1. Out of Court disposals

2. Out of Court Disposals
New procedures under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO)
Implemented 8th April 2013
Youth case disposals are effectively delegated to the Youth Offending Service unless NFA or Charge are the only possible options.
There are more young people eligible for OOCD's than previously, even those with previous convictions.

3. Legal Directorate notice:
Out of Court Disposals
Legal Directorate notice:
Charging a young person should NOT be the norm as the Public Interest is not normally served by doing so and each case requires justification and background research.
Usually charges are only appropriate where:
Especially dangerous or prolific offender.
Serious offence (Gravity Matrix 4)
Specific pre-defined Borough priority operation (very rare)

4. DLS Guidance (highlights the obligation to enquire into a youths background, properly balance the public interest and verifies that children should be treated differently to adults )
A decision whether to prosecute a youth offender is open to judicial review if it can be demonstrated that the decision was made regardless of, or clearly contrary to a settled policy of the DPP. See R v Chief Constable of Kent and Another ex parte L, R v DPP ex parte B [1991] 93 Cr App R 416. The court held that an application for judicial review could be successful if the decision to prosecute was made without any or sufficient inquiry into the circumstances and general character of the accused. This judgment highlights the importance in appropriate cases of obtaining sufficient information about the youth's home circumstances and background from sources such as the police, youth offending service, children's services before making the decision whether to prosecute.
It is essential in all youth offender cases to ensure that all of the public interest matters which give rise to the decision are clearly identified, considered and balanced. A note of the factors identified but rejected or outweighed by other considerations should be made. This demonstrates that the decision to prosecute was taken only after a full review of the case and the background information, including that concerning the suspect provided by the youth offending service, police or local authority. Failure to show that the legal guidance has been followed and properly applied to all the information on the case may result in the decision to prosecute being quashed. See R (on the application of E,S and R v DPP[2011] EWHC 1465 (Admin).
When applying the public interest factors in the Full Code Test in a case involving a youth, paragraph 4.12 (d) is particularly important one. This paragraph provides that: The criminal justice system treats children and young people differently from adults and significant weight must be attached to the age of the suspect if they are a child or young person under 18. The best interests and welfare of a child or young person must be considered including whether a prosecution is likely to have an adverse impact on his or her future prospects that is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. Prosecutors must have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system which is to prevent offending by children and young people. Prosecutors must also have regard to the obligations arising under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.
As a starting point, the younger the suspect, the less likely it is that a prosecution is required.

5. DLS Guidance
However, there may be circumstances which mean that notwithstanding the fact that the suspect is under 18, a prosecution is in the public interest. These include where the offence committed is serious, where the suspect;s previous record shows that there are no suitable alternatives to prosecution , or where the absence of an admission means that out- of- court disposals which might have addressed the offending behaviour are not available.
For those youths for whom formal diversion is not an option, it is still important to ensure that a prosecution is only brought in circumstances where this is a proper and proportionate response. The separate Legal Guidance chapter on < Minor Offences – Prosecution Guidance> and its steer towards the taking of a common sense approach to less serious cases has direct application to a number of youth matters. Alternative options , including restorative interventions, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and internal sanctions such as school disciplinary measures may be available, and sufficient to satisfy the public interest without a prosecution and the statutory duty to prevent offending (section 37 Crime and Disorder Act 1998).

6. Out of Court Disposals Points for ERO to consider:
What does the evidence show that the suspect did?
What has he admitted to, if anything?
Are there any defences?
What is the criminal disposal history?
What is the impact on the Victim?
Do we need to protect the victim?
POLICE DECISION IS CHARGE, NFA OR REFER FOR OUT OF COURT DISPOSAL

7. Inappropriate grounds to charge
Out of Court Disposals
Inappropriate grounds to charge
Not sorry enough
Laughed and did not appear to take the matter seriously
Disrespectful to police and parents
Has a previous conviction
Victim demands a prosecution

8. Ealing Youth Justice Service initial processes
Background research (Multi-agency)
Police records – CRIS, Merlin, Intelligence.
Local Authority Information. Youth Justice, Social Services, Education.
Assessment with family.

9. Out of Court Disposals What are the outcome options? Pass back for NFA
Triage Diversion
Youth Caution
Youth Conditional Caution
Pass back for Charge

10. Processes: All under 18s require Appropriate Adult.
Out of Court Disposals
Processes:
All under 18s require Appropriate Adult.
Gather all evidence as usual then.
MG3Y to ERO for decision to either NFA, Charge or refer for OOCD.
ERO sends MG3Y to XB mailbox – YOTS Digital Files (or now flags up for COPA download)

11. Out of Court Disposal Assessments
Highlights, benefits and advantages

12. Out of Court Disposal Assessments
Early identification
Custody records checked local and surrounding stations
Merlin records chased where not found.
Early research undertaken
Benefits of detailed assessment
Safeguarding concerns. Determined research into family and associates. Flagged with MASH / ECIRS (social services early response).
Early flagging to CSE processes / MASE.
Early Flagging for gang intervention.
Early Flagging with Troubled Families.

13. Out of Court Disposal Assessments
Decision Making Panel
Endeavour to make decision as fully informed as possible.
Consider the circumstances of the offence and victim.
Consider vulnerabilities and culpability,
Consider appropriate and necessary interventions.

14. Out of Court Disposal Assessments
Advantages
Earliest identification of risk of offending, CSE and gang involvement.
Earliest intervention for other Safeguarding concerns
Earliest instigation of appropriate interventions across agencies.

15. Statistics Ealing young people

16. Statistics Ealing young people

17. Statistics – 2014 table enlarged