Criminal Justice Policy

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

August 2007 H o m e A f fairs Department

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to re c eive the Criminal Justice Policy, as set out in the report of the Minister for Home Affairs dated 30th

August 2007 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 26;

(i i) c r i m  inal justice statistics on page 35;

(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 57;

(v i ) e n f o rcement on page 70;

(v i i) d e a li ng with offenders on page 87;

(v i ii ) re h a bilitation on page 101;

(b ) to agree the policy statement in the section entitled Prosecution' on page 73.

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD BY THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS..................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 7 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – OVERVIEW...................................................................... 17

POLICY CONTEXT – INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY 21

PILLAR 1 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE VALUES......................................................................... 24 PILLAR 2 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS................................................................... 27 PILLAR 3 – LOOKING AFTER VICTIMS............................................................................ 36 PILLAR 4 – JOINT WORKING............................................................................................. 45 PILLAR 5 – EARLY INTERVENTION.................................................................................. 48 PILLAR 6 – ENFORCEMENT................................................................................................ 58 PILLAR 7 – PROSECUTION................................................................................................. 71 PILLAR 8 – DEALING WITH OFFENDERS......................................................................... 74 PILLAR 9 – REHABILITATION............................................................................................. 88 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................... 102

RUTHERFORD REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 102 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – FOCUS GROUPS............................................................ 104 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY ACTION PLAN +.............................................................. 106 PROGRESS AS AT APRIL 2007 AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS................................. 106 PRISON POPULATION PER 100,000................................................................................. 115 COST OF CRIME TO VICTIMS.......................................................................................... 116 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES JOINT WORKING........................................................ 118

CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS – RISK FACTORS, OFFENDING AND SUBSEQUENT ACTION 119

POLICE & CUSTOMS 10 YEAR DRUG SEIZURE STATISTICS....................................... 120 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCE CASE STUDY.................................................. 121

FOREWORD BY THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

This document details Jersey's first formal Criminal Justice Policy and marks an important contribution to modern government by the Home Affairs Department. Once the States had agreed departmental responsibilities under Ministerial government, I resolved to bring policy proposals forward at the earliest opportunity.

The timetable for delivery contained in the document shows that a significant amount of research and consultation was carried out in 2003/4 which enabled the initial policy to be lodged for debate in October 2005. In the event, the States decided, rightly, that such a major policy should be debated by the new Assembly after the 2005 elections and following review by the Council of Ministers which had recorded the Policy as an existing priority in its Strategic Plan 2006-2011. This did mean, however, that statistics needed to be updated, information and policy proposals re-validated with stakeholders, and further consultation conducted in 2006.

It would be easy to under-estimate the complexity of the policy formulation task. To many, criminal justice is a concept which revolves around crime and punishment with the courts at its centre. Important though the courts are to the criminal justice system, it is not the purpose of this policy to enter into any form of judicial services review or to interfere directly in sentencing policy. The former is beyond both the remit and resources of my Department. The latter is for the Royal Court to decide, but this does not preclude sensible dialogue between the executive and the judiciary where sentencing policy has wider implications for the society in which we live.

The debate about the causes and consequences of offending behaviour is constantly with us. Thus the decision as to whether someone who committed an offence did so due to unfortunate circumstances, psychiatric problems or is considered as having no excuse has implications for the criminal justice system. Practical help may try to remedy unfortunate circumstances; treatment and training is provided by, for example, the Probation and After- Care Service, and at Greenfields; punishment of more serious crime usually results in a custodial sentence. Probation, Community Service and suspended sentences are examples of alternatives to prison programmes to address offending behaviour. Reparation and restorative justice have been achieved through the Parish Hall Enquiry system working with the Probation and After-Care Service. Some important changes towards reform and rehabilitation are long overdue. I hope they will begin to be addressed by this new policy.

