CPS Dorset: Area Annual Report 2001-02

Introduction by the Chief Crown Prosecutor

I am pleased that the last 12 months have seen changes designed to assist victims and witnesses. Further important developments will be happening soon. The help provided by the Witness Service to witnesses giving evidence in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Courts is now properly established. The views of victims are now better known as a result of the introduction of Victim Personal Statements, and in a few months new measures will be introduced designed to help victims who are vulnerable or have special needs.

The Dorset Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is about to implement a policy which is being rolled out nationally whereby in cases where we have come to the conclusion that a case cannot continue, or we have decided to alter the charges substantially, we write to victims to explain our reasons. In the past, this information has been given to victims by the police. Our aim will be to provide as full an explanation as possible and I welcome the new arrangements.

No one wants to be a victim of a crime, and it is very important if a change is made to the offence, that the victim should be told by the person who made the decision the reasons for that decision.

I hoped that during the last 12 months we would be co-locating at our office with the police department which is responsible for preparing the files for the cases which are going to be dealt with in the Crown Court. Unfortunately we were not able to progress this which has been disappointing for the police and ourselves. However the reason for the delay has now been removed and, very importantly, our co-location plans have widened so that we will also co-locate with the police units who prepare most cases in the magistrates’ courts. In addition the police unit which is responsible for the warning of witnesses in all cases will also be co-locating at our office.

This is a major project for the police and ourselves and we are both extremely excited about it. It offers tremendous opportunities for both the police and ourselves to work even closer together and to improve the quality of prosecutions. I am sure that the result of this will be the successful prosecution of more criminals who commit offences in Dorset.

During the year there have been some significant changes to the magistrates’ courts. Most adult defendants in the east of the County are now dealt with at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court. Youth cases for the east of the County are dealt with in Poole, and there have been major alterations to the layout of the court there. The magistrates’ court at Gillingham has closed, but this still leaves nine court locations in Dorset where magistrates’ courts cases may be dealt with.

For the first time for many years we were able during the year to increase our staffing numbers. This did not have as great an impact as we would have liked, as three of our staff have been absent for much of the year facing major health battles. Naturally everyone has pulled together and I am very grateful for the extremely hard work which has been done by my staff during what has been a difficult year for them.

I am grateful for all the comments I received about last year’s report. It has helped us in preparing this year’s report. We have kept the report the same length this year and there are seven sections. This year the sections deal with:

• What CPS Dorset has achieved.
• What happens if you are a victim or a witness.
• Improving the Criminal Justice System in Dorset.
• Some frequently asked questions.
• Robert Dyer: Tesco Blackmailer.
• Successful Dorset CPS prosecutions.
• Dorset CPS performance for 2001-2002.

As you read through the report you will see that it does not simply concentrate on CPS issues. We have included information about a number of aspects of the Criminal Justice System in Dorset.

Most people’s views about the Criminal Justice System come from reading various newspaper reports of court cases; or seeing films or soaps which feature court cases, police investigations or issues such as domestic violence. Quite often the impression people have is not correct and does not reflect what happens.

In some cases this leads people to be much more worried and anxious than they need to be. The aim of The CPS is “to contribute to the reduction both of crime and the fear of crime and to increase the public confidence in the Criminal Justice System by fair and independent review of cases and by firm, fair and effective prosecution at court”.

One of my hopes is that this report, which is widely circulated, will help those who read it to see that a great deal is being done for those who unfortunately become victims or are witnesses to crimes; and to know that many criminals who commit crimes in Dorset are successfully prosecuted, and to see the sentences that they get.

My colleagues who work in other parts of the Criminal Justice System in Dorset are also anxious to raise public awareness of what really happens in the Criminal Justice System and if you want to find out more about the work of any of the organisations, please do not hesitate to contact the relevant agency. You will find The CPS contact details on the back of this report.

I hope that you will find this report interesting. Please let me know your views on it and if there are issues you would like included in future reports, or any issues in this one which you feel should be dealt with in more detail, please let me know.

Also if there is anything in the report which you would like more information about please let me know.

John Revell Chief Crown Prosecutor

What CPS Dorset has achieved

SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS:

We want to see the criminals who cause pain, distress, hurt, sadness, loss, annoyance and many other things to law abiding victims and witnesses in Dorset brought to justice. Most defendants prosecuted by us were, once again, convicted.

DEALING WITH CASES QUICKLY:

Changes in the last few years to the procedures for cases in both the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court mean that most cases are now dealt with much more quickly than used to be the case. Where there is a real fear that the defendant may commit another offence or abscond, the defendant will be kept in custody by the police overnight and appear in court the day after he or she has been charged.

