to work more closely together, there are always barriers to beovercome, some of them a product of modern society. Data protection allows us to share information in an appropriate way whilst protecting the rights ofthe individual. Lack of integrated IT andcasemanagement leads to duplicated effort and delay.Theknock-on effect to the Prisonof drug sentencing policy hasbeen a dramatic increase in the prison population which should have been anticipated. Therefore, funding should have been secured to deal with this anticipated rise, orat least the additional cost taken into consideration whenapproving the change in sentencing policy.

H I G H LEVEL' JOINT WORKING

T h e Rutherford Report recommended the establishment of a body with oversight responsibility for criminal justice policy. Tobe called the Criminal Justice Policy Oversight Council, its task would beto keep under review and co-ordinate all legislative and other initiatives relevant to criminal justice in order to encourage a joined-up approach that fully respects the independence appropriate to the essential separation ofpowers.
W hilst it is clear that effective jointworking has becomecommonplaceat officer level, both inthe conduct of operations and the developmentof strategy, the same cannotbesaid for liaison between the executive and the judiciary at the highest level. Meetingsdo take place, but they tend tobe ad hoc in nature to discuss specific issues. Clearly, as the RutherfordReportsuggests, there are clear boundaries of responsibility which must bepreserved. Sentencing policy isthepreserveof the Court, whilst legislation, resourcing and the direction ofoperational departments belongto the executive.However, the criminal justice process implies a synergy between the executiveandthe judiciary which would benefit from a policy and planning forum.Rather than establish a formal body with oversight responsibility, thereis a willingness amongst both parties to interact on a more regular and informal basis.

Pillar 4 – Policy Statement

Joint working is now a cornerstone of States of Jersey policy as well as a vital part of the criminal justice process which assures a common understanding of criminal justice issues, helps to reconcile differences in approach, minimises duplication of service, and provides value-for-money by ensuring that resources are applied for best effect. At operational level, criminal justice agencies have worked hard to achieve this but there is a need for better joint working at the highest level.

Action Plan

The Home Affairs Committee will:

Continue to strive for effective joint working, not only between the criminal justice agencies reporting to it, but also the partner agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Establish an informal forum for criminal justice policy and planning involving the executive, the judiciary and the prosecution.

PILLAR 5 – EARLY INTERVENTION

IN T R ODUCTION

M ostmodern-daycrime prevention initiatives areaimedat reducing opportunities tooffendorprevent crimes re-occurringin particular locations or situations. Theimpactofimproved security or surveillance may beassessedover a relatively shorttimeframe. In contrast, early intervention crime prevention focuses on a range ofsocial and individual factors that impingeonchildren's development, thereby encompassing a broadarrayofprogrammes and interventions. Causal connections and the effects of these programmes are hard to measure. However, there is a growing body of literature which demonstrates a strong correlation between certain kinds of negative early childhood experiences and later offending. Most importantly, it is widelyacknowledged that persuasive evidence has emerged over recent years indicating that interventions early in life can have long-termimpactsoncrime and othersocialproblems.
B y its nature, intervention is designed to prevent offendingtaking place, whilst diversion and treatment seek to assist those with the root causes of their problems, normally in a non-punitive way. The relationship between riskfactors, offending and the criminal justice process is depictedon the table overleaf.

W H A T IS EARLY INTERVENTION TO PREVENT CRIMINALITY'?

A report from the South Australian Crime Prevention Unit, entitled "Pathways to Prevention: Early Intervention and Developmental Approaches to Crime in Australia" identified a numberofkeyconcepts of early intervention to prevent criminality.
E a rly intervention aims to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals. It does this by aiming to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors; that research has shown toberelated to later offending. Interventions are most effectively targetedat transition points'. Pathways through life fork out in different directions at the kind of crucial transition points that mark new experiences and new relationships.These are the timeswhen people, especially young children, are most vulnerable to negative influences, but are also when they are most likely to be open to support and assistance. Interventions are most likely to be effective if they work at multiple levels, concurrentlyand target multiple risk factors and/or develop multiple protective factors. Interventions are most effective if introduced early in the pathway to offending.

M o d ifiable Risk Factors for Criminality

A s mentionedabove,early intervention works by reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors. Although comprehensive research has identified numerouspredictors,it is possibletogrouptheserisks and protective factors under five broadheadings.

[8]

Table 4. Risk and protective factors associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour

RISK FACTORS

CHILD FACTORS FAMILY FACTORS SCHOOL LIFE EVENTS COMMUNITY AND CONTEXT CULTURAL

FACTORS

Prematurity

Low birth weight Disability

Prenatal brain damage Birth injury

Low intelligence Difficult temperament Chronic illness Insecure attachment

Parental characteristics: Teenage mothers Single parents Psychiatric disorder Substance abuse Criminality Antisocial models Family environment:

School failure Normative beliefs about aggression Deviant peer group Bullying

Peer rejection

Poor attachment to school

Inadequate behaviour

Divorce and family break-up

War or natural disasters

Death of family member

Socio-economic disadvantage Population density and housing conditions Urban area Neighbourhood violence and crime Cultural norms concerning violence as

Poor problem-solving Family violence and management acceptable response to Beliefs about aggression disharmony frustration

Attributions Marital discord Media portrayal of

Poor social skills Disorganised violence

Low self-esteem Negative Lack of support services Lack of empathy interaction/social Social or cultural Alienation isolation discrimination Hyperactivity/disruptive Large family size

behaviour Father absence

Impulsivity Long-term parental

unemployment

Parenting Style:

Poor supervision and

monitoring of child

discipline style (harsh

or inconsistent)

Rejection of child

Abuse

Lack of warmth and

affection

Low involvement in

child's activities

Neglect

PROTECTIVE FACTORS

CHILD FACTORS FAMILY FACTORS SCHOOL LIFE EVENTS COMMUNITY AND CONTEXT CULTURAL

FACTORS

Social competence Supportive caring Positive school climate Meeting significant Access to support Social skills parents Pro-social peer group person services

Above average Family harmony Responsibility and Moving to new area Community networking intelligence More than 2 years required helpfulness Opportunities at critical Attachment to the Attachment to family between siblings Sense of turning points or major community

Empathy Responsibility for belonging/bonding life transitions Participation in church Problem-solving chores or required Opportunities for some or other community Optimism helpfulness success at school and group

School achievement Secure and stable recognition of Community/cultural Easy temperament family achievements norms against violence Internal locus of control Supportive relationship School norms A strong cultural

Moral beliefs with other adult concerning violence identity and ethnic pride Values Small family size

Self-related cognition Strong family norms

Good coping style and morality

T h e aboveexamplesofrisk factors havebeenprovento increase the riskofoffending.Some of them are causative i.e. they may contribute to causing offending.Othersmaybeco-relatedi.e. they maynot cause offending but they maybeseeninthe lives ofpeoplewho offend. Protective factors are factors which tend to protect against developing offending behaviour, or are co-related with non-offending. The relationship betweenriskfactors, protective factors and offendingbehaviouriscomplex.Nosinglerisk factor has a strongenoughimpactto cause' criminal behaviourandno one protective factor canprevent criminal behaviour. Similarly, not everyone affectedbyrisk factors will offend; and not everyone who offends isaffected by risk factors.

W h a t Works in Early Intervention

R e searchto date suggests that the most effective results are achievedbyworking with multiple riskand protective factors at multiple levels.
In t erventions that have been shown to workinclude –

• L o n g-term support to the parents of very young children, enabling them to provide appropriate

care, stimulation and support to their children. The right kinds of programmes can reduce abuse and neglect of children, build the social and cognitive capacities of children, and improve their life chances and those of their parents.

• E ar l y childhood, pre-school and early primary school programmes that build particular social, emotional and cognitive capacities of children.

• P ro g rammes which build supportive school environments and provide positive experiences of schooling.

• P r o g rammes which deal with aggressive behaviour, oppositional disorder or behaviour disorders at different ages.

• P r o g rammes for children, which build positive relationships between peers and adults.

• C o n s tructive responses to early anti-social or criminal behaviour.

C o s t- Benefits to Jersey of Early Intervention

M u ch has beenmade of lateof the cost ofGovernmentto the tax payers of the Island. Whenbeing forced

to make cuts in expenditure, agencies often have to focus on those programmes which tackle immediate problems

and produce small, short-term gains. Unfortunately, this means that, in some instances, more far reaching programmes, with the potential of achieving significant improvements in the long-term, are sidelined.

A numberof projects have been evaluated, mostlyin the US,in respect oftheir monetary benefits. Amongst those recently analyzedorre-analyzed are the following:

• P e r r y Pre-school Project – this project provided centre-based classes and teacher home visits for

one or 2 school years to 58 children aged 3 or 4 in Ypsilanti, Michigan from 1962 to 1967. Benefits were tracked for both the participants and a comparison group through to age 27. Benefits included better school performance, higher employment, less welfare dependency, and lower involvement in criminal activity. In monetary terms, society benefited to the tune of $50,000 per child, half of that in the form of savings to government.

• P a re ntal/Early Infancy Project – in Elmira, New York, nurses started visiting mothers when they were pregnant and continued until the child was 2. The objective was to improve pregnancy outcomes and parenting skills and link the mother with social services. Between 1978 and 1980 the programme reached 116 first-time mothers. They and another 184 in the control group have been followed through to age 15 of the first-born child. Improvements for the mothers included better pregnancy behaviours and less child abuse in the short-term and lower welfare participation and criminal behaviour in the long-term. The children benefited as well in several domains. For the higher-risk portion of the sample, benefits to society amounted to $31,000 per first-time mother.

• C h i cago Child-Parent Centres – promoted reading and language skills, provided health and

social services, and promoted parent involvement for children in pre-school through to third grade. A cohort of 989 children completing kindergarten in 1986 was tracked to age 20 and compared with a no-pre-school group of 550 children. The programme resulted in long-lasting educational-achievement benefits. Reduced special-education use, increased earnings and lower involvement with the juvenile justice system translated into $35,000 in benefits per programme participant.

C U R RENT AND FUTURE PROVISION IN JERSEY B u il ding a Safer Society' Strategy

T he Crime and Community Safety Strategy, which preceded the Building a Safer Society strategy (BaSS), introduced a numberofnew initiatives aimedatearly intervention to prevent criminality. In line with ourphilosophyof Investing inChildren', the Children's Service received a substantialamountof strategy fundingand has invested in initiatives aimedat providing a varied programmeof residential, respite and communitybasedpreventativework. This has includeddeveloping the GrandsVauxFamily Centre to enablehigh-class interventions forvulnerable children/families; providing support to vulnerable children in mainstream nurseries; and introducing child centred' programmes for the most vulnerable children within specialist mainstream nurseries. Vulnerablechildrenhavealso been supported through the further developmentof after school' groups seeking to prevent them being received into care.Upuntil February 2005 a total of244childrenhad been supported through theGrandsVauxFamilyCentreand after school' groups and96 vulnerable children hadreceived support in mainstream nurseries.
F rom 2005 Jersey introduces BaSS: its first jointcrimeandcommunity safety andsubstancemisuse strategy. ThisincludestheAlcoholStrategy. BaSS focuses onthe 3 levels of intervention:primary – which are aimedatthe general public; secondary – which are aimedatspecific risk groups', particularly young people; and tertiary – which focus on the consequences of offending behaviour. A diagram outlining the relationship betweenthecriminal justice process with risk factors, offendingbehaviourand subsequent action is atAppendix 7. Although a susceptibility to risk factors does notalways result in offending behaviour,clearly intervention at this stage has a deterrent effect and is preferable to dealing

with the consequences of crime.

N early £1.5 million is being invested by BaSS over the next 3 years, in developing initiatives such a those mentioned above, whilst seeking to engage more fully with the voluntary and private sectors. Initiatives such as the Jersey Early Learning LiteracyYears(JELLY)clubs,aimedat increasing literacy amongst vulnerable families; the PathwaysProject,which focuses oncommunitydevelopment in oneof Jersey'smorechallenging neighbourhoods; enlargement of the parentingprogramme,whichemphasises parents' responsibilities towards their children's behaviour; increased nursery places; and the establishment of newparentand toddler groups, all seek to ensure that vulnerable parents are provided with the support necessary to develop the skills which will help them to provide care, appropriate supervision andguidancefortheir children.

H a r m Reduction

T he Island embraced the ethosof harm reduction when the States ofJersey adopted theSubstanceMisuse Strategy in 1999.The Strategy defines harmreduction' as basedupon the premise –

" t h a t it is the harm that accrues from drug use, rather than the drug itself, which is the proper, first focus for preventive efforts. This notion is driven by two related issues. The first is that it is recognised that the use of mood altering drugs, whether legally sanctioned or not, is normally deemed by users to be worthwhile in effect, people use drugs because they want to, and they want to because drug use works' for them The second strand of this harm reduction approach is that the total eradication of the use of mood altering drugs is unachievable."

T h e s ubstance misuse section of Building a Safer Society' continues with the theme of harm reduction.

H arm reduction is put into practicedailybyofficerson the Senior Officer Group whichmanages the Strategy, andbyother agencies in the front-line.TheAlcohol and Drug Service has been the leading proponentof harm reduction. The Service works closely with the States of Jersey Police through the Arrest ReferralWorker. Allowing Centeniers to deal with personal possession ofClass B drugs (first offence) byreferral to the Drugs AwarenessCourse is another exampleofhow the courtsand the Police have accepted harm reduction techniques.ThePrison has had a heroin replacementprogramme for a numberofyearsandhas had a Prison Drug EducationWorker funded by the SubstanceMisuseStrategy. Probation andAfter-Care Service has been at the forefront ofpromoting harm reduction; for examplethe Court Liaison Officer has proved invaluable to the courts, whilstthe Prison Probation Officer has a harm reduction role.Since the Rutherford Reportwaspublished, an Arrest Referral Workerhas been appointed

which was recommended specifically.[9] Other projects which fulfil the ethos of harm reduction are the Town Alcohol Project, Health Promotion Officer (Drugs), the Needle Exchange Programme, the

Methadone Programme and the Portuguese Offender Social Worker.

T he courts are nowmore likely toaccept a recommendationfortreatmentin the knowledge that the Court Liaison Officer would monitor the programme.Records show that 60% of offenders completed their orders without re-offending.Themethadoneprogrammeis also proving successful with 34% ofthoseon the programmecomingoffheroinatthe first attempt. There is also a PrisonSubstanceMisuseCounsellor who is able to offer somegroupworkandone-to-onecounsellingforprisoners with a history ofsubstance misuse. It is importantto note that all this rehabilitative work is funded through the Building a Safer Society Strategy. Great strides have been made in addressing the effects of drug misuse through partnership working but, nevertheless, there is a recognition that someusers legitimise drug use and continue to forge alliances both inside and outside of prison. Whilstit is not possibleto rehabilitate everyone, some offenderscometo terms with theproblemthemselveswhilst others require intervention at different stages in their lives.
T he Rutherford Reportalsorecommended that consideration should begiven to reclassifying ecstasyand

cannabis[10]. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that the sensible course would be to monitor developments in the UK closely. It agreed to reconsider the position after one year as a result

of the legislative changes which came into effect on the 1st January 2004. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of

Drugs met in February 2003 to consider the proposed reclassification of cannabis in the UK and the possible implications for Jersey if it were to follow suit. At the present time, the Health and Social Services Committee has not indicated an intention to recommend reclassifying ecstasy from Class A to Class B or cannabis from Class B to Class C. Guernsey has already decided not to reclassify cannabi The Home Affairs Committee will reconsider the position in consultation with others once the Council's follow-up report is available.