The objectives of this criminal justice policy have been developed within a framework of evidence and principle. The evidence is growing about the nature and extent of crime, the characteristics and risk factors of criminality and patterns of criminal careers, methods of preventing crime and criminality, the effectiveness of policing and sentencing options and the management of prisons. Principal strategies of this policy include increased effectiveness and value for money, early intervention, crime prevention and reduction, further opportunities for community sentencing, imprisonment as a last resort, development of supervision schemes in the community to reduce re-offending and due consideration being given to victims. Thus this policy looks at criminal justice in its widest context: from the risk factors that give rise to offending; early intervention measures designed to help prevent offending; prosecution and enforcement; and finally how we deal with offenders and how we rehabilitate them. The last chapter – Rehabilitation – proposes major improvements to the education and training of prisoners and their supervision after release.

At every stage, I have actively sought the views of others and taken into account contributions received. At the outset, the former Committee commissioned an independent review by Professor Rutherford, Dean of Law at Southampton University. Detailed focus group work followed with main stakeholders which led to public consultation documents being published in 2005 and 2006. The Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel has signalled its support in principle save for Pillar 7 – Prosecution'. The Panel has taken a particular interest in the role of the Magistrate but their review does not interfere with the policy as drafted.

Finally, it is most important that this policy is joined-up' effectively with other policies, none of which exist in isolation. Indeed, other Home Affairs initiatives underpin the Criminal Justice Policy, especially those promoting intervention and partnership working such as Building a Safer Society (accessible at www.gov.je/CommunitySafety  ) and Safer St. Helier. Furthermore, I am particularly pleased that the policy dovetails with emerging policies such as the Social Policy, 'Every Person Counts' and New Directions' from the Health and Social Services Department. The same principles of early intervention, encouraging behavioural change and taking responsibility for one's actions apply throughout.

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the development of this document and I must mention in particular the exceptional work undertaken by my Chief Officer, Steven Austin-Vautier, from its genesis to fruition. His extensive knowledge and previous experience in the criminal justice field has been invaluable and his dedication to meticulous detail has resulted in a policy document in which I and my department are justly proud. I believe this first criminal justice policy provides a significant contribution to the important States strategic obligation of a safe, just and equitable society and will provide a firm foundation for future policy development for some time to come.

Senator Wendy Kinnard       3 0 t h  A u g u s t 2 0 0 7  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

POLICY OVERVIEW

1. The formation of the Home Affairs CommitteeinDecember 1999 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 Services. This union highlighted the need for a policy on criminal justice.When the States ofJerseyadoptedP.70/2002,whichoutlined the organisationofthedepartmentsunder ministerial reform, the responsibility for policy developmentwas allocated to the Home Affairs Department.
2. In 2002, the then Home Affairs Committee commissioned an independent review of the criminal justice process in Jersey. This helpedtocompareourexperience with other jurisdictions andprovide a statistical base  for policy development. The resultant Rutherford  Report' made  10 recommendations. The Committee  took  an early  decision  not  to  pursue  Recommendation 4  because  of  the  potential cost implications and the impacton the traditional role of the Honorary Police. Theotherrecommendations were taken forward into policy design andare referred toin the relevant part ofthepolicydocument.
3. As a backdrop to policy development, the Departmenthas taken 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. Moreover, the highest regard is paid to human rights issues in all policies.
4. Giventhe action plansdetailedin this document, the criminal justice policy will have a 5-year life between the years 2007 – 2011. Thepolicy is a key componentin delivering CommitmentThreeofthe Strategic Plan 2006to 2011 in promoting a safe, just and equitable society.

POLICY CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK

5. The policy frameworkisbasedon 9 pillars': values; criminal justice statistics; looking after victims; joint working;early intervention; enforcement;prosecution; dealing with offenders; and rehabilitation. Thesearedepicted on thefollowingpage.
6. Focus groups, consisting ofpeoplewho 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 Department's policy oneach criminal justice pillar' is summarised in thefollowing statements with their respective action plans.
7. Whendevelopingany policy, itisimportanttoexamine the various 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 and is detailed in the Policy Context' chapter.