In most other cases (apart from traffic cases where offenders are usually summonsed) defendants now appear in court within a couple of days. They appear in an “early hearing” court and during the last 12 months over 55% of these defendants immediately pleaded guilty and were sentenced on the same day or the cases were adjourned for reports to assist with the sentencing, or the cases were committed to the Crown Court by the magistrates because it was felt that the offender should receive a higher sentence than they could give. Many of the defendants in the remaining cases also pleaded guilty at a later stage.

PERSISTENT YOUNG OFFENDERS:

Together with our colleagues in the police, courts, youth offending teams, and Defence lawyers, we have continued to reduce the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders. Back in 1997 these cases used to take 135 days in Dorset. The Government set a 71-day timescale for these cases which was to be met by this Spring. We reached this in most cases 12 months ago and at the end of December 2001 we had reduced the time to 51 days.

NEW CPS POLICY ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

In November The CPS published its revised Domestic Violence Policy. The policy explains that The CPS regards Domestic Violence as an aggravating feature. In launching the policy, the Director of Public Prosecutions (who is the head of The Crown Prosecution Service) said: “The CPS views the fact that an assault was perpetrated upon a family member as an aggravating factor. It amounts to a fundamental breach of trust since everyone has the right to feel safe in their personal relationships.”

The definition used by The Crown Prosecution Service for domestic violence is “Any criminal offence arising out of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse by one person against a current or former partner in a close relationship, or against a current or former family member”.

As well as covering relations between current or former partners, the definition includes offences occurring between “male victims abused by females, victims in same-sex relationships and victims of abusive family members”. Research into domestic violence shows that on average a victim will have suffered domestic violence 34 times before they report the matter to the police. In many cases having reported the case to the police they will suddenly change their mind about wanting to go ahead with the proceedings. In many cases this will be because of pressures put on them by the defendant or his or her friends or family.

The CPS Domestic Violence Policy makes it clear that while the views of a victim will be taken into account, the decision on whether or not to continue with the prosecution rests with The CPS. Our approach is, wherever possible, to continue with prosecutions. In order to assist with this we work closely with the police and minimum standards of investigation have recently been issued. The aim of these is to improve the kind of evidence that is obtained by officers when they are called to a domestic violence incident so that a prosecution can continue even if the victim becomes scared about proceeding.

We are members of the Dorset Pan Domestic Violence Forum which brings together the police, ourselves and all the support agencies in Dorset dealing with domestic violence. We are working together with our colleagues to make sure that everyone is aware of the seriousness with which we view the offences, particularly victims who sadly suffer from domestic violence. We hope that even more importantly it will deter potential offenders from committing such offences.

RACIST OFFENDERS:

Defendants who target victims solely because they object to their race face higher sentences. The law makes it clear that racially aggravated offences should be punished more severely. Offences of this nature which CPS have prosecuted during the year have included attacks on foreign students, taxi drivers and staff at take-aways. The Code for Crown Prosecutors, which gives guidance to The CPS on the approach to be taken to all cases, states that an aggravating feature when looking at cases is where an offence “was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim’s ethnic or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics”.

The significance of racial aggravation in sentencing was seen in one case at the Crown Court during the year where a defendant who carried out racially aggravated assaults and criminal damage in a Turkish take-away received an 18-month prison sentence. Ten months of the sentence was added because of the racial aggravation.

We work closely with the Dorset Race Equality Council. By going to meetings arranged by them we have been able to learn more about the concerns and fears of members of the ethnic minority community in Dorset; and at the same time we try to make clear to them that when we review files the decisions that we make are independent and free of any discrimination.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors makes this clear stating “Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or the sexual orientation of the suspect, victim or witness influence their decisions. They must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source”.

We are also members of the “Race and Ethnicity Issues” Working Group of the Dorset Criminal Justice Strategy Committee. Our work has included the review of the actions we have all taken in response to the recommendations made by Lord Macpherson following the enquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence; and also the obligation that all public authorities have had since 1 April 2001 as a result of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

IMPROVED FACILITIES FOR WITNESSES AT COURT:

Witness Service: We work very closely with the Witness Service which now operates in both the Crown Courts and the magistrates’ courts. During the course of the year the facilities available at Poole Magistrates’ Courts and Weymouth Magistrates’ Courts have been greatly improved and efforts continue to improve the position at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court.

A number of new volunteers have been recruited to enable the Witness Service Scheme to operate in the magistrates’ courts as well as the Crown Court. The CPS have played a major part in the training of the volunteers.

Giving evidence from a site away from the Court: We have also worked closely with the Court Service and Poole Social Services to get suitable facilities and the necessary IT links so that child witnesses and vulnerable witnesses will, in future, be able in many cases to give evidence via a TV link to the Crown Court at Bournemouth without having to be in a room in the court premises.

We believe that this will lessen the inevitable stress and tension that a witness, and in particular a victim, has when they go to court to give evidence.

RAISING FUNDS TO HELP VICTIMS AND WITNESSES:

In April Ian Graham, who is one of our Prosecutors, completed the Madrid Marathon and in doing so raised £303 for Dorset Victim Support and Witness Service.