S c ru tiny

In October 2004, Scrutiny Report1/2004:RespondingtoDrugUsewaspublished. This contains several recommendationsofan intervention nature which, although primarily in the Health and Social Services area, will be reviewed on a multi-agency basis initially by the Senior and Chief Officers' Groups responsible for the Building a Safer Society Strategy. TheHome Affairs andHealthandSocialServices

Committees responded to the report formally in March 2005.[11] B u l l Report Implementation

O f key importance toearly intervention in Jersey will be the developmentof the Children's Executive. It is important to stress that the focus of the Bull Report was on provision for children with severe emotionaland behavioural difficulties (SEBD) rather than any contact that some childrenmayhave with the criminal justice system. The Children's Executive will oversee the co-ordination of services to children with SEBDandtheir families. However,thereis a criminal justice connectionin that part of the Executive'sremitwillbepreventative intervention anddiversionwhere such problemsemerge.Themain aims of the Children'sExecutive will beto –

• g e n e rate a co-ordinated approach to caring for young people whose needs include residence in newly configured care environments or in what will be the Island's first totally secure setting;

• c r e a te educational arrangements which offer individualised and innovative programmes more readily suited to identified needs;

• e s ta b lish a Youth Action Team comprising personnel from a wide range of services such as Health

and Social Services, Children's Service, the States of Jersey Police, Probation and After-Care Service, Youth Service, Careers and Education, all of whom will focus on developing preventative intervention packages for children and young people at risk overall, at risk of offending and who are already known to the courts;

• d ev e lop therapeutic services aimed at supporting and promoting positive mental health and reducing young people's reliance upon addictive substances.

T heYouth Action Team(YAT) is, arguably, the key proposal in relation to early intervention to prevent criminality. It will have dedicated staff onpermanentsecondment from agencies such as Probation and After-Care Service, the States of Jersey Police, the Children's Service and new staff recruited especially for theYAT.It will deliver a mixture of existing programmeswhich have been proventowork locally - such as the ParentingProgramme, Restorative Justice and Court Liaison Officer – and new initiatives such asthechallengeandadventureprogrammes,youth justice workers and specialist drug and alcohol nurse.
T he Children's Executive has made other recommendations with regard to the youth justice system including the enhancementoftheParish Hall Enquiry, remands,court options and residential/secure care. The Executive considers that there would bemerit in a child being able to attend a local Parish Hall , regardless ofwhichParishtheoffencewascommitted in, and for a more problem-solvingapproachto be adopted where Parish Hall sanctions are breached in a minor or non-persistent way. A Residential Supervision Order (RSO) is recommended for children experiencing significant difficulties at home,

school and the community, including offending, in order to help them re-integrate back into the community.

Although intervention is always preferable, to provide for children who have not offended, the suggestion is that applications for RSOs are made through the Royal Court. Where children have committed serious offences or have shown an unwillingness or inability to respond to other residential provision, which puts either themselves or the public at serious risk of harm, it is recommended that provision be made for a Secure Placement Order (SPO). Discussions are ongoing with the Royal Court as to whether placements should be made following civil application or criminal proceedings. The court supports the civil route but feels strongly that a criminal route is also required as, in the case of children under 15, the Court's enforcement powers are limited. Probation and Binding Over Orders require consent and fines are not practicable. Although it is hoped that a civil application would occur first, the Court's view is that the lack of a criminal route would undermine public confidence and set a poor example to the defendant. An alternative option would be to raise the age of criminal responsibility, or otherwise take youngsters under the age of 14 out of the criminal justice system. Policy discussions on these matters are ongoing between the Corporate Parent and the Royal Court.

T herecommendationsmadeby the Children'sExecutive are anexampleofwhatcanbeachievedthrough a joined-up approach.Theynot only offer greater scope for effective interventionat one end of the spectrum but, at the other, put the custodyof children, where this is deemed to be necessary, in its proper context. TheHome Affairs Committeefullysupports the recommendations.

Pillar 5 - Policy Statement

Early intervention to prevent criminality is a key area of criminal justice policy and one which, if invested in, will have a significant impact on criminality in our Island. The States of Jersey made a significant commitment to this philosophy in 1999 when it funded both the Crime and Community Safety Strategy and the Substance Misuse Strategy. It continued the commitment in 2004 in adopting, overwhelmingly, a report and proposition to bring these strategies together from 1st January 2005 in a new strategy, Building a Safer Society'.

Although the focus of the Bull Report was on addressing the needs of children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties, there is a clear interface with the criminal justice process where offending behaviour is concerned. The Home Affairs Committee embraces fully the work carried out by the Children's Executive in recommending changes to the youth justice system.

Finally, the Home Affairs Committee is committed to the philosophy of harm reduction and has carried this forward into the new Building a Safer Society Strategy. The Committee also expects to be able to consider, in 2005, a follow-up report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the question of whether certain illegal substances should be downgraded and the UK's experience in having re-classified cannabis. The Committee is mindful of the stance taken by Guernsey who, at present, have decided not to reclassify cannabis, and of recent medical research in the UK which has drawn attention to the psychiatric impact of cannabis.

Action Plan

The Home Affairs Committee will:

In partnership with the Health and Social Services Committee, take the lead in implementing the Building a Safer Society Strategy and monitoring its progress.

Play its part in implementing those recommendations of the Bull Report approved by the States of Jersey, in particular those relating to the establishment of a Youth Action Team.

As a member of the Corporate Parent, continue policy discussions with the Royal Court and the Youth Court, particularly with regard to court options and residential/secure care.

Re-consider the question of whether cannabis should be reclassified once the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has reported to the Health and Social Services Committee in 2005.

PILLAR 6 – ENFORCEMENT

IN T R ODUCTION

In the context of criminal justice policy, enforcementis defined as enforcing the criminal law, mainly through the States of Jersey Police, Honorary Police, Customsand Immigration, and enforcing ordersof the court through the Viscount's Department. This section provides a short background to the enforcement role of each of these agencies, comments on their recent performance and goes on to examine enforcement challenges and issues.

B A C KGROUND TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES S ta t e s of Jersey Police

T h e States of Jersey Police has a uniformedestablishment of 243 police officers and an additional 83 civilian staff. Theirrevenuebudgetfor2005 is £19.85 million. Whilstitmaybe felt that the States of Jersey Police has a high establishment for a small island, it mustbeappreciated that there are unique challenges facing an independent police force serving an island community. The Isle of Man and Guernsey both facethe same problems but have largerpolice establishments per thousand population than Jersey. Thenumber of officers per 1,000 population in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Manis 2.76, 2.85 and 3.24 respectively. Once a comparison is made with a police division of equivalent size in the UK, the fundamental differences between localpolicing and that on the UK mainland becomeapparent.Aswellas the gamut of operational responsibilities undertaken by a UKpoliceDivision, the Jerseyforce has tobe self-sufficient in the provision of port security, financial crime investigation, a CriminalRecordsBureau and access to the Police National Computer, a Drug Squad, an Intelligence Bureau, the ability to undertake major crime investigation and to cover major incidents, and the provision of specialist capabilities such asfirearms and surveillance teams. In addition, the JerseyForce carries out its own disclosure to the courts, provides a trainingfunction,CCTVcoverage,andneeds to maintain a rangeof support services such as HR,IT,communicationsand finance.
T h e States of Jersey Police surveyed the publicin 2001 and 2003to help identify priorities. The top 10 priorities from the public'sperspectiveareshown in the following table –

Table 6.

Priority	Activity	2003	2001
1	Detecting or arresting people who sell illegal drugs	88%	88%
2	Responding quickly to emergency calls	88%	87%
3	Catching people involved in violent crime	85%	86%
4	Patrolling the town centre after dark	81%	77%
5	Detecting or arresting burglars	73%	72%
6	Detecting or arresting people who use illegal drugs	70%	n/a
7	Dealing with rowdy or drunken behaviour	64%	62%
8	Dealing with vandalism	64%	64%
9	Detecting or arresting car thieves	62%	58%
10	Dealing with serious motoring offences	61%	63%

U s ing the results ofthesesurveys,the States ofJersey Police made six policing promises to the peopleof

Jersey which have been endorsed by the Home Affairs Committee. An assessment of progress to date has been

made against each of these promises:

P r e serving and improving the quality of life in Jersey – recorded crime in Jersey fell for the

second successive year in 2003. There has been particular success in reducing house burglaries and assaults, and arresting major players in the local drugs market. The survey showed that 83% of residents consider their neighbourhoods to be safe and an equal number have confidence in the Force.

M a intaining and enhancing the Island's reputation as a financial centre of integrity – the

2003 International Monetary Fund inspection of the Joint Financial Crimes Unit, manned by the States of Jersey Police and Customs and Immigration, reported that the unit had achieved the required standard of excellence for the conduct of money laundering investigations.

D e v eloping an intelligence-led, pro-active style of policing – the National Intelligence Model is being implemented and a reform of intelligence gathering and dissemination processes is already reaping rewards.
G iv ing value for money – the force uses the Business Excellence Model for monitoring continuous improvement and is subject to external scrutiny from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. They concluded that the Force is providing an effective policing service to the people of Jersey'.
D e v eloping and implementing the concept of problem-solving policing – this is about treating

the problem and not the symptoms. Permanent solutions are sought, but this may not mean eliminating a problem. The number of problem incidents or level of harm to the public may be reduced, or the problem and impact may remain the same but require less policing effort to respond to it.

W o rking in and with the community – there is now a team of dedicated Community Officers and

the Force is working hard to build good working relationships with many partners, particularly the Honorary Police with whom it has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding. Community and race relations training is undertaken by officers, whilst surveys have shown that victims of crime are impressed with the service they receive.

T h e Performance Benchmarking Report noted that the States of Jersey Police performs well in comparison to the selected measures used.Whilst noting that the cost ofthe service per officer falls in the upper quartile (£79,484compared to £64,800 in Guernsey), the reportacknowledges that we have to provide the additional services referred to previously. Staffing of the port and financial crime investigations alone adds £1.3 million to the budgetcompared to a UKDivision.

H o n o rary Police

T h ere are over 300 Honorary Police officers in Jersey currently made up of 12 Connétable s, 61 Centeniers, 56 Vingteniers and190Constables' Officers. All are electedbythe parishioners of the Parish in which they reside(apart from St. Helier) and serve.
A c cording to record, a Constable (or Connétable )was first mentionedasfar back as1462 and the first reference to a Centenieris in the records of 1502. The titles Constable' and Centenier' were well known in France and England but in Jersey their roles have developed along different lines. In Jersey, the position of a Connétable is similar to that of a Mayor,therebeing no similarity to a PoliceConstable either in Jersey orintheUnitedKingdom.Originally,there were only Honorary Police in Jersey who,in time, became too few in number. Paid police becamenecessaryandwere the forerunners of the States of Jersey Police Force.Anymemberofeitherforce has thepowerof detention, butthe Connétable and Centenier retain theircustomaryright to charge.The Connétable s have generally delegated their role as

police chief in their Parishes to a senior Centenier known as the Chef de Police.

A t present, depending upon their position, Honorary Policebelong to theComitédes Connétable s, the Comité des Chefs de Police or the Honorary Police Association. There are, however, plans for the Connétable s to relinquish their policing role as they are alsomembersofthe States of Jersey. There is a perceived conflict between their roles as law makers and law enforcers. At the sametime, a Comitédes Chefs de Police maybeestablished to oversee Honorary policing across the Island and all Honorary officers will then becomemembers of a single Honorary Police Association.
A s wellassupportingareasof the criminal justice system,theHonorary Police also provide the first stage of the prosecutionprocess. A DutyCentenierwillbeon duty twenty-fourhours a day during a seven day period and attends the Parish Hall as necessary. Their primary duties will be to charge and set bail for offenders who have been arrested or reported for offences within the Parish. All sudden deaths are attended by a Centenier and he/she has the power to search premises for stolen property without a warrant.
A Parish Hall Enquiryis held in the Parish inwhich an offence is alleged tohave taken place. If a suspected offenderisunder 18 yearsof age, a parent or otherguardianmust go to the Parish Hall Enquiry with him or her; there will usually be a Probation Officer present. If thesuspectedoffender is younger than 13 yearsof age, a Child Care Officer will normally attend instead of the Probation Officer.
A Centenier will be in chargeof the Enquiry and there will usually be a VingtenierorConstable's Officer present. The Centenier can only deal with offencesif they are admitted. If there is no admission, he/she is obliged torefer the matter to a Court if he/she decides a prosecutionshouldbe brought. Thisdecision requires 2 teststobe addressed: theevidential test' as to whetherornot a courtor jury, properly directed on the law, wouldbe more likely than nottoconvict the accused ofthe offence charged, and the public interest test' which is whetheritis,or is not, in the public interestto prosecute. This is, therefore, a prosecution process, and the decisionwhetherornottodeal with the offence is a decision takenby the Centenier as a prosecutor balancing the different public interests which are involved. TheCentenier will usually give the alleged offenderthe opportunity to tell him/her aboutthe alleged offence. In thecaseof younger people, he/she may also ask a parentforbackgroundinformation.The Centenier will alsobe awareof any previous offences that may have been committed.
T heCenteniermay find ithelpfulnot to reach a decisionimmediately.He/shecan defer a decisionforup to 3 months. Ifthedecision is not to prosecutebutto deal with the offence, there is a choice between –

• G iv i ng a caution, usually in writing. This is a warning to behave better in the future and is kept as a permanent record.

• O rd e ring the payment of a fine.

• R e q u esting a compensation payment.

• A ll o wing voluntary supervision with the Probation and After-Care Service or, for those under 13 years of age, the Children's Service.

• R e f e rring the case to the Magistrate's Court or Youth Court.

T heCentenieris limited in the type ofoffenceshe/she can deal with.Therefore,wherean offence is admitted, and the Centenierdecidesnot to give a caution, he/she may have to inform the offender that the law instructs that such a casemustbe referred to a Court. In this event, the offender will becautioned, formally charged andadvisedof the date heorsheistoappear before a Magistrate.
O n joining the Honorary Police, an officer will be issued with a handbook,whichcontains information on their role,and will alsobe expected to undertakeimmediateandon-going training whichisconductedor

supervised by a professional Training Officer (currently a former States of Jersey Police officer).

T he foundation course covers a basicknowledgeof law andproceduresneededby a newofficer.Officers work towardsanassessmentoftheircompetencyto carry out policing functions. Parishes will alsomake available a variety ofother training opportunities in suchareas as first aid andconflict resolution, driver awareness, andmanualhandling.
I t is difficult to place numbers on the roles played bythe Honorary Police. At every sitting of the Magistrate's Court and the Youth Court,at least one, but usually several Centeniers will be present and acting as first-line' prosecuting officers. MostParishes hold Parish Hall Enquiries on atleast 2 evenings per week which will be staffedbyHonoraryPolice.Routine Honorary patrols are providedin all parishes several evenings per week whenthereisalways a duty Centenier, a duty Vingtenier and a duty teamof Constable'sOfficers on call to respond to emergencies. Additionally, Honorary officers police special events such as the Battle of Flowers, the Battle of Britain Display,FoodFairs and other Parish events ranging from large funeralsto road closures incaseof high tide flooding.Many Honorary officers also give time to liaise with schoolsandyouth clubs in their parishes.It would be true to say that man- and woman-hours given byHonorary officers in the course of a year acrossthe Island will amount to many thousands. Honorary policing, however, is not free; the annual cost to rate payers is approximately £289,000[12],mainlyas a result of the operation and maintenanceofvehicles and equipment.
In 2003, the first Queen'sGolden Jubilee Awardwas received by the Honorary Police forthe vital role played bytheHonorary Service within the community.