POLICY STATEMENTS AND ACTION PLANS

Pillar 1 – Criminal Justice Values

8. I, together with myHome Affairs Department, will uphold the values that society considers should underpin the component parts of the criminal justice process.Thesevalues translate into thefollowing key aim of criminal justice policy –

T o e n h a n c e the quality of life in Jersey by creating a safer and more peaceful society; 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.

To achieve this aim, the Department 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 its policing duties.

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

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

Reduce the fear of crime.

Help to protect the Island from threats such as terrorism, money laundering, corruption, people trafficking and other organised crime. Support the enforcement agencies in the execution of their statutory duties.

Pillar 2 – Criminal Justice Statistics

9. Criminal justice policy developmentneedstobeevidence-led in order to take account oftrendsin offending. Additionally, in order to support Recommendation 9(5) of the Social Policy Framework, corporate data collection andanalysisshouldmonitor the signaloffences' that impactonfearof crime; measure outputs and outcomes of the criminal justice process; and evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies. Hitherto,departments have tendedto develop information systems in orderto meet theirownbusinessneeds.However, criminal justice is a complexanddynamic process and the ability toaccess a common database would create efficiencies in documentmanagement, the removalof duplication andaccuracyof statistical information.Suchan integrated criminal justice system will take time to deliver; consequently, the Home Affairs Departmentenvisages a longtermand a short-term strategy.
10. In the long term, the Department aims to develop an integrated criminal justice information and documentmanagement system. A project of such complexity will require significant financial investment; a Scoping Studywas carried out in early 2005 and its recommendationswillbetaken forward by the Criminal Justice Information Strategy Group.
11. The Home Affairs Department and other criminal justice agencies have hadtheforesight to produce criminal justice statistics annuallyusingsystems currently inplace. In keeping with Recommendation 2 of the Rutherford Report, criminal justice agenciesarecontinuing this work untilan integrated solutionis in place.

Action Plan

12. The Home Affairs Department will –

Implement the recommendations of the Integrated Criminal Justice Scoping Study.

In the meantime, continue to produce co-ordinated criminal justice statistics annually using current systems through joint working between criminal justice agencies.

Pillar 3 – Looking After Victims

13. Rates of reported andrecordedcrimemean that many victims andwitnessesofcrimenever 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's Refuge, the Brook Agency, Jersey Domestic Violence Forum, Citizens AdviceBureauandCrimestoppers. We alsohave statutory provision for the Criminal Injuries CompensationScheme and CompensationOrders. A Victims' Charter was developed in1996 and the present VictimSupport Service set up to carry on the work started in 1989.There is now a wide variety ofagenciesinvolved, in one form oranother,in victim support who are keen toworkmore closely together. For its part, the Home Affairs Departmentiscommitted to ensuring that everything is done within the resourcesavailableto minimise thelevelof victimisation through crime prevention measures and to help people whohave been the victims ofcrime.However, justice must remain objective and victims should not exert undue influence over the administration ofjustice.Accountalsoneeds to be taken of the needsofrepeatvictims and hate crime victims. Researchcarriedoutby the U.K.Home Office for its strategy A New DealforVictimsandWitnesses' provides a useful and relevant framework for reviewing local arrangementsfor victim support. In ordertoimprove safeguards forchildrenand vulnerable persons,we will considerhowtheIslandcan access the Vetting and Barring Schemebeing set up under the SafeguardingVulnerablegroupsAct2006.

14. The Home Affairs Department 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 U.K.'s experience in developing the New Deal' initiative.

Carry out a Crime Victimisation Survey every 3 years, subject to resources being available, 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.

Lead a cross-departmental working group reviewing the arrangements for vetting and barring in the Island to take account of the Vetting and Barring Scheme being introduced in the U.K. in a phased roll- out from autumn 2008.

Pillar 4 – Joint Working

15. Joint working is now a cornerstoneof States ofJersey 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 to best effect. Atoperational level, criminal justice agencies have worked hard to achieve this but there is a needfor better joint working atthehighest level.