TRAINING:

The Criminal Justice System continues to change and adapt to new procedures and new laws. In order to ensure we are fully abreast of the law and are also able to share our individual experiences from specific cases, we successfully bid for additional funds and were able to run monthly training courses. A large number of topics were covered including confiscation, firearms, Human Rights Act cases, Victim Personal Statements, domestic violence policy, Criminal Cases Review Commission, tests to detect drivers whose driving is impaired as a result of drugs, and charging standards.

We have also continued to assist our colleagues with training. This has included work with domestic violence officers, child abuse investigators, and operational police officers.

MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC:

We know that there is a considerable amount of confusion about the work that we do and we are anxious to remove this. We consider it extremely important that members of the public know more about us and the Criminal Justice System in general. As part of this during the year we:

• Attended a meeting with the police of hoteliers in Bournemouth who were concerned at the problems caused by street prostitutes and kerb crawlers. We explained our position and advised the police on the type of evidence that is needed in these cases. Following the meeting a major police operation was carried out targeting these offences and as a result a large number of offenders were arrested and prosecuted.
• Spoke at several Neighbourhood Watch meetings and also at the annual meeting of the Dorset Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinators.
• Assisted at the Magistrates’ Courts Open Day in Dorchester in October arranged by the Magistrates’ Association. Members of the public were able to come and learn about the court process.
• Took part in an “Any Questions” arranged by Bournemouth University law students. Other panel members were Judge Beashel, Chief Superintendent Summers, Dr Mytton, Head of Law and Learning and Teaching, and the meeting was chaired by Professor Grief, Head of the School of Finance and Law.

NEW LAWS AND PROCEDURES:

The Human Rights Act has now been operating for over 18 months. We take into account the various Articles in it when we review all our cases and in a few it has led to a lot of discussion in our office. There were quite a lot of predictions before the Act came into force that it would prevent a lot of offenders from being convicted. That has not been the case. CC John Revell taking part in “Any Questions” at Bournemouth University.

What happens if you are a victim or a witness

No one wants to be a victim and very few want to be a witness. Unfortunately, however, it can happen to any one of us, although fortunately it seldom does. This section explains what happens at the various stages and gives answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.

POLICE INVESTIGATION:

The police are responsible for carrying out investigations when offences have occurred. They interview victims, witnesses and those suspected of committing offences; seize evidence which they think may be relevant and examine it; and in appropriate cases send material to the Forensic Science Laboratories for scientific examination.

They are independent of The CPS but both the police and The CPS want those who commit crimes brought to justice.

ADVICE FROM CPS:

In some cases the police will ask The CPS for advice during the course of their investigations, but most investigations are carried out without any CPS involvement

WITNESS STATEMENT:

In carrying out their investigations the police will obtain statements from the victim and any witnesses who they are able to trace. These statements are extremely important. In making decisions later about cases, The CPS works from the statements made by the witnesses.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT:

From October 2001, victims who have made statements are now asked whether they wish to make a Victim Impact Statement in addition to their Witness Statement. The purpose of this is to provide the victim with the opportunity of explaining what the impact of the crime has been on him or her. The impact of a crime can go far beyond any physical impact on the victim.

Sometimes the full implications of a crime on a victim are not realised immediately but only become apparent some time after the crime has taken place. When a case is still continuing before the court, a victim can make a further Victim Personal Statement at any time. When dealing with the case the court will take account of the Victim Personal Statement when sentencing an offender.

CPS INVOLVEMENT IN CASES:

The CPS becomes involved when the police decide to charge or summons a person with an offence, or to seek our advice on a case. They send us a file with the statements they have obtained. We then examine the evidence to decide whether the proceedings started by the police should continue (or when our advice is sought, whether criminal proceedings should be started).

CRIMINAL CONVICTION: THE STANDARD REQUIRED:

In order to convict a person of a crime the court (in the Crown Court that means a jury and in the magistrates’ court it means magistrates or a District Judge) have to be sure that the person is guilty. This is known as the criminal standard of proof. It is a high standard of proof and it is for the Prosecution to prove that the accused person is guilty. The accused person does not have to prove his or her innocence.

CPS APPROACH TO CASES:

The approach we are required to take is set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (this is a public document — if you want a copy please let us know). We have to be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This means whether we consider that it is more likely than not that the person concerned will be convicted of a criminal offence if he or she is prosecuted.

We have to consider whether the evidence obtained can be used in court, and whether it is reliable. For instance, are there concerns over the reliability of the confession? Do explanations put forward to explain behaviour appear genuine or made up? Is there uncertainty about the identity of the offender? Is there information which makes what a witness says in his or her statement doubtful?

If we decide there is a realistic prospect of conviction, then we have to consider whether a prosecution is in “the public interest”. Prosecutions will usually take place unless the public interest factors against a prosecution “clearly outweigh” those in favour of prosecution.