C u s t oms and Immigration Department

T heCustomsand Immigration Department, through joint workingwith the Statesof Jersey Police, is in the vanguard of protecting the Island against importedcrime', the focusofwhich over the last10 years has been the importation of illegal drugs. Italsomaintains a high state of vigilance against the constant threat of illegal immigrants.
T he Jersey Customs and ImmigrationDepartmenthas statutory responsibility to control the importation of prohibited and restricted commodities, with illegal drugsbeing the predominantenforcement interest for theDepartment. Article 61 of the Customs and Excise(Jersey)Law1999, establishes offencesin relation to the fraudulent evasion of Duty, prohibitions and restrictions. Article 4 oftheMisuseof Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, creates offences relating to restrictions on importation or exportation of controlled drugs. The Law defines controlled drugsas –

C l as s A – t h e more harmful drugs such as heroin, cocaine ecstasy etc;

C l as s B – c o ntrolled drugs such as cannabis, amphetamine;

C l as s C – b e nzphetamine, methaqualone, barbiturates etc.

A p er son guilty of an importation offence is liable to the following maximum penalties –

(a ) C la ss A drugs: to a fine or up to life imprisonment, or to both;

(b ) C la ss B drugs: to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or to both; (c ) C la ss C drugs: to a fine or to imprisonment for a term of not exceeding 5 years, or to both.

T he importation of illegal drugswas recognised as a serious problem 10years ago. InOctober 1994, a report sponsored by the Presidents of the then Defence Committee and Finance and Economics [13]

Committee made a number of recommendations to provide a coordinated and professional approach to the enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Laws, and to identify the best structure and practices to

achieve that approach'.

A s a result, a JointDrugs Intelligence Bureauwasestablishedwhich enabled all drugs intelligence to be gathered, collated and disseminatedat a single point. Additionally, a StrategyGroup, consisting ofsenior Police andCustomsmanagers,wassetupto prioritise/direct the operationalteams, allowing the capacity for effective drugenforcement to be greatly enhanced.Itwas recognised at the time that, if this initiative proved successful, it wouldhaveanimpact in other areas. With the anticipated increase inarrestsof hardened criminals, the resources of the Crown Offices andcourt availability would be affected. At that time, 47% of the prison population were serving sentences in relation to drug convictions. The expectation was that this would increase and, duetothefact that moreof the drug syndicate principals would be caught, the sentences would probably belonger. Unfortunately, the timeliness of this warning was notacted upon in a positivewayand Jersey is nowpayingtheprice with prison overcrowdingand the cost ofaccommodating the overspillinUK prisons. Becauseof our effective bordercontrols,Jerseyhas become a victim of its ownsuccess.Enforcementon the samescaleisnot evident in islands within the jurisdiction oftheUntiedKingdom, such as the IsleofWight,which do nothavebordercontrols.
A ll drug operations, whether carried out by Police or Customs, are intelligence-led. Intelligence is developed by various meansand drug operationscanbe developed over shortor long periods.However, drugscanbedetected either when a suspectisstopped at a control pointorarrested by a police officer inland. Since 1994, therehas been a dramatic increase in drug seizures. Graphs highlighting the growing trends in termsofvalue and drug commodities are attachedatAppendix 8. The seizure trend is likely to grow because the Police andCustomsworkextremely closely togetherand the 2 agencies are becoming increasingly more professional in their approach with a wider range of source intelligence being developed. Drug trafficking is an ongoing problem and is outlined later in this chapter under Enforcement Challenges andIssues'.
T he Immigration Section alsoplays its part in preventing even greater strain on the prison. It is a quite significant, butsometimes overlooked, contribution to dealing with imported crime.Formanyyears it has worked very closely with its ownFrench counterparts i.e. the PoliceAux Frontières (PAF),in dealing with illegal immigrants found at the Jersey borders. Asylum seekers are usually encountered at the frontier. They will have arrived from a safe third country, usually France.Under the Refugee Convention they aresent back to a safe thirdcountrywhere they should havepursued any asylumclaim.These persons arenotrecordedas asylum seekers'; they are counted simply as persons refused leave to enter' along with other persons refused entry.Very rarely Immigration encounters persons already in the Island who claim asylum.Thelast occurrence was in October2001when 2 persons were detained as illegal entrants, claimed asylum, and were detained for 6 months in prison.
T he term illegal immigrants' technically includes persons attempting to enter either with false documents, by employing deception or entering clandestinely, and persons discovered after entry (sometimes years after entry) whogainedentryor leave to remain illegally like asylumseekers.Those encounteredon arrival are counted in the persons refused leave to enter'. Those encounteredin the Island are counted separately as enforcement' cases. The statistics for 2002-2004 are as follows –

Table 7.

2002 2003 2004 Persons refused leave to enter 95 77 39 Enforcement cases 11 7 16

I t is rare that persons are detained either in Prison orat Police Headquarters.The policy is to return persons abroad as quickly aspossible. For example, of the 16 enforcementcasesin2004, only 3 were detained and then only foronenighteachatPoliceHeadquarters.The current policy is notto process asylum seekers and illegal immigrants intercepted at the frontier through the court process but to return them abroad.
E veryholder of a false documentis likely tohavecommittedan offence but it is unproductive to delay

removal by taking them to court. In most instances, to do so would make it harder for them to be returned abroad

as the French authorities will not accept them back if they are detained for more than 24 hours. Moreover, the court's workload would be increased as would the prison population and repatriation costs.

V i sc o unt's Department

T he Viscount's Department is not involved in law enforcementgenerallyor in a policing sense. In the context of criminal justice policy,however, its roles are to enforce arrest ordersfor defendants whohave failed toappear in courtandto enforce fines,costs and compensation orders.
A pproximately1,800 arrest orders aremadeby the courts every year with 70% (1,300) beingmadeby the Magistrate's Court in relation to parking charges.Arrest orders forother than parkingoffencesare issued to enforcement officers each day. Attemptsproportionateto the alleged offence are madeto enforce each order. Astime allows, special efforts are madetopursueany outstanding arrest ordersbefore they are finally written off' from active enforcement. Regarding parking arrest orders, letters are sent to defendants and approximatelyone quarter respond and are processedthrough the court. Theremaining cases are allowed to lie on file exceptfor multiple parking arrest orders for the same individual orwhere the defendantiswantedfor a non-parkingoffence. Parking arrest orders are automatically deleted from the Viscount'sDepartment'scomputersystem after a suitable period.
A totalofbetween2,000and2,500fines,costsandcompensationorders are imposed everyyear. In 90% of cases, time to pay is granted bytheCourt.By delegation from the Magistrate,theDepartment exercises a discretion inenforcingfineswherebyallowancesaremadefortemporaryunemploymentorsickness. Where a defendantwilfully fails, neglectsor refuses topay, the default prison sentenceis activated without reference back to the court. Thedefendant has the right to have the activation for the default penalty reviewedat the next sitting of the court. Foryoung offenders, activation of the default sentenceis not automatic and they have to besummonsed to appearbefore the Court.
T he success rate for fine enforcement is 96%bynumberand94%by value. There are approximately80 compensation orders each year and the enforcement success rate is 99% in number and value. There are 250 cost casesannuallywhich have a success rateof97%bynumberand99%byvalue.These success rates are exceptionalwhencompared with theUnitedKingdomwhere they range from 33% to 87% with an average of55%. This currently is a cause for concernfor the UKGovernmentin that thelevelof unpaid fineshas reached £350 million. The Viscount's Department considers that its ability to activate a default prison sentence automatically is the most powerful tool at its disposalandis a significant deterrent to non-payment.TheDepartmentbelieves it is adequately resourced for its enforcement task although it is operating at close to maximum efficiency bymaking the optimal use ofIT.

E N F ORCEMENT CHALLENGES AND ISSUES A J er sey Police Authority

A proposition to set up a Jersey Police Authority (JPA)was adopted by the States of Jersey on the 19th May1998having been recommended by the Clothier Reporton the Policing ofthe Island. The shadow' JPA carried out much detailed work over the following 3 years into how the JPAcouldbe set upas a legal entity. However,progress then became stalled for a variety of reasons which were reported to the [14]

States of Jersey . This paper also gave options for the way forward. Latterly, it has become clear that a JPA, or any form of group overseeing policing matters, cannot make any useful or legitimate contribution to police accountability or strategic direction until the future position of the Connétable s under Ministerial Government has been decided. Once this issue has been resolved, the Home Affairs Committee will be better placed to recommend to the States of Jersey a framework that will provide accountability and transparency under Ministerial government.

D e m ographic Bulge

H alf the Island'scrimeiscommittedby young men.The population of14 – 17 yearoldsis predicted to increase by 13% from 2002 to 2006. Males under the age of 18 commit 40% of all offences and, according to police statistics, onein fifteen 14-17yearolds was arrested in 2002. Although these are not unusual findings compared with the UKandEurope, the police predict there will be an increase of11%in crime over the next few years. Persistent youthoffendingis also problematic; in the first 7 monthsof 2004, 39 youths were arrested between 3 and 12 timeseach. This had implications forotheragencies,in particular the Youth Action Team,Children'sExecutive and schools.
T he likely effectsofthesedemographicchangesre-enforce the view that there is a need for criminal justice policy to tie in with other policies, particularly those in Education, Social Services, the Probation and After-Care Service andHM Prison. It is better to influence the behaviourof young peopleduring their formativeschoolyears with the aim ofdiverting them away from any criminal tendencies and encouraging them to indulgeinwholesome activity. This philosophy has a resonance with the aims and objectives ofthe Building a Safer Society Strategy(see Pillar 5 – Early Intervention).

P u b l ic Disorder and Anti-social Behaviour

T he States of Jersey Police's satisfaction surveyshowed that peopledoworryaboutpublicdisorder and anti-social behaviour. Police officers on the beat and a modern legislative framework are essential toolsin combatingtheseproblems.Atpresent,there are insufficient statutory powersto deal adequately with problems such asanti-social behaviour, disorderly conduct and neighbours from hell' situations. The Home Affairs Committee approved the Draft Crime (DisorderlyConductand Harassment) (Jersey) Law 200-, in 2004, which is currently with the Attorney General.
In anattempttodeal with these problemson the mainland, the UKGovernmenthasbroughtinPolice [15]

Community Support Officers (PCSOs) , anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs). PSCOs start on a salary of £14,793 p.a. plus a weekend working allowance. London boroughs have appointed between 14 and 32 PCSOs[16]. In the year October 2003 to October

2004, a total of 2,600 ASBOs were ordered in the UK as the government tried to clamp down on the problem. This was twice as many as the 4 years previously put together. A third of these orders were breached but no figures are available as to how many resulted in youth detention or imprisonment. These measures have had some success; however, ASBOs have been discredited in circumstances when it would have been more appropriate to charge someone with a criminal offence in the first place. ASBOs are an injunction power in which the test applied is a civil one, although the breach of an ASBO becomes a criminal matter. Repeated breaching of an ASBO can often result in custody. This back door' route to custody has led to heavy criticism of ASBOs. Figures released by the UK Government in May 2004 showed that the numbers in youth detention rose by a thousand in the previous year with some of the increase due to breaches of ASBOs.

T here would be a practical difficulty in adopting ASBOsinJerseyin that only the Royal Court retains injunction powers.Consequently, the Royal Court couldbecomeembroiled in dealing with relatively minor matters ofbadbehaviour.Whilstmindful that the Parish Hall Enquiry is a prosecution rather than a judicial process,Jersey prides itself onhaving this localframework to address similar issues and it is felt unnecessary at present to superimpose ASBOs on the existing structure. Jersey also has a Statutory Nuisances(Jersey)Law1999,whichhasscope for greater useinanti-socialbehaviour situations. The softer powers contained in ABCs have anequivalent application in Jersey Housing contracts although itis accepted that eviction proceedings can take time to implement.
D espite the different systems and powers that exist in Jersey, anti-socialbehaviourremains a concern. However, before decidingwhat additional powersmightbeneeded,the problem needs to beclearly defined andtheadequacyof existing powersreviewed.To do otherwise might obscure the true natureand extent ofthe problem andcause inappropriate solutionstobeformulated.TheUK's experience with ASBOs also needs to be properly evaluated.

Im p o rted Crime

T heHome Affairs Committee is conscious that thereisan element ofso-called imported crime' into Jersey, particularly inthe context of drug trafficking. Consequently, it is legitimate for the Committeeto consider, firstly, whether it would bepossible to refuse entry to the Island to anyone suspected ofcarrying illegal substances and return them to theirpointof departure, andsecondly,whetherwecould restrict entry where a person has significant criminalconvictions.
O n the first point, thelegal position appearstobe that there is no existing legalpower for the States of Jersey PoliceorCustomsand Immigration to return suspects to their pointof departure. Furthermore, to create such a powermightcauselegal difficulties with the CommonTravelArea(CTA)concept.Since most drug importations originate from the UK, it is doubtful whether any controls that mightbepossible would be effective. British nationals arriving from and returningto the UKcould subsequently arrive from abroad (i.e. outside the CTA)butcouldnotbereturnedabroad. It couldalsobeargued that law enforcement agencies have a duty to detect andprosecutecrimewhereit occurs. Returningsuspectsto their pointof departure goes against this principle andcouldcause political difficulties with neighbouring [17]

jurisdictions. The international legal position in which Jersey exists prohibits –

• th e introduction of immigration or border controls in relation to UK, EEA and certain Commonwealth citizens;

• t a k in g measures which would amount to control over the rights of such citizens to come and live in the Island;

• th e Island from treating UK citizens differently from citizens of other EU states and EEA citizens – in relation to their rights to establish themselves in the Island, and;

• t a k in g actions which might not be consistent with the UK Immigration Act as extended to Jersey, Article 4 of Protocol 3 and European Court judgments relating thereto.

T heabove issues were raised during the States debateon the draftMigration Policy on 22nd June 2005. As a result, the Policy and ResourcesCommitteehas undertaken to review the international legalposition with regard topeople'sright to freedomof entry andwhether the States could tighten border controls. The Home Affairs Committee will contribute to this review and have regard to the outcome prior to lodging this policy for debate.
W here drug trafficking is concerned, there would be a practical difficulty in targeting thosewhohave significant criminal convictions. Mostcouriers are selected for their absence ofcriminal convictions for drug offences so that they donot draw attention to themselves. Consequently, it isoften difficult to identify suspects in advance;indeed,muchof the success in intercepting commercial quantities of illegal drugs has beenachieved through the vigilance ofCustoms Officers at points ofentry to the Island. Where evidencedoes exist, it might be possible to introduce a powertomakeanexclusion order. The principal difficulty here would be that the excludedpersonshould have a righttochallengethe order, ask for its periodic review andhave a rightofappeal against a decision touphold the order.
A s well as vigilance, good intelligence hasproved to be most effective in combatingthe enduring drug trafficking problem. States of Jersey PoliceandCustoms and Immigrationeffort is totally joined up' in this regard,and perhaps the greatest effortshouldgo into maximising the sharing of intelligence with other jurisdictions on the basis that the riskof double detection' has a real deterrent effect.
T heHome Affairs Committeehas been keen toensure that everything possibleis done to prevent illegal drugscoming into theIslandby alerting agenciesinotherjurisdictions, particularly the UK and France, and for the drugs to be taken out' before arrival in Jersey. Part oftheIsland'sDrugEnforcementStrategy has always been to identify the most appropriateplace to effect the seizure ofdrugsdestinedfor the Island. Manyof the larger seizureshavetakenplaceinFrance.However, in relation to thosewho conceal illegal drugs internally, early interception is not a feasible option. Normally there is no specific

intelligence and it is only due to the expertise, profiling and experience of the Anti-Smuggling Officers at our

ports and airport that these types of seizure are made.