Action Plan

16. I andtheHome Affairs Department will –

Promote 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 a forum for criminal justice policy and planning involving the executive, the judiciary and the prosecution.

Pillar 5 – Early Intervention

17. Early intervention to prevent criminalityis a key areaof criminal justice policyandonewhich,if invested in, will have a significant impacton criminality in our Island. The States of Jersey made a significant commitmentto this philosophy in 1999 whenitfunded both the Crime andCommunitySafety 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 2005in a new strategy, Building a SaferSociety'.
18. Although the focusof the BullReportwason addressing theneedsofchildren with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties, there is a clear interface with the criminal justice process where offending behaviour is concerned. The Home Affairs Department embraces fully the work carried out by the Children's Executive in recommending changes to the youth justice system.
19. Finally on rehabilitation, I andmyHome Affairs Department are committedto the philosophyof harm

reduction and have carried this forward into the Building a Safer Society Strategy.

Action Plan

20. The Home Affairs Department will –

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

Implement the appropriate recommendations of the Bull Report approved by the States of Jersey.

As 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.

Pillar 6 – Enforcement

21. The Home Affairs Department has a prime responsibility for enforcement through theStatesof Jersey Police and the Customsand Immigration Service. A closeworking relationship will be maintained with other enforcement agencies, notably the Honorary Police and the Viscount's Department. The Departmentendorses the sixoperational priorities that the States of Jersey Police have identified and will continue to survey the public regularly, throughtheAnnualSocialSurvey,inorderto identify their law enforcement concerns and whichareas to target. Thepublic continue to identify drug trafficking as the greatest menace to society and there is a continuing concern over anti-socialbehaviour.Consequently, through the Joint Intelligence Bureau, both Customsand the Police will pursue those whoseekto profit from trading in illegal drugs. The authorities have had significant success with in excess of £7 million worth in 2004 and just under£4 million worth in 2005. With regard to imported crime, additionalpowers of detention forwanted' migrants and the introduction of a dangerous persons register is being investigated. A SexOffendersLawisalsobeingprogressed.

Action Plan

22. In ordertoaddresstheenforcementissuesand challenges ahead, I andmyDepartmentwill –

Develop the framework and law drafting instructions for a police authority for establishment during 2008.

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

Plan for anticipated changes in crime levels according to the predicted population profile and any effects of migration policy.

During 2007, 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.

Having regard to Recommendation 9(4) of the Social Policy Framework and agreed Safer St. Helier initiatives, analyse the nature and effect of anti-social behaviour in Jersey and, in consultation with other agencies and the community, seek appropriate solutions.

Maximise intelligence collecting and sharing with other jurisdictions in order to combat imported crime, particularly drug trafficking and, where appropriate, seek to have criminals arrested and drugs seized before they arrive in the Island.

Subject to the legal position, introduce additional powers of detention for wanted' migrants.

Introduce a Sex Offenders Law in 2008.

Pillar 7 – Prosecution

23. This policy takes a holistic view of criminal justice and its place in the socialand political context.It is not a judicial services review, although this may become a subject for discussion atthenewforum envisaged under Pillar 4 – Joint Working.
24. Havingtaken advice atan early stage in the policy setting process,theHome Affairs Departmentwillnot pursue the RutherfordReportrecommendation that a public prosecution service becreated. This could not be justified on cost groundsand would result in Centenierslosing their traditional role of presenting cases in the Magistrate'sCourt.
25. Regarding the futuredevelopmentof Parish Hall Enquiries, I and the Home Affairs Departmentsupport their status asan investigatory rather than a judicial body. Todo otherwise couldcompromise their traditional andvaluable role in dealing with offenders outside the formal criminal justice system and in being able to meet the provisions of the HumanRights (Jersey) Law 2000. The Rutherford Reportmade specific recommendationson the role of the Parish Hall Enquiry in dealing with young offenders.Since then, a better understanding has been developedbetweenagenciesonmaximisingappearancesatParish Hall levelprior to charging. Similarly, sincepublicationof the Bull Report,theDepartmenthashad the benefit ofbeing a partnerin taking forward therecommendationsof the Children'sExecutive detailed in Pillar 5 – Early Intervention. Theserecommendations will have a bearing on any future changestothe role oftheParish Hall Enquiryrather than recommendations 5 and 6 of the Rutherford Report.