We prosecute cases on behalf of the public at large and not just for the interest of any particular individual. However the consequences for the victim of our decisions as to whether or not to prosecute, and any views expressed by the victim, are very carefully taken into account when considering the wider public interest.

WHICH COURT?:

Depending on the nature of the offence, cases are heard in a magistrates’ court (when dealing with young offenders — persons under 18 — called a Youth Court) or a Crown Court.

Magistrates’ court: The case will be heard by two or three lay magistrates (who are not legally qualified but are trained and advised by a legally qualified advisor) or a Magistrates’ Court Judge, known as a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts). The magistrates or the District Judge must decide whether the accused person is guilty or not, and if guilty, the appropriate sentence.

In Dorset the busiest magistrates’ court dealing with adult offenders is at Bournemouth, while most youth offenders are dealt with at the Youth Court at Poole. In the west of the county the busiest magistrates’ court is at Weymouth. There are also magistrates’ courts at Wimborne, Wareham, Blandford; Sherborne; Bridport; and Dorchester.

Crown Court: At the Crown Court the case will be heard by a judge and jury. The jury are members of the public called for Jury Service and they decide whether the accused person is guilty. If they do then the Judge decides on the appropriate sentence.

At the Crown Court, the Bournemouth Crown Court, which was opened in 1996, has four courts for criminal matters. Dorchester Crown Court, which deals with a number of cases from the West of the County has one court. Murder and manslaughter cases are dealt with at Winchester Crown Court where there are seven courts for criminal matters.

DO ALL WITNESSES HAVE TO GIVE EVIDENCE?:

The great majority of cases are dealt with without witnesses having to attend court. Most defendants plead guilty. With many cases that are contested, the evidence of a number of witnesses is accepted by the Defence so those witnesses do not have to go to court. However there remain some cases where witnesses and victims will have to go to court to give evidence.

NOTIFICATION OF THE COURT HEARING DATE:

When you are required to give evidence the Police Witness Liaison Unit will contact you to give you details of the day and the court. When the police take a statement from a witness they ask them at that time whether there are any dates in the future which would be inconvenient for them. Some time will pass, though, before a case is heard for trial and inevitably some dates which were right at the time a statement was taken will no longer be all right. Witnesses who have made statements but then realise that some dates will not be convenient should let the Witness Liaison Unit know at once so that this can be taken into account when court dates are set.

READING THROUGH YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT:

When a witness is giving evidence the Court wants to hear what the witness can remember of the incident. In preparing for court, however, witnesses like to look at the statements they made shortly after the incident. At that time the incident was obviously very fresh in their memory and some of the points they thought of at that stage they may have since forgotten.

When witnesses are warned to attend court they are sent a copy of the witness statement they made. The statement is, though, just for them and should not be shown to, or discussed with, anyone else who is a witness in the case.

It is very important to appreciate that what the court is after is the individual account of each witness. If witnesses discuss incidents with other people who are also witnesses, then there is a great danger that their recollections will be affected by what the other people say about the incident.

Attending court to give evidence:

When you come to court to give your evidence you will meet the member of The CPS who is dealing with the case. There are rooms at all the courts in which you can wait and be separate from the defendant and any witnesses called by the Defence in the case.

Members of the Witness Service will be at court and they will look after you whilst you are waiting to give evidence if you would like this. The Witness Service has been operating for some years and everyone who has dealings with them finds that they are an enormous help.

Unfortunately in most cases witnesses have to wait a while at court before they give evidence. The reason being that it is impossible to know exactly how long each witness will take to give evidence. However, the position is regularly checked and witnesses are kept informed of developments while they are waiting to give evidence.

Sometimes for all sorts of reasons there can be considerable delays and witnesses are then allowed to leave the court and return later in the day or the following day. Everyone concerned with the listing of cases appreciates the distress that hanging around causes to witnesses and everything that can be done to keep the waiting to a minimum is done.

What happens if you are a victim or a witness

GIVING EVIDENCE:

You will probably feel nervous about having to give evidence in court. This is totally understandable. All those involved in the court process realise this and they will be trying their best to put you at your ease.

You are giving evidence because you are either a victim or a witness in the case. Your job is to give the court your account.

If you are confused by a question, ask for it to be rephrased. Take your time. Ask for a break if you feel you need one. Try not to panic. Answer truthfully what you saw or did — do not just give the answer you think the person questioning you wants if it is not the truth.

It is for the court then to put together your evidence with the other evidence and decide whether they are sure that the person charged with the offence has committed it.

SPECIAL FACILITIES AT COURT FOR WITNESSES:

In certain circumstances there are some special measures which can be used by witnesses.