J erseyCustomshas set the standardby developing an excellent working relationship with the French Customs authorities in both Brittany and Normandy, and particularly the DNRED (Direction Nationaledu Renseignment et des Enquêtes Douanières). As a result, a number of joint operations have been conducted between the agenciesin recent years, particularly in relation to largecommercial quantities of cannabis identified for importation into Jersey by fastboats from the Normandy coast. In such operations the opportunity is taken, wherever possible, to effect the arrests in France.FrenchCustoms are entirely comfortable with this operationalstrategy and, in the last few years, this has resulted in over 600 kgof cannabisbeing seized and 14 drug traffickers beingimprisonedin France.
In relation to UKCustoms, they operate a somewhat different regime.Their priority is also the detection of Class A drugs, but on a completely different scale. The majority of their time isspent looking at importation connected with serious organisedcrime.The relatively smallamountofdrugs that cometo the Channel Islands is not a priority forthem. Nevertheless, thereareChannelIsland-led operations where joint working with theUKoccurs and, dependingon the strategyofthe operation, there are timeswhen the decision is made to effect seizure and arrests in the UK.HMCustoms have advised that they would not have the resources to monitor exportsof illegal drugsin the mannerwewould require if they are to fulfil their own overall NationalDrug Strategy Plan.Thevolumeof traffic atsouthernUK ports and airports militates against this.
P artof the Island's drug strategyis to arrest the principals ofthe drug gangswho reside in Jersey.Unless the agenciespermit live drugstorun', i.e. into Jersey and occasionally away from the ports, Customsand Police officers haveno opportunity to arrest key players in the Island.
A recent initiative hasbeen to publish reportedcases in the evening papers in the local media where arrested peopleoriginatefrom.These reports indicate how effective ourenforcement agencies areat intercepting illegal importation. Offenders are apt tousethefact that they werenotaware of the Island's drug sentencing policy as mitigation priortosentencing.The intention of reporting theseoffences in the UK regions is to act as a deterrent in that they stress the likelihood ofbeingcaught.Theearlyindications are that these reports are beingreadandinsome circumstances are makingwould-be couriers think twice. It will be difficult toassess the valueoftheprogramme but, ifit deters only a handful of potential couriers, it is worthcontinuingwith. This initiative is funded from the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund.

P o li c e Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law, 2003.

A rticle 43 of the Police Proceduresand Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, whichhas yet to be brought into force, provides for the possibility ofcourts sitting at weekendsor on Bank Holidays for the purpose of reviewing bail and detention.Consequently, there maybe a need for a third magistrate on a part-time basis.

The Home Affairs Committee has a prime responsibility for enforcement through the States of Jersey Police and the Customs and Immigration Department. A close working relationship will be maintained with other enforcement agencies, notably the Honorary Police and the Viscount's Department. The Committee endorses the six policing promises' that the States of Jersey Police have made to the people of Jersey and will continue to survey the public regularly in order to identify their law enforcement concerns and which areas to target. The public continue to identify drug trafficking as the greatest menace to society and there is a continuing concern over anti-social behaviour. Consequently, through the Joint Intelligence Bureau, both Customs and the Police will pursue those who seek to profit from trading in illegal drugs. The authorities have had significant success within the region of £4.5 Million of drugs seized in 2003, and in excess of £7 Million in 2004.

Action Plan

In order to address the enforcement issues and challenges ahead, the Home Affairs Committee will:

By the end of 2005, or when the future position of the Connétable s under Ministerial Government has been decided, develop the framework and law drafting instructions for a group to oversee policing matters as an alternative to the establishment of a Jersey Police Authority.

Support the States of Jersey Police in the achievement of its Policing Plan objectives.

Plan for the anticipated rise in crime (estimated at 11%) over the next ten years as a result of projected demographic changes.

During 2006, bring in the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law, 200-, to combat anti- social behaviour, but support the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry in dealing with less serious anti-social behaviour and nuisance.

During 2006, analyse the nature and effect of anti-social behaviour in Jersey and, in consultation with others, seek appropriate solutions.

Maximise intelligence collecting and sharing with other jurisdictions in order to combat imported crime, particularly drug trafficking.

PILLAR 7 - PROSECUTION

IN T R ODUCTION

In the policy overview chapter,commentwas made that this policy should notbeconfusedwith a judicial services review. It is not thepurposeof this policy – at least on this occasion – to reviewprosecution powersand procedures in Jersey'scourtsystem.These aspects of the criminal justice process are covered in the Rutherford Report[18]and need not berepeated here.

R U T HERFORD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

T herewere,however, particular recommendationscontained in the Rutherford Report –

• T h e pivotal role occupied by the Attorney General within Jersey's criminal justice process.

• T h e historical role of the centeniers in the Magistrate's Court and their ability, in most cases, to present the facts to the court.

• T h e introduction of legally qualified prosecutors to the Magistrate's Court in 1998 to prosecute trials, guilty pleas and objections to bail of a complex nature, and committals.

• T h e legal aid system.

• T h e function of the courts and the unique role of the Jurats.

T he Rutherford Report made 3 recommendations which, if implemented, would impact upon the prosecution system, the role of the Centenier and the function of the Parish Hall Enquiry. The Committee's stance with regard to eachoftheserecommendationsissetoutinthefollowingparagraphs.

R e c o mmendation 4

[19]

R ecommendation 4 suggested"the establishment of a public prosecution service" .
T his suggestion implied that a Directorof Public Prosecution Officeshouldbe established, which would be notionally answerable to the Attorney General.The Committee agrees with the AttorneyGeneral's view that this wasnot a practical idea in financial or human resourcesterms.
S ince the introduction of professional prosecutorstotheMagistrate's Court in 1998, the system has been working most satisfactorily. Ifchanges were broughtaboutso that theLegalAdviser brought all the prosecutions, additional prosecutorswouldbe required. There were no significant advantages to this,and Centeniers would understandably see no justification for losing their right to present cases in court. The decision not to proceed with this recommendationwas taken at an earlystagebythepreviousHome [20]

Affairs Committee and endorsed by the present Committee.

R e c o mmendation 5

R ecommendation 5 envisaged anenhanced role for theParish Hall Enquiry. TheReport extolled the virtues oftheParish Hall Enquiry system in diverting appropriatecasesaway from the formal criminal justice process.This,of course, is its great strength and it wassuggested that therestorative justice project could be expanded to give diversion greater force. Special Enquiries, using Youth Panel members appointed at Parish levelwerealsoenvisagedinorderto reverse the trendofyoungoffendersappearing directly beforetheYouth Court.
R estorative justice techniques,whereby some reparation for thevictimsofcrimeissought,havebeen

[21] practiced through Parish Hall Enquiries for many years. The Victim-Offender Conferencing Project has been

highly successful in youth hearings; this is explained in greater detail in the next pillar on Dealing with Offenders'. However, it is resource intensive and, taking account of other priorities, the scheme cannot be extended to adult hearings for the time being. This recommendation runs into greater difficulty, however,

with the suggestion that lay members could have a role in the proceedings. Having taken advice from the Attorney General, the Committee is reminded that the Parish Hall Enquiry is an investigatory body, rather than a judicial one, and it would not work to combine the two. Problems might be encountered once the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 was brought into force. Any hint that the Centenier might be sitting as a judge could compromise the right to a fair trial. Such problems are not evident at present because the Parish Hall Enquiry is a charging process rather than a judicial one. Once the Human Rights Law is in force, people appearing before an Enquiry would have to accept the level, as well as the principle, of a

fine; if they do not, they will have the option of appearing before a Court.

A lthough the Committee agrees with the sentimentexpressedin the RutherfordReport in termsof the benefit of enhancing the Parish Hall Enquirysystem,these are outweighedbytheinherent dangers in tampering with a tribunal that works successfully as a diversionary tool. Therehas been evidenceof a continuing tendencytoby-pass the Parish Hall Enquiry for certain offencesandinthecaseofsome persistent offenders. For the systemtowork effectively, there mustbe appropriate balanceandgood decision makingonthe part of Centeniers.

R e c o mmendation 6

Recommendation6,under the headingof Dealing with young persons', stated that "there should be specially designated Parish Hall Enquiries with respect to persons under the age of 18" and that "the [22]

role of Youth Panel members within the existing Youth Court structure should be extended".

In the Committee's view – and again having taken advice from theAttorneyGeneral – the same problem occurs with this recommendationas with Recommendation 5 in that it implies a judicial system at Parish Hall level. Since the RutherfordReport was published, the Committee has benefited from involvement with the Education, Sport and Culture and the Health and Social Services Committees, in the implementation of the BullReportrecommendations.Theyouth justice aspects of the BullReportwere covered in Pillar 5 – Early Intervention. Although the focusof that work wason children with severe emotionaland behavioural difficulties, andnot on criminaljustice, there is a clear relationship between the two. The formationof a multi-agency Youth ActionTeam, as recommended in the Bull Report,will greatly influence the way we deal with young offenders. Furthermore, that report precipitated a States of Jersey debateonthe custodial provisionfor young offenders whichwasprecededby a seminar,organised by the Home Affairs Department and the Probation and After-Care Service, in which the Scott ish Children's Hearing system, highlighted in the Rutherford Report, wasexamined.BoththeChildren's Hearing systemand the Parish Hall Enquirysystemhavemuch to commend them andthe seminar has helped to shaperecommendations for the way in which young offenders whocommit serious offences are dealt with.

Pillar 7 – Policy Statement

This policy takes a holistic view of criminal justice and its place in the social and political context. It is not a judicial services review, although this may become a subject for discussion at the new forum envisaged under Pillar 4 – Joint Working.

Having consulted the Attorney General at an early stage in the policy setting process, the Home Affairs Committee will not pursue the Rutherford Report recommendation that a public prosecution service be created. This could not be justified on cost grounds and would result in Centeniers losing their traditional role of presenting cases in the Magistrate's Court.

Regarding the future development of Parish Hall Enquiries, the Committee supports their status as an investigatory rather than a judicial body. To do otherwise could compromise their traditional and valuable role in dealing with offenders outside the formal criminal justice system and in being able to meet the provisions of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. The Rutherford Report made specific recommendations on the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry in dealing with young offenders. Since then, a better understanding has been developed between agencies on maximising appearances at Parish Hall level prior to charging. Similarly, since publication of the Bull Report, the Committee has had the benefit of being a partner in taking forward the recommendations of the Children's Executive detailed in Pillar 5 – Early Intervention. These recommendations will have a bearing on any future changes to the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry rather than recommendations 5 and 6 of the Rutherford Report.

PILLAR 8 – DEALING WITH OFFENDERS

IN T R ODUCTION

In Jersey, offenders can bedealtwith,asappropriate,outside the formal criminal justice processthrough the Parish Hall Enquiry or, having been charged with anoffence, through theformalcourt process. Having either pleaded guilty or been found guilty, the court can impose a non-custodial sentence (absolute discharge, fine orbinding-over order), a community based penalty (probation orcommunity service) or a custodialsentence(whichmaybesuspendedby the court).
T he Island has a particular challenge at present to decide the most appropriate framework within which custodial sentences should be served. Consequently, this aspect receives the closest attention from a policy perspective. Save for fixed penalty notices forparkinginfractionsand the facility to pay a fine at the Town Hall despite a courtsummonshaving been issued, hitherto, Jersey has notfavoured dealing with offenders by administrative means.Opinion is divided as to whetherother forms of administrative disposalareright for Jersey. Indeed,if the current furore in the UK over extendingthe use of enforcement cameras isanybarometer, such measuresremaincontroversial long after their introduction. The future vision for dealing with children in theyouth justice systemis covered in Pillar 5 – Early Intervention and, therefore, is not dealt with in any detail here. Mention is made of current methodsof dealing with mentally disordered offenders.

P A R ISH HALL ENQUIRY

R esearch into the Parish Hall Enquiry system commissionedby the Probation and After-Care Service and the Home Affairs Committee supports the view that the Parish Hall Enquiry system dealssuccessfully [23]

and appropriately with a wide range of offending . The Parish Hall Enquiry is in effect, the traditional response to offending behaviour in Jersey. Every effort is made within the Honorary System to prevent offenders entering the formal court process. The model presumes that reintegration is best achieved through a process that begins and ends in the community, not in the formal criminal justice system. In other jurisdictions, interventions are located within the criminal justice system (Anti Social Behaviour Orders, Referral Orders, Final Warnings and Restorative Justice Initiatives). What is unique about the Parish Hall system is that it exists outside the formal criminal justice system. It is organised and resourced

[24]

by the community. It "defies classification in any modern legal context" . The Jersey model demonstrates that the restorative outcomes expected by the introduction of a raft of measures in England and Wales as a result of the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 can be achieved by the

[25] community without recourse to complex, expensive and professional organisational frameworks .

Consequently, we need to be circumspect when considering the introduction of a formal system of legislation and orders when the community solutions implemented at parish level and voluntary contracts are already effective and efficient[26].

Je rseyshould continue to seek opportunities to integrate thebenefitsof traditional, informal community justice into a modern criminal justice system in a waywhich both promotes effectiveness and saves [27]

public money . Nowhere has this been more evident than in the partnership that has developed between the Honorary Police and the Probation and After-Care Service over many years and which continues to embrace new techniques such as Voluntary Supervision and Restorative Justice.

In the region of 5,000 offences are dealt with each year across theparishes. Because theProbation and After-Care Service attend all Parish Hall Enquiries in respect ofyouths,it is known that 368youths [28]

appeared in 2003, and that there has been a slight reduction in numbers since 1996. A Parish Hall

[29] Enquiry re-conviction study was carried out in 2002 which proved the effectiveness of the system.

O fficers of the Probation and After-Care Service have offered assistance to Centeniers at Parish Hall

Enquiries since the mid 1960s. In the main, advice and support is offered to youths although Centeniers continue

to refer adults to the Service for voluntary supervision. Records of youth enquiries date back to 1986.

Voluntary Supervisionhasbeen offered by the Probation andAfter-Care Service since the 1960s when the option ofan alternative to a court appearance was identified as a need for childrenwho had committed more serious offences.The Probation andAfter-Care Service agreed tooffer a periodof intervention, on a voluntary basis, to addresstheneedsofthe child andreduce further offendingbehaviour.Thescheme proved successful with high levelsof satisfaction andsupport from Centeniers together with low rates of reconviction.
T heProbationandAfter-Care Service continuestooffervoluntarysupervision to appropriatechildren and the breadth of intervention hasexpanded considerably in recentyears to meetcomplexneeds. A child and his/her parents enter into a voluntary contract with theCentenier to comply with the Probation and After- Care Service during a specified period ofmonths.An individual programmeisdesigned according to the needsof the child. Thismayinvolvedrug and alcohol education, victim awareness, restorative justice initiatives, employment and training support, bereavement counselling as well as a programme of intervention designedtoprevent further offending. If the child breaches this voluntary contract, either by failing to comply with the requirements or by re-offending, the Centenier may decide to prosecute. Voluntary Supervision Orders have givenriseto low ratesofre-conviction.Similarly, other disposalsat Parish Hall have equalsuccess: words ofadvice', written cautionsanddeferreddecisions show low levels of re-offending and re-convictionacrosstheparishes.
The Restorative Justice Victim-Offender Conferencing Initiative was introduced into Jersey in 2002. This wasanintegral part of the Crime and CommunitySafetyStrategy(from January 2005, the Building a Safer Society Strategy). Its objective is to look after the victims of crime and to re-integrate offenders and prevent re-offending. Unlike other jurisdictions, restorative justice is not a new concept in Jersey. Centeniers, through the Parish Hall Enquirysystem, have for many years been practicing restorative initiatives. Conferencing builds on the restorative justice practices that are already established and successful in oursociety. It ensures that the victim is at the centre of the process (whichis the rationale behind Pillar 3 – Looking AfterVictims).The primary goal is tomake good and repair the harm doneby crime to the victim, the community and the offender. Offenders must accept responsibility for their actions before restoration can take place.By replacing the state with a human victim, offenders are able to reflect uponthe actual harm caused, both tothe victim andto the community.The process is inclusive, and may extend to whole community involvement as the case study atAppendix 9 illustrates.
Since the inceptionof the initiative in 2002, a dedicated Restorative Justice Officer hasconductedtwelve face to faceconferencesandover 30 indirect initiatives such asmediatingcompensationpaymentsand facilitating lettersofapology. This work has been conductedatParish Hall s,in schools and at HMPrison La Moye.
The latest evaluation of the initiative shows that levels of satisfaction amongst victims, offendersand participants intheconferencing process are very high.Twelve victims, 17 offendersand 35 victims' supporters weresurveyed with thefollowing results –

V i ct i ms:

O v e rall, 92% of victims were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the conference as a means of dealing with the offences committed against them.