Pillar 8 – Dealing with Offenders

26. Jersey is uniquein having a prosecutionprocess – 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 (whichis a directalternativeto custody) have been successful over many years. Jersey has a demonstrably effective and efficient Probation and After-Care Service which is trusted by the Courts, andwhich deals withsome400 offenders perannumwhowouldotherwise serve short prison sentences.
27. I andmyDepartment are particularly concernedabout the growth in Jersey'sprison population is of particular concern to the Home Affairs Departmentandwhichmaybeexacerbatedby the anticipated rise in crime as a result ofdemographicchanges. From a purely financial perspective, the growthinnumbers experienced in recent years is unsustainable particularly in view of the current stringency in public expenditure. Whetheranoffendershouldbe deprived oftheir liberty is, however, far too complexand serious a matter tobe reduced to a book-balancingexercise.The challenge for the Departmentis to create the conditions inwhichpunishment, deterrence and rehabilitation can be brought to bear in themostcost- effective way.The Island has not been doingenough to educate,re-skill and rehabilitate prisoners both during their sentenceandafter release. Furthermore, Jersey isout-of-step with mostotherestablished Western democracies in not givingprisonersan opportunity toshow that they canlead a lifefree from offending atanearlier stage in theirsentence. We have considered a rangeofmeasures that couldbe introduced to reform theframework in whichcustodialsentences are served.However,manyof them would failto provide the necessary safeguardsofproperpreparation for release whilst in custody and supervision thereafter. Consequently,our strategy will focuson closer dialogue with the Royal Court over sentencing policy and the use of community penalties; growing and improving the Prison estate; introducing discretionary supervised release;and continuing to develop the use of electronic monitoring and temporaryrelease.
28. Other than the collection of parking fines, the Island has not developeddisposalthrough administrative means. A separategroupunder the Attorney Generalhas 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 fixed site, automated enforcement cameras to Jersey in relation to motoring offences. The Department 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

29. The Home Affairs Department 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') as part of the proposals for post-custodial supervision.

Enter into discussions with the Bailiff over sentencing policy.

Urge the courts to continue 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.

Support the proposal to give the Royal Court greater flexibility in sentencing by increasing the maximum level of community service to 480 hours as an alternative to 3 year's imprisonment.

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 fixed site, automated 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 with the aim of introducing, in the first instance by 2008, legislation to assist other jurisdictions to recover such assets.

Pillar 9 – Rehabilitation

30. Whilst in somecases a custodialsentencecannotbe avoided, itisneverthelessthecase 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. TheProbation and After-Care Service has played a vital role in this. Since 2001, a closeworking relationship has been built up with the Prison to the extent that there is now a PrisonProbationOfficer. Sentence planning has been piloted in the YoungOffenders' Institute and various programmesare run to aid prisoner rehabilitation. Since July 2006,as part of the Service's Through-Care Policy, allnewly sentenced prisoners serving six monthsor more have been allocated a ProbationOfficer to work with them throughtheirsentenceandtooffer voluntary contact after release. The Service is experienced at helping offenders to gain access to accommodation and 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. Prisoner through-care provides a further step towards the

implementation of this. The Home Affairs Department's aim is to improve prisoner rehabilitation in order to

reduce  recidivism  rates.  Currently,  approximately  50%  of  adults  and  70%  of  young  offenders  are reconvicted within 12 months.