• Young witnesses: Some young witnesses and victims in cases involving sexual abuse or violence are able to give their evidence by TV link in a room that is separate but close to the actual courtroom. In Dorset these witnesses will shortly be able to give evidence from a room several miles away which is being made available by Poole Social Services. This will save the witnesses having to go anywhere near the court where the defendant is being tried.
• Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses: In July 2002 new measures are to be introduced to help witnesses who are regarded as vulnerable, or being intimidated. These will also include the ability to give evidence by TV link. Again the special room made available by the Poole Social Services may be used.
• Screens: In some cases witnesses may be allowed to give evidence from behind a screen.
• Other measures: The provisions to be introduced in the summer are designed to help witnesses who have particular difficulties in giving evidence to give their evidence. They recognise the fact that giving evidence is very difficult and some witnesses will need particular assistance in giving evidence. The measures will also include the power for the public to be excluded from court when a victim is giving particularly personal and sensitive evidence.

DECIDING IF THE ACCUSED PERSON IS GUILTY:

In all trials the people deciding whether the accused is guilty or not must consider all the different pieces of evidence, whether they come from the Prosecution or the Defence, and then reach a decision. In order to convict a person of an offence they must be sure that he or she did it. This is much more than just thinking they may be guilty, or thinking that it is more likely than not that they are guilty.

If they cannot be sure or have any doubts, then the person must be found not guilty. This means that in a number of cases the accused person is not convicted.

This does not mean that the victim or witness will not have been believed, it is simply the fact that the court is left with a doubt over whether the actions of the accused meant that he or she committed a criminal offence, and if that happens then it is their duty to decide that the person is not guilty of the charge.

SENTENCING:

If a person is convicted the court may then proceed to sentence them straight away or, in many cases, the case will be adjourned to a later date so that the Probation Service or, with a youth, the Youth Offending Team, can prepare a pre sentence report. If you want to you can attend court on that later date to hear the sentence passed.

In this country, unlike some other countries, the Prosecution do not say what they think the sentence should be. However with certain offences dealt with at the Crown Court, the Attorney General has the power to refer the case to the Court of Appeal if he considers that the sentence was unduly lenient.

The fact that a sentence may be regarded as lenient is not sufficient; it must be unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal has the power in those cases to increase the sentence if it thinks it should.

The CPS draws the attention of the Attorney General to any cases where we feel that the sentence passed may be unduly lenient.

Sentencing is an extremely difficult matter. People have different views about the appropriate sentence with most offences.

The maximum sentence that is available for each offence is laid down by Parliament and there are then guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal for certain types of offences. There are also guidelines issued by the Magistrates’ Association. These guidelines take account of views of members of the public.

In sentencing offenders the courts have a number of issues to take into account. In addition to punishing the offender they will also want to do all they can to avoid the offender committing further offences in the future.

In every case that comes before the courts the circumstances of the victim; the impact on the victim; the attitude of the offender; the background of the offender; will all be different and need to be considered by the court when deciding on the correct sentence.

Improving the Criminal Justice System in Dorset

WORKING TOGETHER:

There are various different organisations/groups which make up “The Criminal Justice System”. As well as The CPS, they include the Police, the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Courts, the Probation Service, the Youth Offending Teams, Defence Lawyers, Barristers, and the Prison Service.

Each of us has our own responsibilities and tasks. Each of us is independent of the other. However, there is a great deal that we all agree about and in order to make the Criminal Justice System work, it is vital that we work together.

In Dorset there are exceptionally good working relationships between all of us and the progress we have made on various matters results from joint planning and the willingness of everyone to make changes in their own internal procedures.

There are three main groups in Dorset who regularly meet to consider how to improve the Criminal Justice System in Dorset and how to implement new procedures. They each have representatives from the individual agencies.

DORSET CRIMINAL JUSTICE STRATEGY GROUP:

This group is chaired by Judge Beashel. It decides the most pressing key issues which need to be focused on and how they should be tackled. Issues discussed during the year included:

• Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.
• Reducing delays in the Criminal Justice System.
• Facilities for witnesses giving evidence by video link to do so from a location away from the Court.
• Racist incidents in Dorset.
• Opposing the closure of the Young Offenders Institution at Portland.
• Improving the performance of the Criminal Justice System in Dorset.

It also has presentations on a variety of issues relevant to criminal justice. These have included:

• Drug related offending.
• Persistent Young Offenders.
• Responsible Retailers’ Scheme.
• Crime reduction plans.

The Committee knows that one of the key concerns in Dorset is Town Centre Violence and is hoping that its bid to the Home Office for funds to enable detailed research to be carried out into this will be successful.

There are two sub groups of the committee. The Race and Ethnicity Issues Group works to ensure that in all dealings with the Criminal Justice System all victims/witnesses and defendants are dealt with fairly and that this can be shown to be the case; and also that individual organisations do not have any internal procedures which could be discriminatory. The Promotional and Publicity Working Group looks at ways of raising the confidence of the community generally in the Criminal Justice System.

