Youth Out of Court Disposal Scrutiny Panel minutes - May 2024
Feedback report to Learning & Development
Date of document: 30 May 2024
Date panel held: 30 May 2024
Number of cases reviewed: 10 - Domestic abuse theme
Panel: Caroline Hayes (Magistrate and chair), Victoria Bishop (OPCC), Kathryn Bailey (Magistrate), Judith Perez (RG), Andrew Poole (Police), Nick Rogers (Police).
Apologies: John Lynch (CPS), Jane Cooper (CPS), Hannah Clune (YST), Lynn Northfield (Police), Omar Patel (Better Together), Phil White (Youth Justice Board), Lucie Smith (Police).
Person completing: 252237 Nick Rogers (CJD, Children First Police Sergeant)
Report completed for: CJD, Learning & Development, Crime Investigation Department, LPA Superintendents
How cases are reviewed
The panel consists of representatives from a cross section of internal and external stakeholders. Such members normally include the CPS, Police, Probation, Victim Support, Youth Services, the Courts and Magistracy.
Ten cases are selected at random by the chair in advance of the panel meeting. The case file paperwork for each case is researched, redacted and emailed securely to each panel member two weeks prior to the Scrutiny Panel. Each case is discussed in detail and members vote as to how they feel each case was disposed as follows:
- 1 = Appropriate and consistent with policy
- 2 = Appropriate with observations
- 3 = Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy
- 4 = Panel unable to reach a decision
If the panel are unable to reach a conclusion, the chair has the deciding vote.
Youth cases
Disposal: Youth diversionary
Type of case reviewed: Assault a person thereby occasioning then actual bodily harm
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/36034/23, MG5 X 2, MG6 X 2, MO
Summary
A number of family members have had an altercation during a family wedding. assaults have taken place and damage caused. Suspects are victim's father, step mother and step brother. victim has been verbally abused by his step brother and step mother, then his father has attempted to hit victim 2-3 times. victim's step brother then punched victim to back of the head, causing injury.
Observations
No issues but some difficulty reading due to redaction.
Disposal: Adult conditional caution
Type of case reviewed: Assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm
Panel Finding: 2
Documents reviewed – CR/50028/23, MG5, MG6, MG14, PNC, images, MO
Summary
The victim and suspect are partners. The suspect has forced his way into the crime location and punched the victim in the face, dragged her into her room whilst damaging property. The suspect is said to have strangled the victim or attempted to and punched her in the stomach.
Observations
Although there were no issues with police process, the cps lawyer 1 saying action plan. Therefore dealing with him as adult felt inappropriate, as noted by CPS lawyer 2 too. Conditions re: DV not present either, and CGL won’t necessarily deal with issues.
Disposal: community resolution
Type of case reviewed: stalking involving fear of violence protection from harassment act 1997 4a(1)(a)(b)(i) and (5) not specified
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/53691/23 & CR/53836/23, Community Resolution form, PNC, MO
Summary
Male suspect is the vicitms adopted son. For months the suspect has been sending the vicitm whatsapp messages, sometimes with 27 at a time. The messages can become aggressive and violent towards the vicitm with messages calling the vicitm a 'f****** c***' and more. The suspect has been physically and verbally abusive towards the vicitm in the past.
Further call from the victim stating that she has received a call from the suspect saying that he'll come to the house and express how he feels, the victim feels that this is a threat and that the suspect will carry this out - incident #375 - 08/12/2023 refers
- Residential dwelling
- Known by offender
- Action upon victim : verbally abused
- occurred : afternoon/evening/morning/night
- violent crime indicators : link offender/ip - family members
Observations
Someone in crisis, shouldn’t have said Children First wouldn’t take this without referring. It was felt the community resolution has little impact and was ‘detection for detection sake’. Children First would have been a better route to enable an informed decision on disposal.
Disposal: Community resolution
Type of case reviewed: Theft in dwelling other than an automatic machine or meter theft act 1968 1(1) and 7 not specified
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/55796/23, MO, community resolution form
Summary
The suspect (daughter) has been stealing money from the victim's bank account for months. The victim often gets notifications from her bank showing the monies are being taken. The suspect has admitted this to the victim. The suspect has also stolen the christmas presents from the victm's home.
- Residential dwelling
- Known by offender/mental health issues
- Crime implement/weapon: computer
- Obtained by deception: securities - bank account
Observations
It was felt this wasn’t an offence of theft, as the community resolution applied to the christmas presents and not the bank theft issue. As is, inappropriate.