31. Pillar 8 – Dealing With Offenders,outlines a different frameworkwithinwhichcustodialsentences could beservedwhere greater emphasis is given to rehabilitation. TheHome Affairs Departmenthasbeen careful to study the provisions of the U.K.'s Criminal Justice Act 2003 in which the U.K. system of parole has been reformed. The Departmentseesno need to replicate thoseprovisions precisely; however, it willbeimportanttoadopt a system which can operate with that in the U.K., notleastso that theIsland can continue to transfer the majority of prisoners with demonstrable links with England and Wales. Prisoners maybe more willing to request transfer to prisons in England and Wales knowing that they will receive similar treatment in termsof release asthose prisoners sentenced from the English courts.
32. Animportant part of this policy will befor the Department to introduce a system of discretionary supervised releasebut there will be a cost to introducing such a system. An additional 3 Prison Officers will be needed for sentence planning during the custodial part of the sentence, and an additional 3.5 Probation staff have been recruited to take on the heavier supervisory role whilst prisoners are released on licence. However,bettervalue for money over the wholecriminal justice system should beachievedin terms oflower re-offending rates.
33. In theHome Affairs Department,we recognise the link betweenpooreducational ability/attainment and high rates of recidivism. Having adopted SenatorPerchard'samendment to the Strategic Plan, the States supports the creation of a Prison EducationUnitto deliver a range of educationalservicesincludingbasic skills, national vocational courses, distance learning and careers guidance. This is an integral part of the overall PrisonPerformanceImprovementPlan(PPIP)whichwaspresented to the CouncilofMinistersin October 2006.The full cost of implementing the PPIP will be in the region of £1.25M. Growthfunding has been approved to facilitate a phased implementation.

Finally on rehabilitation, I and the Home Affairs Department are committed to the philosophy of harm reduction and have carried this forward into the new Building a Safer Society' Strategy.

Action Plan

34. The Home Affairs Department will –

In 2007, seek approval for new post-custodial supervision legislation in order to introduce a system of discretionary supervised release.

Subject to the approval of new legislation, introduce a system of discretionary supervised release during 2008.

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 Department and the Skills Executive.

Implement the Prison Performance Improvement Plan in accordance with available resources and a timetable agreed by the Council of Ministers.

CONSULTATION

35. C onsultation with the main stakeholdersin the criminal justice process was a pre-requisite for policy development. Consequently,focus groups oneach of the criminal justice pillars met over a 9-month period inorder to inform policy setting. The composition of these focusgroupsisgivenatAppendix 2. Subsidiary focusgroups were held wherespecificmatterswere highlighted for examination, i.e., parole and dealing with young people. Focus groupwork led to the preparation of a ConsultationDocument.

During a 5-month period from April – August 2005, opinion was sought from States Members, the Shadow

Scrutiny Panel, the judiciary, criminal justice professionals, the private and voluntary sector and the general public. During September and October 2005, a number of briefings were held for the public in selected Parish Hall s, and there were two separate briefings for States Members. The media's assistance was  also  sought  in  gaining  wider  coverage.  The  final  policy  document  was  lodged  as  P.201/2005 Criminal Justice Policy for debate on 25th October 2005. However, the States decided to postpone the debate so that the policy could be considered by the new Assembly following the 2005 elections. The Council of Ministers considered the matter in February 2006 and decided that the policy should be made available for further comment and review as necessary in accordance with the new framework outlined in R.C.82/2005 Public Consultation. To prepare for a further consultation period, the information was updated and validated by stakeholders to produce a new draft policy document which was circulated in July 2006. The consultation period was extended until December 2006 to allow time for the Royal Court to comment. With the exception of the Royal Court's comments and those of other stakeholders, other comments concerned points of detail rather than anything which would affect the overall policy direction. This includes those received from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel who supported the draft policy in principle. The Royal Court's comments concerned post-custodial supervision and are reviewed in Pillar 9. The milestones and timetable for delivery can therefore be summarised as follows:

Miles tones/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

Home  Affairs  Committee  approves  and  lodges  P201/2005  Criminal

Oct 2005 Justice  Policy.  Debate  deferred  for  consultation  by  new  States Assembly.

Feb 2006 Council of Ministers consider P201/2005 – agree to further review and consultation.

Mar – Jun 2006 Policy document update period.

Jul – Oct 2006 Circulate Draft Policy Document for consultation.

