29 November 2007
The Russell Hotel, London
Jack Straw addressed the annual general meeting of the Magistrates' Association in London.
Good afternoon, thank you for your welcome.
This is my first opportunity to speak to you since my appointment. Firstly, I would like this opportunity to pay tribute to you all, for all the work that you do, voluntarily, in magistrates' courts across the country. As a citizen, as a lawyer, and as a politician I am aware of, and appreciate, the work that you do.
It is enormously important for me to take the opportunity to speak to so many of you who are the backbone of the justice system. You deal with more than 95% of criminal cases, and the public's experience of the criminal justice system is largely defined by their experience of magistrates' courts. You are ambassadors for the criminal justice system in the communities in which you serve.
I have been Lord Chancellor for five months, and what has struck me returning to the area of criminal justice after six years, are the enormous improvements in the criminal justice system.
I have seen a real improvement in the outcomes of the criminal justice system after all the system is there to deliver outcomes. The questions we need to ask ourselves are: are our communities safer? Are there fewer victims of crime? And are criminals for despite crime coming down, there will always be some criminals being properly dealt with? Let me note two things firstly, that if you are a victim of crime, you are 100% a victim of crime. Just because there are less victims of crime, doesn't mean the impact of crime on the individual victim is any less. Also, national figures can mask variations. We are deeply concerned about the prevalence of gun and knife crime.
That said, since 1997 crime has fallen by 32%; there are record numbers of police; more offences and offenders than ever before are being brought to justice.
And there has been a cultural change in the criminal justice system a change focused on joining up and working together.
That cultural change is important if we are to achieve the plans set out in the 'Criminal Justice Strategic Plan for 2008 2011'.
And it has brought about a new drive to streamline processes. I am grateful to Cindy Barnett and the Magistrates' Association for all your support for the 'Criminal Justice: Simple, Speedy, Summary' programme. This programme achieved a 65% reduction in adjournments for defence enquiries and a 70% reduction in the overall number of cases adjourned for pre-trial hearings, in the test sites.
I've been struck, when I've visited courts, by the productive discussions you can have when you bring all the players together police, CPS [Crown Prosecution Service], court staff, probation. We must work within the resources we have. But what can really make a difference is looking at the issues the day-to-day things that can delay proceedings with everyone in the same room together.
I want now to touch on some of the main issues that I know concern out.
Firstly, out of court disposals.
I agree with Cindy's comments, a moment ago, that those matters which do not need to come to court, should not come to court, and those matters which do, should.
The argument is where you draw the line. My judgement is that the line is currently in the right place. I accept that some of you may disagree. But let me say that, when I first discussed FPNs [fixed penalty notices] when I was in the Home Office, I thought long and hard about it. And since then, I have seen them work, and make a difference on the ground. The same goes for conditional cautions, too.
Secondly, community penalties.
When to use custody, and when not is often integral to any debate on sentencing particularly in magistrates courts. There are cases of course where prison is obviously the only option. But the great majority of cases which magistrates hear are not as clear-cut, and there is judgement to be made about which sentence is most appropriate.
Last week during my speech to the Howard League, I said that community penalties 'shouldn't be considered just as an alternative to custody, but as a punishment in their own right. Because, for many offenders, they are generally regarded to be more effective.'
We are all agreed that prison should be targeted on the serious and violent offenders who need to be there, and on those for whom community penalties have not worked.
But for others, community penalties are the appropriate sentence. Let me give you some examples of the difference they can make.
A young man called Paul, whose sentence of unpaid work was building an amphitheatre in a school field in Devon. A project which required moving 100 tonnes of soil before shifting heavy stones to build a wall. And all done in harsh, outdoor wintry conditions. Paul said 'despite being hard going, my punishment has been very positive I really believe it saved my life'.
Or a young woman, called Lisa, in Teesside, who was given a supervision requirement. A punishment which in her words 'was really hard. Not being able to do what I wanted, when I wanted made me realise what freedom I used to have. And I felt so ashamed telling my friends that I couldn't be somewhere at a certain time because I had to check in with probation. I don't want to be put on one of those again. It took my life away from me.'
Or Emma, from London: She was a drug addict who had already served a number of custodial and community sentences. Being sentenced for her latest offence Emma was given a two-year community sentence which involved compulsory drug treatment and testing. She responded well to her treatment and after a short period her drug use stopped altogether. The Probation Service helped her achieve a basic skills certificate in adult literacy and encouraged her to become involved in voluntary work. She has now enrolled on a course at a further education college and, crucially, she has been drug and offence free ever since.
These are the good news stories. You, and the public, can be tested when you hear of the not-so-good news stories. But community penalties work.
And on this point may I address a concern which was raised as a result of our proposals in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. That is the provision which will remove the criminal courts' power to impose a Suspended Sentence Order for a summary-only offence. This will not affect magistrates' power to impose immediate custody for these offences. And the courts will still be able to impose Suspended Sentence Orders for either-way offences, and for a summary offence where it is sentenced together with an either-way offence.
The expectation, when we introduced Suspended Sentence Orders, was that they would be used instead of custody, where appropriate. But it seems that Suspended Sentence Orders are being used instead of community sentences. So I think our proposals, in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, are right.
Lastly, can I say something on fines.
Enforcement of fines has improved in recent years, but it has coincided with a drop in their usage. Fines are a credible penalty for those offences for whom they are an appropriate sentencing option. Can I encourage you to give consideration to using them, in appropriate circumstances.
I do want to now take your questions but before I finish I should say that I expect the Carter Review, currently underway, will report before Christmas. We will welcome your response to it.
And may I just reiterate what I said at the start that I am grateful for all the work that you do, at the heart of the justice system, and thank you for it.