DORSET TRIALS ISSUES GROUP:

This group deals with the “nuts and bolts” of procedures to see where improvements can be made which will benefit all those who have dealings with the Criminal Justice System in Dorset.

Work this year has included reviewing a number of Service Level Agreements, including one for witnesses, to ensure that the standards promised are being delivered; obtaining the views of witnesses who come to court to give evidence about a range of issues; agreeing on procedures to verify driving documents which are produced at court; agreeing procedures to ensure that vulnerable victims are notified of changes to bail conditions; agreeing on the ways in which Victim Personal Statements should be used.

At various times specific groups are set up to deal with particular issues. A group is currently looking at the introduction of video links from the courts to the prisons which will avoid the need to transport prisoners in custody backwards and forwards to the courts if they wish to apply for bail.

DORSET YOUTH COURT USER GROUP:

Enormous changes have taken place over the last few years in the way in which young offenders are dealt with. Coordination of all matters relating to youths is dealt with by the Dorset Youth Court User Group. One of the key tasks of this group is to ensure that there are no “rubbing points” in the system that could cause delays in dealing with persistent young offenders.

A great deal of work has also gone on this year in readiness for the introduction of Referral Orders in the Youth Courts from April 2002. This is a new sentence and it will be used for most youth offenders who come before the Youth Courts.

PAMPHLET —PROGRESS IN DORSET:

The Strategy Committee arranged for a pamphlet that outlined some of the work going on in Dorset to be produced and distributed widely throughout Dorset (if you would like a copy please let us know). There is a tremendous amount going on within the Criminal Justice System in Dorset and the leaflet details some of this.

Frequently asked questions

Here are some questions we are often asked, along with the answers.

What’s the difference between Careless and Dangerous Driving?

A: Careless Driving occurs when a person drives “without due care and attention”. This is said to be failing to drive in a way that a reasonable, prudent and competent driver would in all the circumstances. In other words, how would you expect a reasonable, prudent, and competent driver to drive along that particular stretch of road at that time of day or night? It would depend obviously on the speed limit; on the road and weather conditions — was it dry and light or wet and slippery; or was the road busy or with hardly any traffic on it?

A: Dangerous Driving occurs when a person is driving “far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver in circumstances in which it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”. In other words the driving here has to be far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver whereas with Careless Driving, the driving is simply below what a competent and careful driver would do.

Why is the court not told about the accused’s previous convictions?

A: The current law is that during the trial the court is not told about the previous convictions of the accused. The reason for this rule is because it is said that what the court must be concerned about is the evidence in the case that they are trying. If a court is told that a person has committed offences on a previous occasion then that is likely to unfairly influence their thinking about whether the person committed the offence on this occasion. There will then be a risk that the court will not be simply looking at whether the evidence is sufficient in the current case, but will instead be likely to convict a person on the basis that he or she “is that type of person ”. There are strong opposing arguments that can be made for allowing previous convictions to be used in court and this is currently being considered by the Government. It may be that the law will change in the coming years.

Why should someone who is drunk get away with it?

A: They do not! The fact that a person has been drinking and as a result they act in a way that they would not if they were sober, does not mean that they are not guilty of the offence. The law says that a drunken intention to act in a particular way is sufficient. The position is different if a person is so drunk that they have no idea what they are doing.

Why has the court date for this case changed?

A: There are many reasons why court dates change.

They include:

• (a) Where a case has been adjourned then the defendant commits a new offence and is put before the court for that new offence. The offence due to be dealt with later is sometimes brought forward to be dealt with at the same time;
• (b) The Defence or the Prosecution, knowing that they will not be in a position to prosecute on the day selected, applying to the court for the case to be adjourned again;
• (c) Evidence that is being obtained from experts taking longer than expected/hoped;
• (d) Forensic evidence not available when it was expected;
• (e) The defendant or a crucial prosecution witness is ill;
• (f) New enquiries have to be made so that a witness who was not previously known about can be seen.

There is pressure on everyone involved with cases to deal with them quickly but some cases need to be dealt with particularly quickly. These are cases where an offender is in custody and proceedings have to be dealt with within the Custody Time Limits. This can mean that one case has to be brought forward and dealt with another case being adjourned. A similar situation can occur with particularly sensitive cases or cases where, for instance, the victim or witness may come from abroad and be about to fly home again.

What happens if you are a foreign student who becomes a victim but returns home before a trial?

Defendants who think they will get away with what they have done because the victim has had to return home are wrong — we continue with the case. We make arrangements for the victim to fly back for the trial. We also do this with any witnesses.

Will I get compensated for my loss?

Provided we have the information we will ask the Court to consider compensation when they are sentencing an offender. Where that happens the Court must always consider compensation but there are limitations on what they can do. The most important factor of course is whether the offender can pay the compensation. This is particularly relevant if a defendant is sent to prison because they will then not be earning.