Nov 2006 Extension for Royal Court comments

Dec 2006/Jan 2007 Collate consultation comments

Feb – Mar 2007 Informal review by Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

May 2007 CMB/CoM approval.

Aug 2007 Lodged au Greffe

DELIVERING THE POLICY

36. It will beapparent from paragraph 2.7 that the draft policy was subject to extensive consultation and lodging in2005.As a resultof the postponed debate, which led to updating and further consultationin 2006, there has been time for many aspects of the Action Planstobeprogressed, particularly thosewhich

do not require States approval or new legislation. Appendix 3 gives a summary of Action Plan progress to date.

Objectives are divided into short and long-term objectives rather than the order in which they appear in the subsequent pillars.

FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

37. 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 andtheformationof a PrisonEducationUnit.Funds have already been provided for the introduction of post-custodial supervision, including an additional 3 Prison officers and 3.5 Probation staff. However,these staffing levels, together with the associated cost, will need to bereviewed once the scope of thepost-supervisorytask can beassessedproperlyin the lightofexperience.The States has given its agreement in principle to the Prison Education Unit which forms part of the Prison Performance ImprovementPlan.Some policy measures are already funded, the most significant being the Building a SaferSociety' Strategy. A summaryof the existing fundingandimplementationcosts is given at Appendix 3. This identifies totalrevenuegrowthofapproximately£240,000 from 2009. The Minister for TreasuryandResources has made the following statement via ministerialdecision dated the 21st May 2007: "The Council of Ministers has not recommended any additional funding in the draft 2008-2010 States Business Plan in respect of the £240,000 revenue growth identified as required in this policy. These initiative will therefore need to be funded from within the relevant Departments' proposed cash limits."

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY – OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

1. Historically, criminal justice policy and practicein Jersey has evolved through the office ofthe Attorney General partly in his capacityas the PartiePublique.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.:  States  of  Jersey  Police  (Defence Committee), H.M. Prison (Prison Board), Customs (Finance andEconomicsCommittee)andProbationandAfter-Care Service (Probation Board). With the exception of the ProbationandAfter-CareService,theseservices were drawntogetherunder the Home Affairs Committee shortly after its creation in December1999. Whether by  accident or design,  the complementary, and  sometimes conflicting,  responsibilities  and objectives oftheseoperationaldepartments highlighted the need for anover-arching policy on criminal justice  matters.  Consequently, when the States of Jersey adopted P.70/2002, which outlined the organisation  of  departments  under ministerial reform, responsibility  for  criminal  justice  policy  was allocated totheHome Affairs Department.
2. Since there would be 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 the  task and the fact that  there was no pre-existing policy.  The  Committee lodged P.201/2005 Criminal Justice Policy for debate on the 25th October 2005;however, the States decided to defer the debate until after the elections to allow newMembers the opportunity to vote onthepolicy proposals. Inevitably, this caused a delay to enable the policy tobe updated and for consultationto follow. Given the action plans detailed in this document,the criminal justice policy will have a 5-yearlife between the years 2007 – 2011. Thepolicy is a key componentin delivering CommitmentThreeofthe Strategic Plan 2006to 2011 in promoting a safe, just and equitable society.
3. It is acknowledgedthat, in developing this first Criminal Justice Policy for Jersey, manyofthe objectives are of Island-wide significance. Thisis particularly true ofPillar 5 which deals 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 importantto recognise that I and myDepartment are seeking supportfor the principles which underpin  this  Criminal  Justice  Policy, accepting  that  partnership  work  to  achieve  the  higher  level aspirations will continue for many years into the future. TheActionPlansdescribedattheendofeach section  describe  the role and contribution of the Home Affairs Department in taking these matters forward.