Disposal: Community resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assault by beating. Criminal Justice Act 1988 not specified 1.8.0 community resolution
Panel Finding: 2
Documents reviewed – CR/1976/24, MO, Community Resolution form
Summary
Victim and suspect are known to each other as the suspect is the adoptive daughter of the victim. The victim was driving when an altercation occurred and the suspect hit the victim over the head causing no injuries. Suspect also kicked the victims windscreen causing it to crack.
- Road
- Known by offender
- Action upon victim: punched
- Crime implement / weapon: bodily force
- Occurred: afternoon/light
Violent crime indicators: offender under inf - not known - Location - in public place
- Link offender/IP - family members
Observations
The panel felt this case could have been referred to children first. However it was clarified that there was nothing more children first could have done. The offence was low level. The youth has complex needs and is currently receiving the right support at school, family and a social worker. Inspector aware.
Disposal: community resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 47 not specified.
Panel Finding: 2
Documents reviewed – CR/3803/24, PNC, MO, Community Resolution form
Summary
Suspect is the victim's son. They have had an argument over the suspects behaviour and the suspect has exploded. He has slammed doors in the house, slammed the door on the victim's arm, pushed her into a mirror then left slamming the back door on his way out. Victim has bruising on her arm and the back door has been damaged, can't be locked.
- Residential dwelling: house
- Action upon victim: hit with weapon/object
- Occurred: evening
- Special features: damage caused during offence
Observations
The panel felt this to be a good outcome, correct process through the inspector. An interesting community resolution condition as courses not offered for youths ordinarily. It was felt an RJ element could have been explored.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Common assault. Criminal Justice Act 1988 39 not specified.
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/5467/24, PNC, MO, Community Resolution form, images, MG5, MG6
Summary
Suspect has thrown a set of keys down the stairs and it has hit the victim on the back of the neck.
- Residential dwelling
- Known by offender
- Violent crime indicators: link offender/ip - partners/ex-partners
Observations
The panel felt ‘words of advice’ could have been reinforced by exploring an RJ element.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Threats to kill. Offences against the person act 1861 16 not specified.
Panel finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/5470/24, PNC, MO, Community Resolution form, images, MG5, MG6
Summary
Suspect has shouted at victim that he will beat her and stomp her brains out.
- Residential dwelling
- Known by offender
- Violent crime indicators: link offender/ip - partners/ex-partners
Observations
The panel felt ‘words of advice’ could have been reinforced by exploring an RJ element.
Disposal: 1.8.0 Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Theft from a shop. Theft Act 1968 1(1) and 7 not specified
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/5484/24, MO, Community Resolution form.
Summary
The suspect has entered the shop selected a toy and left without making or offering payment.
- Shop: supermarket
- Toys/games
- Character assumed: customer
- Time crime probably occurred: Afternoon/dark
Observations
The panel found this disposal to be appropriate.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assualt by beating. Criminal Justice Act 1988 39 not specified
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/8899/24, MO, Community Resolution form
Summary
The suspect is the victim's daughter. The suspect has been aggressive and angry towards the victim. The suspect has also stood outside of the crime location and shouted obscenities at the victim through the ring doorbell. The supect has then trapped the victim's foot in the door and then pushed the victim. No injuries sustained. Causing alarm and distress.
- Residential dwelling
- Known by offender
- Action upon victim: pushed/hit with weapon/object
- crime implement/weapon: blunt instrument
- special features: allowed premises
- time crime probably occurred: afternoon/dark/evening/light/morning/night
- violent crime indicators: link offender/ip - family members
Observations
Given the fact police were called and the offences disclosed, the panel agreed with the disposal. However, it was felt this to be a waste of police resources with poor parenting.
Conclusions
From the 10 cases discussed at panel the following results were obtained with approximately 100% of cases receiving a score of 1 or 2:
- 1 = Appropriate and consistent with policy – 4 cases
- 2 = Appropriate with observations – 3 cases
- 3 = Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy – 3 cases
- 4 = Panel unable to reach a decision – 0 cases
All investigating officers and their line managers will be provided with a copy of this report to ensure that they are aware that their case was discussed at panel.
Chief Inspector of CJD will establish contact with individuals for all cases that obtained scores of 3 or 4 to provide specific feedback and guidance.
Next meetings
- 5 September 2024 at 1pm (The Leadon Room, Police HQ)
- 5 September 2024 at 1pm (Severns 1 and 2, Police HQ)