If the victim has been injured as a result of a crime they may be able to obtain compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. It is not necessary for an offender who caused injury to be caught and prosecuted for compensation to be paid.

More information about them can be obtained from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Tay House, 300 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR Scotland. Telephone: 0141 331 2726 Fax: 0141 331 2287 E-mail: enquiries.cica@gtnet.gov.uk Website: www.cica.gov.uk

Case studies

BOMBER WHO TRIED TO BLACKMAIL TESCO JAILED

On 19 February 2001 Robert Dyer, a 50-year-old electrician, was arrested at his home in Bournemouth by police officers. The arrest came six months after a massive police investigation had commenced. It was one of the largest ever carried out in Dorset.

At various stages during the investigation, advice from The CPS was obtained on a number of issues including guidance on the legal safeguards that would be needed to ensure that evidence obtained would be admissible in court proceedings; and the best ways to present in a manageable form the vast amount of material that was obtained during the course of the investigation.

Dyer sought to extort money from the Tesco supermarket chain threatening to target customers with letter bombs. The first letter set out his demand that Tesco produce a reward card that could be used to withdraw £1000 at a time from cash machines. The letter read: “Follow my instructions or your customers will be at risk. It is not my wish to hurt anyone but I will do whatever is necessary to get what I want”.

He then sent four parcel bombs to Tesco customers. One parcel exploded at an address in Ferndown leaving the elderly recipients in a state of shock. The other devices were intercepted at a Sorting Office in Poole.

As his campaign against Tesco continued Dyer threatened to escalate the bomb attacks and he claimed to have planted a bomb in the garden of a Tesco customer in Ferndown. Bomb Disposal experts and over 100 police officers were involved in searching for three days but Dyer was later to say that no device had been planted.

From the outset, the safety of the public was the prime concern of both the police and Tesco and the threats were taken so seriously by Tesco that the company manufactured 100,000 special reward cards to be used in cash machines. However Dyer did not realise that his demands were technically impossible.

Dogged by money problems, he had formed his idea for the “perfect crime” after reading a Reader’s Digest article called “How to catch a Blackmailer”. The article told the story of Rodney Witchelo and Dyer’s blackmail attempt bore a terrifying resemblance to the notorious campaign of the “Mardi Gra bomber” between 1994 and 1998. However following that case, financial institutions had introduced safeguards making the demands technically impossible.

Months of negotiations and contact were to follow between Dyer and the police. These included the use of classified pages in the local newspaper and a series of “advertisements” which looked like word searches. The rows and rows of jumbled letters contained secret messages at the request of Dyer. Personal messages addressed to someone called “Sal” were another way of getting messages to the bomber.

During his terrifying campaign Dyer made a number of mistakes. The first was when he went into a newsagent’s to photocopy his first demand letter but left it in the machine when he posted the copy. When Dyer realised that he had left the original at the shop, he panicked and tried to prevent the copy from being delivered by setting fire to the post-box he had used. The letter however survived and detectives were able to link it to the post-box by the singed envelope.

Later in the campaign he also failed to put enough stamps on some of his devices, meaning they were not delivered, and he used the same post-box in Bournemouth on several occasions.

Dyer had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid detection, wearing rubber gloves and using water instead of saliva on stamps. Despite this the net was closing around Dyer. One of the letters intercepted had been posted in a box where checks revealed that only 38 people had used the post-box in the relevant time. Police officers had captured Dyer on video posting one of the letters. Meticulous detective work then led to his detection.

On the evening of Monday, 19 February 2001, he was arrested at his home address.

When the police examined the computer at his home, they found a copy of a blackmail letter and the telltale spelling mistakes that had been repeated throughout the letters.

Dyer pleaded guilty to nine charges of Blackmail, and one of Common Assault resulting from the explosion of one letter bomb. It was accepted however that his aim in sending the letter bombs had been to scare the recipients; it had not been to cause them physical injury.

Dyer was sentenced at Dorchester Crown Court in June 2001. He received a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The Judge, Mr Recorder Christopher Clark, stated “You embarked on an evil campaign of public extortion, intimidation and terror. You planned your crimes with devious cunning and meticulous care”.

The sentence was later slightly reduced by the Court of Appeal from 14 years to 12 years.