POLICY DESIGN

4. Bearing in mind that this was un-trodden turf' in that the Island hadnoformal criminal justice policy, the  former  Home Affairs  Committee  commissioned Professor Andrew Rutherford, Dean  of Law at Southampton University, to carry out an independent review into various aspects ofthe criminal justice process. Thepurposeofthe review was to provide a focus for future policy setting and a statistical base from whichto carry out informed debate anddecisionmaking. His report, entitled Review ofCriminal Justice Policy in Jersey' (hereinafter referred to as the Rutherford Report') was published in October 2002. The Rutherford Report made ten recommendations which are reproduced at Appendix 1. The Committee  took  an early decision not  to  pursue  Recommendation 4  because  of the  potential  cost implications and the impact on the traditional role ofthe Honorary Service.Theotherrecommendations were taken forward into policy design andare referred toin the relevant part ofthepolicydocument.

5. In designing this policy, our objective has been to translate the criminal justice principles and priorities of government into coursesof action whichitbelieves will deliver the desired changes.Insodoing,we have soughtto design a policy which will look to the future, take a holisticapproach,use the available evidenceuponwhich to base decisions, be inclusive of the viewsof 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, I and myDepartment have takentheapproach that criminal justice is part oflife,is a key part of the fabric of society and paints a broadcanvas. A myopicapproachwouldsimply contend that crimehappens, offenders  are  dealt  with  by the  courts  and  are subsequently punished. This policy  takes a  more enlightened approach by questioning whycrimetakes place, assesses the depthof its roots, whether itcan be prevented,and what alternatives there are to complementformalcourt action and the penalsystem. Moreover, it seekstoupholdtheindependence of the judicial system and does notseek to interfere in the sentencing policy of the courts.
6. In formulating the policy, a cradle to grave' approachwastakenby 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 also recognised. This led the Department to found its criminal justice policy on nine specific pillars' which are represented diagrammatically below and covered in the remainingchapters.

CONSULTATION

7. Consultation with the main stakeholders in the criminal justice process was a pre-requisite for policy development. Consequently,focus groups oneach of the criminal justice pillars met over a 9-month period inorder to inform policy setting. The composition of these focusgroupsisgivenatAppendix 2. Subsidiary focusgroupswere held wherespecific matters were highlighted for examination, i.e.: parole and dealing with young people. Focus groupwork led to the preparation of a ConsultationDocument. During a 5-month period from April – August 2005, opinion was sought from States Members, the Shadow Scrutiny Panel, the judiciary, criminal justice professionals, the private and voluntary sector and the general public. DuringSeptemberandOctober2005, a numberofbriefings were held for the publicin selected Parish Hall s, and therewere two separate briefings for States Members.Themedia's assistance was  also sought in gaining  wider coverage. The final  policy  document was lodged for debate  as

P.201/2005 Criminal Justice Policy on 25th October 2005. However, the States decided to postpone the debate so

that the policy could be considered by the new Assembly following the 2005 elections. The Council of Ministers considered the matter in February 2006 and decided that the policy should be made available for  further  comment  and  review  as  necessary  in  accordance  with  the  new  framework  outlined  in R.C.82/2005 Public Consultation. To prepare for a further consultation period, the information was updated and validated by stakeholders to produce a new draft policy document which was circulated in July 2006. The consultation period was extended until December 2006 to allow time for the Royal Court to comment. With the exception of the Royal Court's comments and those of other stakeholders, other comments concerned points of detail rather than anything which would affect the overall policy direction. This includes those received from the Social Scrutiny Panel who supported the draft policy in principle. The Royal Court's comments concerned post-custodial supervision and are reviewed in Pillar 9. The milestones and timetable for delivery can therefore be summarised as follows:

Miles tones/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

Home Affairs Committee approves and lodges P201/2005 Criminal

Oct 2005 Justice  Policy.  Debate  deferred  for  consultation  by  new  States Assembly.

Feb 2006 Council of Ministers consider P201/2005 – agree to further review and consultation.

Mar – Jun 2006 Policy document update period.

Jul – Oct 2006 Circulate Draft Policy Document for consultation.

Nov 2006 Extension for Royal Court comments

Dec 2006/Jan 2007 Collate consultation comments

Feb – Mar 2007 Informal review by Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

May 2007 CMB/CoM approval.