8 2 % felt that they were able to participate in the development of an agreement to repair the harm caused by the offence.

7 5 % felt that the conference encouraged the offender to accept responsibility for their actions.

T h e overall satisfaction rate of victims with Restorative Justice is 83%.

O f fe n ders:

8 2 % of offenders felt that the conference process was fair.

8 2 % considered that the conference had helped to understand that their actions were wrong.

9 4 % considered that the conference had helped to understand the effects of their behaviour on the victim.

N o offenders considered that participation in the scheme was not worthwhile or worse than they had expected.

A l l offenders felt that the conference process would encourage desistance from future offending. P a r ti cipants:

D a t a was collected from other participants in the conference: parents, teachers, Centeniers and friends of

both victim and offender –

9 4 % of participants felt that the conference had an impact on the offender.

A l l participants were satisfied with the conference as a method of dealing with the offences.

8 5 % of participants stated that the conference process had encouraged the offender to accept responsibility for their actions.

A l l participants would take part in another conference. S E N T ENCING PATTERNS

In 2003,ananalysisofhow cases were dealt with in the Magistrate's Court wascarriedoutwhichgives a recent indication of the pattern of sentencing for the majorityofcourtcases in Jersey. This can be compared with sentencing trends for the years 1992, 1996 and 2001 analysed for the Rutherford Report [30]

. Probation (7%) shows a slight rise whilst community service (6%) and custody (4%) show larger decreases. When committals to the Royal Court are taken into account (8%), by far the most frequently used sentences in the Magistrate's Court are fines and binding-over orders (75%).

R E F ORMING THE FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH CUSTODIAL SENTENCES ARE

SERVED

The growth of the Prison population was outlined in Pillar 2 – Criminal Justice Statistics. The approximate average percapitacostof keeping a prisoner in a prison in Englandand Wales was £31,700 in 2004. Inrecentyears,wehave paid for 25-30prisonersper year to be held in England andWales.

Table 8.

2001	£833,000
2002	£798,592
2003	£1,003,562

2004 £854,500

he Prison budget in 2004wasoverspent by £2 million. The Finance and EconomicsCommitteehelpedto alleviate this with a grant from the General Reserve of £1.7 million. In2005,£1.15 million of revenue growth has been made available as a result of the FundamentalSpendingReviewprocess, taking the Prison's base budget to £6.25 million. Work is ongoing to establish a realistic basebudget for the Prison. However, incurring additional revenue expenditure annually, equivalent to 20% ofthePrisonbudget,is unsustainable in the longer term. Furthermore, the prison populationin England andWaleshas now reached 75,000 and the indications are that the relevant authorities could withdraw the facility of purchasing prison places. Therefore, assuming that sentencing principles and trends remainconstant, the Prison estate mustbeexpandedandmodernisedto keep pace with thedemandsofour courts, andan alternative framework for serving custodial sentences must be introduced. In this regard, the Home Affairs Committee is mindful that a custodial sentence ought to serve three purposes: punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation in varying proportions according to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. It is the Committee's view that thelastof these – rehabilitation – could be afforded greater prominence in a custodial environmentand provides scope for reformingthe structure inwhich custodial sentences are served.
The Committeehas been pro-activeinseekingways to deal with theburgeoning Prison population. In December2003, a new 37-cell accommodationblockwascompletedand a new wing ofthesame size will bereadyfor occupation towards the endof2006.InApril 2003, the TemporaryReleaseMonitoring Scheme(TRMS,or tagging') was introduced. Up to the endof2004,46 prisoners had successfully completed the licence period onTRMS with a further 6 still on the scheme. (Due to the relatively small numbers of prisonerswho can be releasedon this scheme, the financial efficacy of itis to be subjecttoan independent audit in April 2005.) Unfortunately,these measures have not kept pace with cumulative effects oflonger custodial sentencesimposedbythe courts and the Committeehas been forced to request budgetary increases to cover the additional cost; the Finance and Economics Committee has been supportive in this regard.

[31]

Since completion of the new accommodation in December 2003, the amount of normal accommodation has increased. Thereal difficulty for LaMoye is havingto deal with different, discrete groups ofprisonerswhich can result in vacancies occurring inone part of the Prison that cannot help ease problems of dramatic overcrowding in another part. It can bethat, for this reason, prisoners have to be transferred to prisons in England and Wales even though the overall prison population maybebelow the total capacity available. Thefollowingtableshows the position in May2004whenthe population reached its highest level so far (at the timeof this report).

Table 9.

	Sentenced	Remands	Total	Capacity
Adult Males	78	27	105	(128) (New wing open)
Vulnerable Prisoners	25	13	38	(18) (All doubled and private part of YOI)
Women	13	5	18	(14) (Dormitory expanded)
YOI	9	8	17	(26)

Totals	125	53	178	(186)

It will be apparent from theabove table that the largest part of the prison estate – that for adultmales – has some spare capacity. The Prison must operate in this way to cater for a constantly fluctuating population as a result of court sentences, remandsin custody and weekendreceptions.As at 19thOctober 2004, the prison population had fallen to 163. The largest falls were inwomen, young offenderand vulnerable prisonernumbersand not in the critical areaofadultmales.
We therefore still need both a shortrun solution to deal with the problem ofovercrowdingand a long run solution to make sure the population canbemanaged safely and cost-effectivelyinacceptable conditions.

Doing nothing about the problem is not an option. Solutions – particularly those that address the short run

problem – will require political leadership and/or legislative change. Such is the nature of the problem that there are no easy options; some will be regarded as unpalatable or politically unacceptable. Nevertheless, the options have to be considered and they can be loosely divided into front-door and back- door measures.

F R O NT-DOOR' MEASURES

A re v iew of drug sentencing policy

Over the lastdecade or so,the profile ofcustodial sentencing has changed. In1991, a totalof 549 offenders received custodial sentences in Jersey.However, the Prisonneverapproached its maximum capacity because 90%of these sentenceswereforperiodsofless than 6 months.Over the years, the availability of a rangeof effective community penalties managedby a strong and professional Probation and After-Care Service has undoubtedly been a major factor in reducing significantly the numberof shorter custodial sentences. By 2001, a much reduced total of 253 offenders were given custodial sentences in Jersey with only 54% serving less than 6 months.Theirony, therefore, is that the marked reduction in the use of custody as a sentencingoptionhascoincidedwithsevere prison overcrowdingdue to increased sentencelengths.As the RutherfordReport highlights, the main contributory factor hasbeen the RoyalCourt's sentencing policy on drug trafficking. Sentencing principles were first formalised in the Court ofAppeallandmarkjudgmentof Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136andthere have been several judgmentssincewhich have modified the guidelines. Inupholding the condign punishments metedoutbythe courts in Jersey, the CourtofAppealhassupportedthe stance that such sentences are necessary to protect the social and economic fabric of Jersey society, to markpublicabhorrenceofdrug trafficking and to deter others from indulging in thesamecrime. Notwithstanding the integrity of this sentencing policy, the Island is starting to pay in otherways, notably with prison overcrowdingand excessive cost to the tax payer.Moreover,thereisnoevidence that such tough sentences are having the desired effect. TraffickingofClass A drugs into Jersey is still a regular occurrence and it is estimated that there are in excessof500heroin addicts in Jersey. On the otherhand,we do notknowwhether the situation would have been much worse had the Court not adopted this sentencing policy. The fact remains, however, that there has been nomeasurable decline in drug trafficking as a directresultof sentencing policy. Consequently, the Home Affairs Committee will be requesting the Royal Court to review its sentencing policyin respect ofdrug trafficking against sentencing policy inother jurisdictions and in the lightof the experience ofthelast 8 years. This issupportedby the Shadow Scrutiny Panel in its review onsubstancemisusecarried out at the end of2004.

M a x i mise the Use of Community Penalties

Jersey has been creative in making a rangeofcommunity penalties available tothe Courts. Thereare a range ofprogrammes available as anadjunct to probation aimedat influencing the cognitive behaviourof offenders. As part of the Island'sharm reduction policy, the Island'sequivalent of drug treatment and testing orders hasproved to be a highly successful way of diverting offenders from punishment into treatment programmes. Since 1982 Jersey has had a demonstrably effective scheme allowing many offenders to carryoutCommunity Service as a direct alternative to a prison sentence. In addition,courts now have the ability to delay the imposition of a custodialsentenceby means of the Criminal Justice (Suspension ofPrisonSentences)(Jersey)Law2003. The courts will alwaysconsidertheimpositionof a custodial penalty where appropriate; however, the Home Affairs Committee will urge the courts to continue to maximisethe use ofcommunity penalties andto reserve custody for dealing with the most serious offences, where the protection of the public is a major consideration andwhere offenders have a history ofnotresponding to community penalties.
A policy ofmaximising the useof community penalties and other non-custodial measures may attract the criticism that there is an underlying assumption that these alternatives reduce the prison population. Empirical evidence from theUKsuggests the opposite in that the introduction of a comprehensiverange of early release measures has beenfollowedby a record rise in the prison population. The difference is that UK initiatives werenotnecessarilypursuedas alternatives to custody.The Criminal Justice Act,

1991 introduced community penalties as a layer beneath custody rather than replacing it. Such measures must be

carefully analysed for both their intended and unintentional consequences, otherwise alternatives to custody can draw on those who would normally form the non-custodial' population. In Jersey, short custodial sentences were targeted in the late 1980s and early 1990s by introducing community service with tight referral criteria, marketing Probation hard, introducing drug awareness as an alternative to short custodials for possession of Class B drugs, and the diversion of intoxicated persons to the Drunk and Incapable Unit. There were also restrictions placed on the custodial sentencing of youths in the Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994. As a result, custodial sentencing dropped from 650 sentences a year to around 250 a year over a 10-year period. Furthermore, at the present time, of the prison population at La Moye only 6 are serving sentences under 6 months. The evidence is therefore that the judiciary in Jersey use community penalties as an alternative to shorter periods of incarceration and only a few subsequently end up in custody.

P r o h ibiting Prison Admissions at a Critical Mass

Holland, DenmarkandNorway are examples of jurisdictions where prison admissionsareforbidden into prisons operating over capacity.Attimesofovercrowding, convicted offenders are placed on waiting lists for later admission. In Holland, prisoners are classified in order to determinewhoshould be admitted and when. Occasionally, the releaseoflower risk prisoners is authorised to permit theadmissionofhigher risk prisoners. Criticalmass is deemed to havebeenreachedat 95% capacity toallowfor rattle space' to cater for unexpected population fluctuations. Such a system in Jersey might require a lower percentage given theuneven distribution ofprisoners across the various wings ofthe prison. A level of95%is probably workablein a prisoncatering for onlyone category ofprisoner.

B A C K-DOOR' MEASURES

The following options couldbe considered but the practicality andimpactof pursuing any particular course of action would have to be examined and weighed carefully taking into account theviewsof the judiciary. They are listed inorderaccording to the ease with which they couldbe put into effect. Thelast 3 optionswould require new legislation and, therefore, couldnotbeeffectedin the short-run.

R e la x ation in Remission

Since enactment of the Prison (Jersey) Rules 1957, in accordance with Rule 26,remissionhas remained at one third off sentence. Allowing anincrease to 50% would reduce prison capacity and bring us into line with theEngland and Wales Criminal Justice Act2003.
Factors to be considered –

• C o u l d be achieved quickly by the Committee amending Rule 26 of the Prison (Jersey) Rules 1957.

• L i k e ly to have greater public acceptance than other back-door measures.

• I t w ould be difficult to revert to a lesser remission period at a later date, i.e. once changed, it is likely to remain.

• U n le ss some provision could be put in place immediately, the relaxation to 50% would not carry

with it the safeguard of supervision once released. In the UK, prisoners serving up to 4 years are subject to a system of Automatic Conditional Release after serving half their sentence. Once released, they are supervised by the Probation and After-Care Service until ¾ of the sentence has been served. If they commit a further offence during the last ¼ of their sentence, they are liable to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence in prison. Prisoners serving less than 12 months are not subject to statutory supervision by the Probation and After-Care Service but are liable to serve the unexpired part of their sentence if reconvicted during this period. Powers to release on parole – now called Discretionary Conditional Release – apply only to those prisoners sentenced

to 4 year's imprisonment or longer. Prisoners deemed by the Parole Board to be unsuitable for parole are released

at the two thirds point of their sentence – known as their Non-Parole Date. Some prisoners are not released at this point, e.g. discretionary life sentences, determinate sentences or extended sentences for public protection.

E x t en ded Use of Temporary Release

HomeDetentionCurfew in EnglandandWaleshasproventobebroadlysuccessful.Of the 90,000 prisoners releasedearlyon a tag withno active supervision, 88,000 did not re-offend.Of the 2,000 further offences that were committed, 462 were violent crimes, 163 wereburglaries,47 were theft and therewere 9 sexualoffences[32].
The Committee already operates a temporary release schemeunder Rule 73of the Prison(Jersey) Rules [33]

1957. The process and eligibility criteria have been revised since the publication of the King Report

of December 2003 such that it is operating very successfully at present. The Committee could extend the use of temporary release, against revised criteria, in order to effect a higher number of immediate releases.

Factors to be considered –

• T h e Prison population could be reduced quickly.

• D o es still allow for risk assessment to be carried out on those prisoners who would be released.

• A d d itional risk assessment will require further resources.

• W o u ld not have the permanency that a change in the scale of remission would have in that the Committee could revert back to the existing temporary release criteria as the Prison population reduced.

• P r is o ners could be recalled if conditions are breached.

• P r i so ners would require accommodation as there would be no requirement to return to the Prison overnight.

• N o w that the system has been tightened up following the King Report, a relaxation could result in a higher number of breaches.

• I n t he light of the breaches seen in 2003, there would be strong public reaction to a similar experience.

E x t en sion of Electronic Tagging

At present prisoners become eligible toapply for tagging for the last 6 monthsof their sentence. This schemehas been a greatsuccessduring its first year of operation. There are 2 ways in whichtheuseof tagging could be extended.The eligibility periodcouldbeincreased to, say, within12 months of release whilst maintaining the home detention curfew of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. Alternatively, prisoners with the righ family support couldbe effectively imprisoned athome'.
Factors to be considered –

• M a i ntains a level of risk assessment and supervision in the community augmented by the technology.

• L e s s controversial than more immediate release measures.

• T h e r e would be an incremental additional cost for additional tagged prisoners.

• T h e capacity to release prison places would be limited by prisoners' suitability for the scheme.

• I n v o lves supervision by the Probation and After-Care Service so an extension to the scheme would have staffing implications.

• A n e xtension of the scheme would have resource implications for the Prison. A m n esty

Amnesties have been used regularly in France. The experience ofother jurisdictions would suggest that an amnestycouldbe put into effect in several ways.For example, with exceptions for prisoners sentenced for say, violent orsexualoffences, all sentences could be reduced by a fixed percentage or all offenders eligible forreleasewithin a fixed period couldbe released early.
Factors to be considered –

• T h e Prison population could be reduced quickly.

• H a s the advantage that prisoners could not count on an amnesty occurring again in the future as they could not predict when conditions would justify it.

• C o u l d be viewed as undermining the judicial system.

• D o e s not allow for risk assessment of those prisoners who would be released, i.e. it is indiscriminate.

• M a y need legislation to effect. O n e in One Out' Early Releases

Such a system is used in HollandandScandinaviawhere it is coupled with a prison waiting list system; however, this measure focuses on thereleaserather than the admission.
Factors to be considered –

• W o u ld enable the Prison to operate inside its maximum operating capacity, presently 186.

• O n ce in operation, it is less visible than measures that affect releases.

• W o u ld not enable the immediate repatriation of prisoners in UK prisons unless coupled with one of the other measures involving the immediate release of prisoners.

• M a y require new legislation to effect.

In t r o duction of a System of Parole or Discretionary Conditional Release

The introduction ofthe current UK, pre- Hall iday', parole system could update the Prisonregimeand bring importantbenefits.
Factors to be considered –

• W o u ld encourage UK residents to return to the appropriate part of the UK at their own request and at nil cost if they could demonstrate links with that jurisdiction. They would then be assessed for release on parole in the prison system to which they have returned.

• W o u ld enable a system of parole to have some control over the prison population, subject to necessary risk assessment, or enable discretionary conditional release.

• W o u ld provide a robust and transparent method of effecting early release.

• C o u ld be brought in during 2006, subject to legislative requirements which are being pursued urgently and the need for additional Prison and Probation staff.

• M o r e acceptable to the public than more immediate release measures.

This option combinesthe creation of a muchmore robust and effective rehabilitative regime in a custodial setting with a reduction in cost of detaining Jersey's prisoners. Consequently, it isdealt with in greater detail in Pillar 9 – Rehabilitation.

M E N TALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

There will alwaysbe a numberofpeople entering the criminal justice system who are experiencing mental health problems.In recent years, the MentalHeathServiceCommunityForensics Team havebeen working with the courts, Probation and After-Care Service, Statesof Jersey Police and thePrison to identify, assess and provideappropriatetreatment for people with mental health needs. In the UKduring the 80s and 90s, much emphasis was placed on court diversion, identifying an individual with a mental health problemand diverting' them from the criminal justice system into the mental health system. This approachmakestheassumption that the mental health problems of the individual weredirectlylinkedto the offending behaviour. The preferred approach locally has been forcourt liaison by the Forensics Team in which, following an assessment, the courts are advised of the mental state of the individual and decisions as to sentencing ordiversion can bemade by the courts. This system isaugmented by 2 posts funded by the Building a Safer Society Strategy. The ArrestReferralWorker has access to detaineesat Police Headquarterssomeofwhomhavemental health problems but whodo not present as acutely unwell. In such cases, the Arrest ReferralWorker can give anassessment, liaise with the Forensic Team and provide ongoing support, either through the courts orby clinical referral. Duringcourtproceedings, a Court Diversion Officer working within the Probation and After-Care Service assists the courtto decide upon the appropriate disposal of offenders, particularly those displaying alcohol or drug problems.
Part of the UKMental Health Law specifically relatesto mentally disordered offenders. Thisisnotthe case for the Mental Health (Jersey)Law 1969. It had been the intention to introduce a newMentalHealth Law to Jersey which would have dovetailed with the English and Welsh Mental Health Act 1983. However, the MentalHealth Law in England andWalesisunder review and it has been agreed locally that anynew law for Jersey needs to be able to work inharmony with UK Legislation. Inevitably, this is delaying the process of formulating new local mental health legislation.
In 2004, Dr.RosemaryWool completed her health needsanalysis of HMPLaMoye.Thisanalysisof the health needsof the prison population produced some excellent jointworkingbetweenofficersandfront- line staff. The resulting documentrecommends that secondary health care provision be provided by the Health andSocial Services Committee with specific emphasis on health promotion,substanceabuseand mental health.

A D M INISTRATIVE DISPOSAL P le a d ing Guilty by Post

A formal system ofpleading guilty bypost, particularly for parking offences, has already been considered by a workinggroupunder the Attorney General reviewingthe Loi (1864)concernant la charge dejuge d'instruction. Thegroupconcluded that theIsland already had a similar system whereby fines couldbe paid through the Parish Hall and considered a system whereby people couldbedealtwith in theirabsence by thecourt setting a fine. However, this couldundermine the powersof the Honorary Police and would remove the deterrent effect of the threatof a courtappearance. Nevertheless, peoplewhoattract parking fines in particular ought to be able to payas efficiently as possible. In the modernday, this oughtto include payment online, a facility that couldbemade available through the Customer Contact Centres being developedbytheStatesofJersey.

F ix e d Penalties

Otherformsof administrative disposal, such as fixed penalties, havebeengiven serious consideration. In the UK, pressure on the Magistrate's Court system, difficulties with the collection of fines and the geographical difficulties of appearing in a court a long way from one's home have driven the development of administrative disposal.The additional benefit is that the court process canbereserved for those offenceswhichdonot lend themselves to administrative treatment. However, in a small island, possible gains need to be weighed against the benefits of the existingsystem.Thegeographic difficulties of getting to court do not apply and the court process does not suffer from delays caused by an unmanageablenumberof minor offences. We have an honorary system which filters outmost minor offending and enables people tobedealt with outside thecourt system. From a practical pointof view – and of particular relevance in the current financial climate – administrative systems havesignificantup- front costs and need to besustained with both IT andstaff support. Conversely,the marginal cost of dealing with offences, such as minor road traffic offences, through theMagistrate'sCourtis not feltto be significant.

E n f o rcement Cameras

Perhaps the most high-profile form of administrative disposal in the UK is through the use ofenforcement cameras.Although there is no visible political pressure to adopt this technology in Jersey, it nevertheless merits consideration within the contextof this policy. In the UK, the caseformaximising the useof enforcement camerasis predicated onthe assertion that around100lives are savedon the roadsannually as a result of their presence. In Jersey, therehasbeenone fatality onourroads in the 4 years from 2000 to 2003 directly attributable tospeed. In 2004there have been 5 fatalities ontheIsland's roads, but only one wasconfirmedasdirectly attributable to speed. Those opposed to enforcementcameras regard them as giving rise to a stealth tax. There can only beonecogentreasonfor introducing enforcementcameras and that is to increase significantly safety on our roads by detecting speeding motorists. Camerascanbe used for enforcementin connection with offenders other than speeding,forexample,at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings. Whethercamerasarenecessaryin Jersey orwouldbe cost-effective has yet to be determined. The Criminal Justice Scoping Study may provide an opportunity to review their suitability for a small jurisdiction.

C I V I L ASSET FORFEITURE

Following a criminal conviction, the courts in Jersey are able toorder the forfeiture of assets whichcanbe shown to be the proceeds of drug trafficking or terrorism. In due course, the Committee will be considering with the LawOfficerswhether,and to what extent, a process of civil asset forfeiture should be included in domestic legislation.

Pillar 8 - Policy Statement

Jersey is unique in having a prosecution process – the Parish Hall Enquiry – which is not a judicial process and is held to determine whether or not a prosecution should be brought in court. In the case of children particularly, this often enables reintegration to take place through a process which begins and ends in the community. Voluntary supervision has been

highly successful in this regard, and latterly, restorative justice techniques have been augmented through the Victim- Offender Conferencing Initiative. Within the formal court system, binding over orders with appropriate conditions, probation and community service (which is a direct alternative to custody) have been successful over many years.

The growth in Jersey's prison population is of particular concern to the Home Affairs Committee and may be exacerbated by the anticipated rise in crime as a result of demographic changes. From a purely financial perspective, the growth in numbers experienced in recent years is unsustainable particularly as we are entering a period of stringency in public expenditure. Whether an offender should be deprived of their liberty is, however, far too complex and serious a matter to be reduced to a book-balancing exercise. The challenge for the Committee is to create the conditions in which punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation can be brought to bear in the most cost-effective way. In the Committee's view, the Island is not doing enough to educate, re-skill and rehabilitate prisoners both during their sentence and after release. Furthermore, Jersey is out-of-step with most other established Western democracies in not giving prisoners an opportunity to show that they can lead a life free from offending at an earlier stage in their sentence.

The Committee has considered a range of measures that could be introduced to reform the framework in which custodial sentences are served. However, many of them would fail to provide the necessary safeguards of proper preparation for release whilst in custody and supervision thereafter. The Committee will therefore pursue a range of measures after due consultation with the judiciary, criminal justice agencies and other interested parties.

Other than the collection of parking fines, the Island has not developed disposal through administrative means. A separate group under the Attorney General has already considered whether there are grounds for a system of pleading guilty by post and is not recommending its introduction. Similarly, a compelling case has yet to be made for the introduction of enforcement cameras to Jersey in relation to motoring offences. The Committee will not pursue this without a political debate on the matter. There is a case, however, for people to be able to pay fines more conveniently, notably through electronic means.

Action Plan

The Home Affairs Committee will:

In consultation with the Honorary Police, Probation and After-Care Service and others, continue to support the Parish Hall Enquiry system and consider further ways in which it can be strengthened.

Investigate greater use of the Electronic Monitoring Scheme (Tagging') of prisoners which has been highly successful since its introduction in April 2003.

Request the Royal Court to review its sentencing policy in respect of drug trafficking offences in the light of principles applied in other jurisdictions and the experience gained since sentencing principles were first formalised in the Court of Appeal landmark judgment of Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie (1995) JLR 136 as amended by subsequent judgments.

Urge the courts to take positive steps to maximise the use of community penalties and to reserve custody for dealing with the most serious offences, where the protection of the public is a major consideration and where offenders have a history of not responding to community penalties.

Maximise the use of transfers where prisoners can demonstrate links with England and Wales, thereby reducing significantly the cost to the public.

Investigate whether a more customer friendly' approach to the payment of parking fines and fines for other minor offences might be made available through fixed penalties.

Investigate the suitability of enforcement cameras for Jersey and whether their introduction would be cost- effective.

In conjunction with the Law Officers' Department, investigate ways of expanding powers in relation to civil asset forfeiture.

PILLAR 9 – REHABILITATION

IN T R ODUCTION

O ffender rehabilitation is not just a moral issue. It is crime prevention activity toreduce recidivism and produce reformed offenders who inflict nomore harm onsociety.
O nein 3 British menhas a "StandardList" conviction by the age of30. (The standard listexcludes the majority of public disorder and drunkenness offences as well as all but the most serious motoring offences.) However,we need to keep a senseof proportion withthose that offend. Manyoffendersneed only minimumassistance, as their convictions are either once in a lifetime oroccasional events of a comparatively minor nature which can bedealt with on their legal merits, with few adverse effects on reconviction rates. Itisoften overlooked that the majority ofcourtbusiness is dealt with effectively and quickly in a mannerwhich does not adversely affect the individual or the community.However, the impact of more punitive sentences is greater. Those imprisoned are much more likely to lose their employment,accommodationand contact with family and friends. All these factors have a bearing on the risk of further offending.
T he development of alternatives to custody, such as Community Service and Probation, can assist offender rehabilitation byallowing offenders to retain theseimportantanchors.Goodsentenceplanning, through-care andpost-custodialsupervision, can reduce the negativeimpactofimprisonment.Sometimes, the use of intrusive community-based penalties such asProbation, are notalways rehabilitative ineffect. Whilst such sanctions have been demonstratedtobe effective with thoseat greater riskof offending, their use with low risk offenders canbe harmful, as well asbeingmoreexpensive than non-custodial, tariff-

based sanctions. This finding from other jurisdictions has recently been demonstrated in Jersey.[34]

J ersey offenders havelowerreconviction rates for any given profile than in theUKorNorth America.

The difference is even greater for female offenders.[35] The reason for this would seem to be that, in contrast to the oft cited intolerance of the Jersey population to offending, individual offenders do have

supportive contacts available to them who know the whole person rather than the label. This is a characteristic of smaller communities and is often lost in larger ones. Although this is a rehabilitative advantage, it is not a substitute for the need to assist more formally with the reintegration of offenders into society.

I nevitably there are tensions between tariff, punishment and rehabilitation. At one extreme, a Just Desserts' model of sentencing would ensureconsistencyand a proportionateresponse to offending, but disregard the individualneedsof the offender.At the other extreme, a completely individualised model would result in disposalswhichwouldbein the best interests of the offender, but which would lackany consistency or objective testof fairness. Justice systems have typically evolved attempting to reconcile both these elements, and Jersey isnoexception to this. In dealing with young offenders, for example, the courts have recognised that the best interests of society are usually servedby acting in the best interests of the child. In dealing with drug mules', no matter what the circumstancesofthe individual, a tariff disposal is almostalways imposed.
T heJersey courts are often portrayed asbeing punitive. Does the evidencesupport this? The prison population per100,000is the highestinWesternEurope,but the numberof custodial sentencesimposed has reduced from 549in 1991 toaround250peryear. This incarceration rate appears to bewithin the range foundin courts in England and Wales. It would be fair toask, however, whetherwehave the balance rightbetweenpunishmentand rehabilitation.

L E G ISLATIVE PROVISION

F rom a legal perspective, the importanceof rehabilitation is recognised in a numberofdifferentways –

• C e n t eniers have the power to decide not to charge offenders, in certain circumstances, even when

an offence is known to have been committed, as does the Attorney General. There is some evidence to suggest,

however, that in respect of Centeniers, this discretion is being eroded.[36] Evidence from Jersey and elsewhere in the world is that cautioning, instead of prosecution, can be an effective way of

dealing with less serious offending.[37]

• T h e Loi (1937) sur l'atténuation des peines et sur la mise en liberté surveillée recognises that,

despite being guilty of an offence, it can be better to allow a person their liberty without punishment providing they agree to reform. This has allowed the development of a modern

Probation and After-Care Service which is demonstrably effective at reducing re-offending.[38]

• T h e Criminal Justice (Community Service Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001, recognises that providing a constructive alternative to custody can be of benefit.

• T h e Criminal Justice (Young Offenders) (Jersey) Law 1994, reserves custody for the most serious

and persistent young offenders and provides for a compulsory release on licence at the two thirds point of sentence to assist with rehabilitation. The identities of children who offend are protected.

• T h e Prison (Jersey) Law 1957 and Rules allow temporary release for the purposes of rehabilitation.

• T h e Rehabilitation of Offenders (Jersey) Law 2001, recognises that, in many cases, people have the right to put their past behaviour behind them.

T here are still, however,someobvious gaps in provision. There is no form ofpost-custody licence for adult offenders, either linked to a systemof parole or otherwise. There are no statutory entitlementsto benefit post-release, although generally the Parishes are sympathetic.Unemploymentandloweducational attainment are commonamongstprobationers in Jersey.Permanentmeaningfulemployment is the single most powerful protective factor in preventing re-offending, yet nearly 40% are unemployed at the beginning oftheirOrder.
T here has been a Rehabilitation ofOffenders' Law in the UKsince 1974. We awaitthe effect of the introduction of the equivalent law in Jersey to see if it will help overcomeunnecessary prejudice in employingex-offenderswhilstproviding sufficient protection for employers.Thereisalso a questionas to whether released prisoners and other offenders shouldhave priority or privileged access to services, e.g. States of Jersey Housing.

R O L E OF THE MAIN AGENCIES P r o b ation and After-Care Service

Probation's role iscareandcontrol, providing a bridge between socialcareandenforcement. Half their work is concerned with rehabilitation. Independent assessmentover the past ten years has shown that the Jersey Probation and After-Care Service is an effective service and, in some areas, has been a demonstrator of best practice. The Service deals with between 300-400 clients per year and works within an annualbudgetofaround£1 million. This amountsto relatively modestpublic expenditure and it is perhaps ironic that this isapproximately the same sum that the Island spent in 2003 accommodating prisoners in UKprisons.
Around 600 reports are prepared for the Jersey courts annually. Each report examines the factors underlying the subject's offending, assessesthe risk of re-offending andthe risk of harmto the public, and recommends a course of action to the sentencing court. The Probation and After-Care Service operates two forms of supervision for the courts: Probation for those offenders who need structured intervention intheir lives to help them avoid further offending andCommunity Service forthosewhodo not need such intervention butwhowouldotherwise have been imprisoned.

Each ProbationOrderis allocated to a Probation Officer whoisresponsible for ensuring that theCourt Orderis complied with. A strong positive relationship between officer and probationer is important, although many probationers also attend programmes delivered byother specialist staff. As Probation is made instead of a sentence, if the probationer fails to comply with the termsof their Order, the Court can imposewhatever the tariff penalty would have been.
Community Service Orders require anoffender to complete a set numberofhoursof unpaid work for the benefit of the communityto the satisfaction of the supervising officer. Each year between 10,000 and 15,000 hours of work are performed. Many charities rely on the help which is provided by these offenders. BecauseCommunity Service can only be imposedin the place of a custodialsentence,those people who fail to comply with theirOrder are usually sentenced to the custodial period they had initially avoided.
A close working relationship with the Prison has been builtup over the lastthreeyears in preparing prisoners for release and to pilot individual sentence planning and electronic monitoring. The appointment of a resident probation officer at the prison has enabled this work to proceed.Successful though this workcontinuestobe, the funding stream for this post will prove difficult beyond2004. Although legislation provides for the supervisionof young offendersbyProbation following release, there is no equivalent provision foradultoffenders.Consequently,whilst there is reliable data onre- offending rates for Probation clients, there is far less for prisoners. The fact that more than half of the prisoners have committeddrug-related crimes, manyofwhom are serving long sentences, poses particular accommodation and rehabilitation challenges.

H M Prison La Moye

The role oftheprisonisto keep incustodythosecommittedby the courts of Jersey and to look after them with humanity.The prison has a duty to help prisoners to leadlaw-abidinganduseful lives incustodyand after release.
Key factors in prisoners avoiding re-offending once they are released from prison are a stable relationship, a job, accommodationandinvestmentin education. Thereis a significantweightofevidence from theUK and internationally that poor levels of literacy, numeracyand general educational ability dramatically increases recidivism rates. But further incarceration is not the only cost.Socialcosts include benefits, housing subsidies, increased health costs and welfare for those unable to gain meaningful employment.Theprison's ability to help addressthese issues is restricted dueto a shortageof resources over manyyears. Currently, Jersey is spending £172 perannum per prisoneroneducation(basedon 2004 data) compared to theUK average of £1,185.
The 2001HMI report recommended that a sentence planning regimebeput in placethroughout the prison. This has been piloted in the Young Offenders Institution; however, resource difficulties have prevented its extension to the adult prison. There has been a pressing need to address the prison's accommodation difficulties bygiving this a higher priority through the annualFundamentalSpending Review process. However, the emphasis needs to change if the prison is to fulfil its rehabilitative potential. Consequently, the Committee has made a successful case through the revenue allocation process fortheresourcesnecessaryto introduce post-custodialsupervision in 2006.
Once sentence planning isin place this may only servetohighlightthe shortfall in provisiontoaddress the needsof the prison population. Somestaffhavebeen trained inthe delivery of accredited offending behaviourprogrammes(programmeswhich have been independently assessed ashaving the potential to have a positive impact on rehabilitation) butshortagesof staff have meant that very few programmes have been able tobe delivered. The Prison continues to look at imaginative waysof providing such courses including working with otheragencies (voluntary and public) but needs to be assured concerning the efficacyof any workwithprisonersin this field.
The Prison has onepart-time teacher and a smallnumberof other teachers providing some specified teaching (Spanish, mathematics and basic skills). For such a diverse populationmix this means that only

very limited education can be provided. However, the Home Affairs Committee is indebted to Deputy Jennifer

Bridge and Professor Edward Sallis for a recent study carried out in partnership with the Prison, which has resulted in a proposal to provide an effective educational regime for prisoners. The study proposes the establishment of a Prison Education Unit as part of the Highlands College Access to Learning Team. The Unit would be based at La Moye and would be supported by the Access to Learning Team who would ensure that staff are properly trained and supported. Learning plans would become an integral part of sentence plans, the aim being to reduce rates of re-offending and to ensure that offenders have better skills to re-enter the labour market following release from prison. The unit would require 2 full-time staff and a variety of part-time tutors at an annual revenue cost of around £135,000 compared to the £50,000 which is spent at present. This proposal supports the concept of life-long learning which is a strategic aim of the States. It will therefore be necessary to engage in discussions with the Education, Sport and Culture Committee to explore other opportunities for prisoner education.

Regarding work and training, opportunities are very limited. Towards the end of 2004, a modulein a certified City andGuildstrainingcoursein horticulture wascommenced. It ishoped that this can be expanded with prisoners havingthe ability to put the knowledge they havegained into practicein the horticultural department with the ultimate aim of gaining real skills which will aid them in finding employmentondischarge.
Somewoodwork, construction and renovation work is undertaken and it ishoped to develop linksto enable some of this workto be organised in a more structured manner linked with the ability toobtain certification forworkproduced. The physicalconditionsas well asthelackofstaffresourcesplace considerable constraints on what the Prison can offer.The provision of a new kitchen in 2006 willenable the Prison to offer training to prisonersin catering.
A smallnumberof prisoners are able to be temporarily released towards the end of their sentence to undertake both voluntary and paid employment as part oftheir rehabilitation process.Thelackofless secure prison accommodation can lead to security and staffing difficulties to facilitate this work. It is hoped to providesuch a building to hold prisoners whoarefelt to be suitable to be in the community with minimal supervision. This would be a far more cost-effective solution than having them held in conditions of security greater than their needs.

P A R OLE AND SUPERVISED RELEASE T h e P resent System in the UK

Jersey does not have a parole system, whereasGuernsey has had one in placesince 1991. In the UKthe parole system was established by the Criminal Justice Act, 1967; however, owing to procedural inadequacies the system wasreviewed in the mid 1980s under the chairmanshipof Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.
The resultant Criminal Justice Act 1991 removed the Parole Board's discretionary power to recommend the releaseof prisoners serving sentencesofless than 4 years.Theybecamesubject to a new system of Automatic Conditional Release (ACR) after serving half their sentence. Once released, they are supervised by the Probation andAfter-Care Service until ¾ of the sentence has been served. If they commit a further offence during that periodofsupervisionorthelast ¼ of their sentence, they are liable to servetheunexpired portion of the sentence in prison. Prisoners serving less than 12 monthsarenot subject to statutory supervision by the Probation and After-Care Service but are liable to serve the unexpired part oftheirsentence if reconvicted during this period.Forbothcategories, release at half-way will be delayed ifthe prisoner has to serve extra days forbreachesof prison discipline. Powers to release on parole – whichisnow called Discretionary Conditional Release(DCR) – apply only to those prisoners sentenced to 4 year's imprisonmentor longer. Prisonersdeemedby the ParoleBoardtobe unsuitable for parole are released at the two thirds pointof their sentence – known as their non-parole date (NPD) – or at a later date if they havehadaddeddaysfor prison offences, on ACR.
The 1991 Act also made major procedural changes. At present, every prisoner is interviewed by a

member of the Parole Board who prepares a report but does not make a recommendation or sit on the Panel

deciding the case. Although there is no statutory entitlement for the prisoner to see the parole dossier, it is policy for them to see all the reports in the dossier prepared about him/her including the Parole Board interviewing member's report, and to allow them to make representations about any matter contained in the dossier and the report. Reports can be withheld from prisoners if it is judged that matters have been raised which are prejudicial to security and the safety of victims or others. Every prisoner has a right to receive reasons in writing for the decision taken by the Board. Since 1998, the Parole Board has had delegated authority to make the final decision whether or not to grant parole for those sentenced to less than 15 year's imprisonment. For longer sentences, the Board makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State although this is under review following a European Court of Human Rights judgment.

The Carlisle Committeesetout the criteria forgranting parole reaching the conclusion that –

" th e p a r o le decision will thus be based upon an evaluation of the risk to the public of the person committing a further serious offence at a time when he would otherwise be in prison, as against the benefit both to him and the public of his being released from prison back into the community under a degree of supervision which might assist his rehabilitation and thereby lessen the risk of his re-offending in the future."

The risk to beassessed is whether a further serious offence might becommitted. It would clearly not be right to prolong a person'sdetention for several months,or even years, simply onthe strength of a fear that hecouldcommit the sort ofoffenceswhichwouldmerit a non-custodialsentenceor,atmost, a short prison sentence.The Secretary ofState's directions whichflowed from the 1991 Act gave primacyto risk assessment andstressed the need to protect the public from serious harm from offenders together with the desirability of preventing further offending whilst aiding their rehabilitation.

C h a n ges Brought About by the Criminal Justice Act 2003

In July 2001 the UKGovernment published the Hall idayReport entitled Making PunishmentsWork'. This has given rise to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which will introduce a series of new custodial sentences and alterations to the parole system. Amongst the newsentencesbeingconsidered are the introduction of Custody Plus' which is a short jail term followed by a long period of community supervision which will replace current custodial sentences ofless than 12 months,andCustodyMinus', a suspended sentence with supervision and other additional requirements.Theimplications for parole are that the majority of offenders will be released automatically at the half way point of their custody irrespective of the length of their sentence. In this way, half of the sentencewillbe served in custody and half will be served on licence inthecommunity.The Prison and ProbationandAfter-CareServices will be able to attach specific requirements to thesecond half ofcustodialsentencesof12 monthsormore to reduce the riskofre-offendingand protect the public. Unlikenow,the period ofsupervisionwill extend to theendofthesentence.Should the offenderbreach any of these requirements then, asnow, they may be recalled to custody. Recallwillbeanexecutive decision but the Parole Board will review each decision and determine whether, and atwhatpoint, the offendershouldbe released.
The intention is that the Parole Board will be able to focus its expertise on those prisoners who present the greatest risk.Offenderswho have been assessed asdangerous will not be eligible for the restructured custodial sentences of12 monthsor more describedabove.The Hall idayReport identified an inadequate lackofdisposalsfor offenders who had committed offences whichdo not carrylifebutwho nevertheless have a high risk of committing a further offence that would cause serious harm tothe public. For the first time, therefore, the UKGovernment are creating a schemeofsentencesaimed specifically at sexual and violent offenderswho have been assessedasdangerous. Offenders who have committed a sexual or violent offencethat, in the UK,carries a maximumsentenceofbetween 2 and10 years' imprisonment, and who have been assessed as dangerous, will be liable to a newExtended Sentence for Public Protection (EPP). Unlike the present system, release during the second half of the sentence, whether serving 4 yearsor not, will be upon therecommendationoftheParoleBoard.Theextended licence period may be up to 5 years for violent offenders and up to 8 years for sexual offenders Dangerous offenders who have committed a sexual or violent offence that, in theUK, presently carries

a maximum sentence of 10 years or more will get either a discretionary life sentence or the new Indeterminate

Sentence for Public Protection (IPP). The IPP is similar to a life sentence in that the court will set a tariff period, after which release is at the discretion of the Parole Board on grounds of public safety. On release, the offender will be subject to supervision on licence for at least 10 years, after which time the licence may be revoked by the Parole Board if it considers it safe to do so, otherwise it will continue.

Hitherto, the introduction of a parole or conditional release system in Jersey hasnotfoundfavour with either the former Prison Board or the formerDefenceCommittee.However, the Royal Court is supportive of a systemof parole. Moreover, the focusgroupfelt that the antipathy towards parolewaschanging.The Home Affairs Committee'sjudgementis that the climate is rightforreforming the framework within which custodial sentences are served in Jersey from a judicial, rehabilitative and financial viewpoint. From theabove, it is clear that theUKGovernment is consideringchanges to the role of the ParoleBoard primarily to allow them to concentratetheir efforts ondangerous offenders.

T h e P roblem of Restricted Transfers to England and Wales

Prior to 1997, all transfers ofprisonerstoEnglandand Wales wereonan unrestricted basis, which meant that the administration of the prisoner'ssentencewas entirely a matter for the receiving jurisdiction. Prisoners transferred from Jersey were therefore eligible for parole equally with prisoners inEnglandand Wales. This meant that prisoners with a connection to that jurisdiction werekeen to request repatriation, with the added benefit that Jersey did not pay for these transfers. However, 2 unrelated matters led to a change in policy.
Firstly, with spaceatHMPLaMoye,it was considered tobeless costly tokeep prisoners, particularly those with local ties, on the Island for longer. As a result, disparities started to appear in the way sentences were served.Consider,for example, 2 prisoners – one a Jersey resident and the other a visitor – both sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.The Jersey prisonerwouldbe released after 4 years,but the visitor, if transferred to England and Wales,might only serve 2 yearsin custody before being released on Parole licence for 2 years (in accordance with the rules applicable at the time).Understandably,such disparities led toJerseyprisoners feeling disadvantaged.
Secondly, some time followingtheintroduction of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, it becameevident that the legal basis for transfer and release onParole were nolonger as certainas previously. Urgent, but protracted, negotiations took placebetween officers andlegaladvisersin the various jurisdictions and a solution found and implemented in the Crime SentencesAct 1997. Thisre-established the principle of legal transfer, but the view taken by the PrisonBoardwas that it should follow the exampleofEngland and Walesandnot allow transfers to result in earlier release than would be possible underourown legislation (except in the caseoflifesentence prisoners whootherwise would neverbe released).
Consequently,all transfers toEngland and Walessince1997have been carriedouton a restricted' basis, meaning that inwhichever British jurisdiction the prisoner is serving a sentence imposedby the Jersey Court, he or she will serve two-thirds before being released. There are no longer any feelings of resentment about disparity in time served by prisoners in Jersey.

T h e R ight System for Jersey

A release system which provides a flexible and cost-effective means of balancing punishment and rehabilitation for Jerseyprisoners and which,dovetails with the reformsbeing introduced bytheUK's Criminal Justice Act 2003, might have the followingframework –

• D is c retionary supervised release at the half sentence point for prisoners serving 12 months or less with a one month resettlement licence.

• D is c retionary supervised release at the half sentence point for prisoners serving 12 months or longer (except for dangerous or sexual offenders) with supervision in the community for the

remainder of their sentence.

• T h e establishment of a system of parole to adjudicate on prisoners' suitability for early release.

• B re a ch of licence subject to executive recall by the Prison Governor or Chief Probation Officer, but subject to appeal or review by the parole system or the Royal Court.

• A ll t ransfers to be on unrestricted terms and, ordinarily, at no cost to the Island. Note: only those

prisoners satisfying Home Office Circular 52/97, i.e. strong links to England and Wales and in the interests of their rehabilitation. (these criteria are usually met in the case of drug traffickers).

The precise legislative frameworkneeded for a new law to facilitate the introductionof discretionary supervised releaseis currently being investigated by a joint Home Affairs andLawOfficers' Department working group. There are many factors to be considered, not least human rights compliance, arrangements for recall intheeventof a breachof licence, the establishment of a system of parole and how theprovisionscanbe applied to existing prisoners.
In formulating a systemof discretionary supervised release and post-custodialsupervision,theCommittee has taken due account ofthe Scrutiny PanelReport (S.R.1/2004), RespondingtoDrugandAlcoholUse in Jersey'. This reporthelpstohighlight that prisoners need support, as well as supervision, to help them adjust following a period of custody and to minimise theriskofre-offending. Such a system isdesigned to enable prisoners to make a seamless transition from custodyback into the community.

R e s o urce Implications

These reforms are essentially rehabilitative in nature and,consequently, imply that the Statesof Jersey will recognise theirvalue and fund the additional resources necessary toput them into effect. There will be a greater emphasison preparing prisoners adequately for a futurelifeinthecommunityfree from crime. Consequently, 3 Prison staff will be needed forsentence planning during the custodial part of the sentence. Thereafter, an additional 3.5 Probation staff will berequired to take on the heaviersupervisory role whilst prisoners are released on licence.The Island may achieve somesavings, nevertheless, as a result of the transferof prisoners; they will be more motivated to return if there is no disadvantageto them in termsof the sentenceregime and they willhavethe benefit of low category prisons in some cases. There will alsobe a running cost savingintermsofthe shorter periodbeing served incustody. Furthermore, the overall quality of life for prisoners atLaMoyeshouldbe significantly better as a result of a modernised estate and noovercrowding. The case for these reforms is therefore compellingon humane, social and financial aswellascriminological grounds.

Pillar 9 - Policy Statement

Whilst in many cases a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, it is nevertheless the case that custody often results in offenders losing their employment, accommodation and contact with family and friends. The development of alternatives to custody, such as Probation and Community Service, have been beneficial in assisting offender rehabilitation. The Probation and After-Care Service has played a vital role in this and half their work is now concerned with rehabilitation. Since 2001, a close working relationship has been built up with the Prison to the extent that there is now a Prison Probation Officer. Sentence planning has been piloted in the Young Offenders' Institute and various programmes are run to aid prisoner rehabilitation.

The Home Affairs Committee believes there is much more scope for prisoner rehabilitation in order to reduce recidivism rates. Currently, 50% of adults and 70% of young offenders will be reconvicted within 12 months. The fact that the present total annual running cost budget for the Jersey Probation and After-Care Service (approximately £1 million) is similar to the amount of money spent on accommodating prisoners in the UK in 2004 graphically illustrates the level of under-resourcing in this vital area. Despite the limitations on funding, all prisoners are offered voluntary contact with the Probation and After-Care Service on release. The Service is experienced at helping offenders to gain access to accommodation and employment opportunities as well as services more directly related to their offending. There are a range of services available to ex-offenders but, without professional assistance, they are not always able to access them. It is therefore disappointing that few prisoners take up the offer of assistance from the Probation and After-Care Service post release. Before the appointment of a Probation Officer at HM Prison La Moye, only one or two prisoners requested voluntary after-care each year; the numbers are now increasing but are still in single figures. This lack of response is one compelling reason for placing post-custodial supervision on a statutory footing.

Pillar 8 – Dealing With Offenders, outlines a different framework within which custodial sentences could be served where greater emphasis is given to rehabilitation. The Home Affairs Committee has been careful to study the provisions of the UK's Criminal Justice Act 2003 in which the system of parole will be reformed. The Committee sees no need to replicate those provisions precisely; however, it will be important to adopt a system which dovetails with that in the UK, not least so that the Island can revert to transferring the majority of prisoners with demonstrable links with England and Wales so that prisoners will be more willing to request transfer to prisons in England and Wales knowing that they will receive similar treatment in terms of release as those prisoners sentenced from the English courts. The Committee intends, therefore, to introduce a system of discretionary supervised release along the lines described in paragraph 12.35 but subject to the recommendation made by the joint Home Affairs/Law Officers' Department working group.

There will be a cost to introducing such a system; however, depending upon the future prison population, these costs will be offset by the savings that will accrue from fewer prisoners needing to be transferred to prisons in England and Wales and, of those that are, most requesting such a transfer and demonstrating links with England or Wales. An additional 3 Prison Officers will be needed for sentence planning during the custodial part of the sentence. Thereafter, an additional 3.5 Probation staff will be required to take on the heavier supervisory role whilst prisoners are released on licence. Better value for money should be achieved in terms of lower re-offending rates.

The Home Affairs Committee recognises the link between poor educational ability and high rates of recidivism. In accordance with a proposal formulated by Deputy Jennifer Bridge and Professor Edward Sallis, it wishes to create a Prison Education Unit to deliver a range of educational services including basic skills, national vocational courses, distance learning and careers guidance.

Finally on rehabilitation, the Home Affairs Committee is committed to the philosophy of harm reduction and has carried this forward into the new Building a Safer Society Strategy. The Committee is currently examining the recent Prison Health Needs Report which may highlight further action required. The Committee also expects to be able to consider this year a follow-up report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on the question of whether certain illegal substances should be downgraded and the UK's experience in having re-classified cannabis.

Action Plan

The Home Affairs Committee will:

In 2006, seek approval for new post-custodial supervision legislation in order to introduce a system of discretionary supervised release.

Ensure that funding for an additional 3 Prison staff and 3.5 Probation staff required to implement post-custodial supervision is included in the 2006 Resource Plan.

Subject to the approval of new legislation, introduce a system of discretionary supervised release in 2006.

Seek funding in the region of £100,000 to establish a Prison Education Unit in partnership with Highlands College.

Explore further life-long learning opportunities for prisoners in consultation with the Education, Sport and Culture Committee.

RUTHERFORD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Rec. No.	Rutherford Report Recommendation	Decision/Cross Reference to Criminal Justice Policy
1.	Steps should be taken to establish a body with oversight responsibility for criminal justice policy. Such a body might be called the Criminal Justice Policy Oversight Council.	See Pillar 4 – Joint Working, page 49. An informal forum will be established for discussion on criminal justice policy and planning involving the executive and the judiciary.
2.	A reliable, robust and consistent set of crime and criminal justice statistics be in place on an annual basis by the year 2005.	See Pillar 2 – Criminal Justice Statistics, page 24. A co-ordinated set of criminal justice statistics was produced for 2002 and 2003, and will continue to be produced annually by the Statistics Working Group through the various individual systems at their disposal. This will continue until the scoping study for an Integrated CJS has identified the way forward, resources have been allocated and the project implemented.
3.	There should be a pro-active Police Authority with resources adequate to its task. Only in this way will the Island be able to satisfy itself that the overall level of policing meets the demanding standards appropriate to this crucial arena of criminal justice.	See Pillar 6 – Enforcement, page 66. The Committee will take forward proposals to establish a police consultative forum once the position of the Connétable s under the Ministerial Government has been decided.
4.	A public prosecution service be created under a Director responsible to the Attorney General and that the role of the Centenier in the Magistrate's Court should cease.	Home Affairs Committee Act B9 of 22nd May 2003. Following early consultation with the Attorney General, this recommendation will not be adopted.
5.	The rationale of the Parish Hall Enquiry must be clarified and the institution protected and revitalised. In this respect the Centenier, of course, remains a central figure and it follows that his or her role in appropriately diverting cases away from the criminal justice process is one that should be consolidated.	See Pillar 7 – Prosecution, page 82. The diversionary role of the Parish Hall Enquiry must be protected but ought not to be enhanced in the way suggested. The system is currently Human Rights compliant, but this could be compromised unnecessarily.
6.	There should be specially designated Parish Hall Enquiries with respect to persons under the age of 18, and that the role of Youth Panel members within the existing Youth Court structure be enhanced.	See Pillar 7 – Prosecution, page 82. The comments made on recommendation 5 above apply to recommendation 6. There would be problems associated with creating a judicial system at Parish Hall level.
7.	The Probation and After-Care Service be strengthened; it is clear that the service will necessarily play a pivotal role in any concerted, de-escalatory strategy to reduce the Island's very high prison population.	See Pillar 9 – Rehabilitation, page 105. A system of discretionary, supervised release from prison will be introduced which will rely on additional resources for the Probation and After-Care Service to carry out sentence planning and supervision on licence in the community.


8.	Jersey's incarceration rates (including any prisoners held in the UK) should be reduced and held at a level around 85 per 100,000 inhabitants. This would locate Jersey's rate broadly in line with the median rate of European jurisdictions. For Jersey, this rate translates into a total of 70 to 75 prisoners of all categories. The most appropriate way forward would appear to be for the Attorney General to invite the full Royal Court, or the Court of Appeal, to reconsider sentence lengths in light of developments during the seven years since the guideline judgment in Campbell, Molloy and MacKenzie and related judgments.	See Pillar 8 – Dealing with Offenders, page 87. Although it was neither covered nor recommended in the Rutherford Report, the Committee is recommending a system of discretionary supervised release as a method of providing more effective rehabilitation following a custodial sentence. A side-effect will be a reduction in the prison population and the reinstatement of unrestricted transfers to UK prisons. The Royal Court will also be requested to review its sentencing policy for drug trafficking offences in the light of experience since the Campbell' judgment.
9.	The harm reduction approach to substance misuse be developed and expanded in accordance with the 1999/2004 strategy. So as to ensure a consistent approach to Jersey's drug scene, the ethos of harm reduction needs to be understood and embraced at every stage of the criminal justice process. In accordance with developments elsewhere, consideration should be given to reclassifying Ecstasy (from Class A to Class B) and Cannabis (from Class B to Class C). The introduction of an arrest referral scheme would provide an opportunity to promote the harm reduction approach to drug users.	See Pillar 5 – Early Intervention, page 54. The harm reduction ethos is now widely embraced and projects funded through the BaSS Strategy follow its principles. The Island will be monitoring closely the UK's experience with the downgrading of cannabis. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will be reporting on the UK's experience after January 2005. An Arrest Referral Worker has been appointed since the Rutherford Report was published.
10.	If there is to be any decrease in the level of crime and the threat that it poses on the Island, the focus needs to be on primary and secondary prevention linked closely, in the context of drugs, with Recommendation 9 and the harm reduction strategy.	See Pillar 5 – Early Intervention, page 54. This approach is enshrined in the Building a Safer Society Strategy which encompasses the harm reduction strategy.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – FOCUS GROUPS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY - FOCUS GROUPS

FOCUS GROUP

STATISTICS EARLY VICTIM PARTICIPANTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTION OFFENDERS LOOKING AFT

Senator W Kinnard JOINT WORKING ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTION DEALING WITH REHABILITATION PAROLE Deputy R Le Hérissier

Deputy J Bridge

Steven Austin-Vautier Jurat De Veulle

Crown Advocate C Whelan Ian Le Marquand Supt. J Pearson

Centenier D Webber

Advocate J Gollop

Advocate R Juste Helen Miles

Graham Power

Steve Cole

Peter De Gruchy Bcaosnesdu lot-n

Michael Gafoor ation

Centenier A Morley lepardoicnegs sto

Brian Heath States Dave Mullins adoption of

'Building A

Dr G Blackwood Safer

Mike Kirby Society'

strategy.

Ian Rogan

Dr I Skinner

Tim Allen

David Le Heuze

Kate Jeggo

Janette Gatt

Constable J Germain

Centenier C Dix

Maureen Pallot

Francis Le Gresley

Steve Harvey

Dominique Caunce

Marisha Carter

Alan Campian

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

PRISON POPULATION PER 100,000

Ru Es

Mo Lith

Je Po

2001 2003

Ro Ge

Cz Slo

Po En Arm

Ita Gbi

Fra Tu

Isle Alb

Ire Lu

An Gre

Sw Ma

Fin

No Cro

Slo

Bo Prison Population per 100,000

Cy Lie

Ma Mo

Ice

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Bo

COST OF CRIME TO VICTIMS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES JOINT WORKING

CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS – RISK FACTORS, OFFENDING AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION

POLICE & CUSTOMS 10 YEAR DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS

Police & Customs 10 Year Drug Seizure Values

£8,000,000 £7,000,000 £6,000,000 £5,000,000 £4,000,000 £3,000,000 £2,000,000 £1,000,000 £0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Police & Customs 10 Year Drug Seizures by Type

£4,000,000 £3,500,000 £3,000,000 £2,500,000 £2,000,000 £1,500,000 £1,000,000 £500,000 £0

Cannabis- Herbal/Resin Heroin

Cocaine/Crack Cocaine Amphet Sulphate MDMA

LSD

Other

NB. Insufficient data to separate all drug types in 2000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCE CASE STUDY (All names have been changed for the purpose of this review)

A9.1 O ne of the most successful restorative justice conferences involved a youth who had stolen £469 from the

till and several phone cards from the supermarket where he worked at weekends.

A9.2 John participated well during the conference and had brought with him a letter of apology for the

Supermarket Manager. He had already paid back the money that he had stolen from an account that his grandparents had set up for him. He agreed to take part in a conference as he was deeply remorseful to everyone involved especially as he had let down his family; this was particularly apparent when his father told him how much they all loved him and did not want him to start going down a criminal path. John assured his father that nothing like this would ever happen again and, if he could turn the clock back, he would.

A9.3 T he Security Manager explained how the whole investigation process had affected all the staff as they

were all under suspicion and hidden cameras had to be used. He stated that it was very unsettling knowing that a trusted member of staff was abusing the system and it was not pleasant for the staff to have security officers observing them whilst trying to identify the culprit.

A9.4 J ohn agreed that he would work for 3 months of Saturdays without getting paid. The Security Manager

said that this would give John a chance to get his job back and to obtain a good reference in the future. John's father thanked him for giving his son a second chance.

A9.5 A t the end of the 3-month period, the Supermarket Manager stated that he was extremely pleased with

John's progress. The Centenier involved in the case was delighted with the reports regarding John. The supermarket staff were astounded that John had kept his word and had attended every week. They all admired him for having the courage to carry out mundane tasks that nobody enjoyed doing without complaining once and, even more, for not getting paid. The supermarket agreed to re-employ John on the counters instead of the tills, and were very impressed with the whole restorative justice initiative.

A9.6 T he Centenier involved stated that, in cases like this, a written caution would be issued usually; however,

because he had been so impressed with John's input from the start, he gave him a verbal warning instead.

A9.7 B oth John and his family were delighted with the outcome and appreciated that he now had a clean slate

and a fresh start with an opportunity to put this incident behind him.

[1]

States of Jersey Police Annual Report 2004, page 12.

[2]

States of Jersey Police Annual Report 2004, page 13.

[3]

Miles . H. and Raynor. P., Community Sentences in Jersey: Risk Needs and Rehabilitation, Jersey Probation and After- Care Service, 2004, page 20.

[4]

States of Jersey Police Annual Report 2004.

[5]

Brand, S. & Price , R. (2000) The Economic and Social Costs of Crime. Home Office.

[6]

Home Office, July 2003, A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses'.

[7]

Bull, K. (2003) Review of the Principles, Practices and Provision for the Children and Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Disorders in the Island of Jersey 2002. States of Jersey.

[8]

Source: South Australian Crime Prevention Unit Early Intervention in Crime Prevention Programme. [9]

Rutherford Report, page 107.

[10]

Ibid, page 107.

Home Affairs Committee Act B8, dated 10th March 2005.

[12]

Parish Accounts 2003/2004.

[13]

The Future for Drugs Enforcement in Jersey, Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and the Agent of the Impôts, October

1994.

[14]

Home Affairs Committee paper, R.C.35 dated 22nd July 2003.

[15]

Police Reform Act (2002).

[16]

Metropolitan Police Authority website, 28th February 2005.

[17]

P25/2005, Migration: Monitoring and Regulation, paragraph 3(c)

[18]

Rutherford Report, pages 40-54.

[19]

Ibid, page 98.

[20]

Home Affairs Committee Act B9 of 22nd May 2003.

[21]

Ibid, page 100.

[22]

Ibid, page 102.

[23]

Raynor, P. and Miles , H., February 2004, Evaluating the Role of the Parish Hall Enquiry', pages 27-28. [24]

Clothier 1996:16.

[25]

Miles , H., Probation Journal Vol 51 (2) 2004, The Parish Hall Enquiry: A community-based alternative to formal court processing in the Channel Island of Jersey', page 141.

[26]

Raynor, P. and Miles , H., February 2004, Evaluating the Role of the Parish Hall Enquiry', pages 27-28.

[27]

Raynor, P. and Miles , H., February 2004, Evaluating the Role of the Parish Hall Enquiry', page 29.

[28]

Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2004, page 25.

[29]

Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2004, page 27.

[30]

Rutherford Report, page 62.

[31]

*Normal accommodation is that level representing decent, uncrowded accommodation. [32]

David Davis MP, Shadow Home Secretary, Policy Review Magazine, September 2004.

[33]

Dr. D. King, HM La Moye: Report on the Temporary Release of Prisoners, December 2003. [34]

Raynor and Miles 2001, Raynor and Miles 2004.

[35]

Heath et al 2002; Raynor and Miles 2004.

[36]

Miles 2004.

[37]

JPACS 2003 and 2004; Northern Ireland Office 1998.

[38]

Raynor and Miles 2004.