Casework — successful CPS Dorset prosecutions

• Christopher LEE — Ex-Nursing Home Deputy Matron convicted of 27 charges of fraud/theft and forgery as a result of swindling vulnerable elderly residents of more than £30,000. Monies used by him to fund foreign holidays, cases of wine and stocks and shares... (sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment).
• Shaun SMITH — Assault on nightclub owner followed by threats to a witness in an attempt to get the charges dropped... (27 months’ imprisonment).
• Anthony BELLOTT — Crack cocaine dealer... (five years’ imprisonment).
• Stephen SPILLMAN — Caused the death of a motorist on the Yeovil to Dorchester Road when he fell asleep as he drove his lorry. It crossed the road going into the path of a car travelling in the opposite direction... (two years’ imprisonment).
• Christopher ELLIOTT — Rape and Actual Bodily Harm on a single mother he met through an Internet chat room... (seven years’ imprisonment).
• Christopher POOLE — Hotel owner at Charmouth who set fire to a neighbour’s hotel... (18 months’ imprisonment).
• David WOOD — Drove dangerously as he rammed a car carrying his ex-girlfriend more than 20 times during a car chase in Lytchett Matravers... (18 months’ imprisonment).
• Stephen THOMAS — two handbag snatches on elderly women by heroin addict seeking to feed his drug habit... (six years’ imprisonment).
• Paul TEMPLE — Deputy Head Teacher at Special Needs School who indecently assaulted a pupil with learning difficulties over a three-year period when she was between 16 and 19 years old... (21 months’ imprisonment).
• John PALMER — Indecent Assaults on two girls aged 16 and 18... (two years’ imprisonment).
• Marco RIBERO — Broke into a house in the morning to carry out a burglary and when faced by the owner of the house confronted her with a baseball bat... (four years’ imprisonment).
• Carl STEPHENS — Attempted Robbery at the Thistle Hotel on Poole Quay using a replica handgun... (two years nine months’ imprisonment).
• Christopher GRUBB — Caught in possession of 500 Ecstasy tablets which he intended to supply to others (four years imprisonment).
• Colin HARRIS — Financial Advisor who stole more than £1/2 million from various clients, some of whom were pensioners and who lost all their savings... (41/2 years’ imprisonment).
• Joseph CORBETT — Racially Aggravated Assaults and Criminal Damage directed at a Turkish take-away in Bournemouth... (18 months’ imprisonment — 10 months of this was added for the fact that this was a racially aggravated offence).
• Michael DOUGLAS — Caused the death of a pensioner when he crashed into him whilst he was driving with double the drink-drive limit... (five years’ imprisonment).
• Robin SANDY — Caused £80,000 damage to the Mayfield Hotel in Bournemouth when he started a fire there... (six years’ imprisonment).
• Michael RUDDY — Indecent Assaults on a seven-year old girl... (18 months’ imprisonment).
• Barry CLARKE — Drugs courier bringing heroin and crack cocaine from London to Bournemouth for distribution... (four years’ imprisonment).
• Kamal MIAH — Restaurant worker who cloned credit cards of diners to the tune of some £5,000... (18 months’ Y.O.I.).
• Shaid HUSSAIN and Adrian PADDON — Carried out robbery at Alldays Store in Upton wearing stocking masks and threatening them with a lump hammer... (31/2 years/three years’ imprisonment).
• Jeremy BRITTON — D.J. at a wedding party reception who indecently assaulted a two-year-old girl... (four years’ imprisonment).
• Stephen VASS — Financial Advisor who tricked a pensioner out of more than £50,000 by promising to invest it in a lucrative offshore account but instead used it pay for sponsorship of a golf tournament and club membership for himself... (two years three months’ imprisonment).
• Jason BACCUS — Drove dangerously and crashed out control into a lamp post in Bournemouth causing massive spinal injuries to a young soldier who was a passenger in the car... (18 months’ imprisonment).
• Sheryl HOUSE — Careworker who stole wallets from two pensioners when she was visiting their homes to supposedly look after them... (21 months’ imprisonment).
• Arabinthan THAYALNAYAGEM — 46-year-old banker who attempted to rape a 17-year-old student in his flat... (31/2 years’ imprisonment).
• David JEFFREY and Russell KENDALL — Attempted robbery at West Howe post office where they had brandished what appeared to be a sawn-off shotgun. Fortunately it was a toy... (10 years’/12 years’ imprisonment).
• Robert WHITE — Two assaults on prostitutes (one who was slashed in the throat) by psychopath... (Life imprisonment).
• Joan HARE — Set fire to a solicitor’s office and sent threats to do the same to seven other solicitors’ firms which she claimed were corrupt... (30 months’ imprisonment).
• Stuart WEBB — Tesco employee who made a hoax bomb call to the Fleetsbridge store causing the complete evacuation of the store... (nine months’ imprisonment).
• Mark SELBY and Stephen ROBERT — After drinking heavily burgled a flat which Selby had previously owned, stole a fridge-freezer and removed the gas cooker which damaged the mains supply. Several hours later it blew up endangering the lives of occupants in the block of flats ... (13months’/18months’ imprisonment).
• Martin BARKER — Manager at the Gala Casino in Bournemouth stole from the casino to fund his own gambling habit ... (nine months’ imprisonment, Compensation £46,190, and Confiscation £69,500).
• Daniel SPAMPANATO and John MARSHALL (youths), and Lee FRYER — Robbery at the Hillview Road Post Office in Bournemouth with a sawn-off shotgun... (six years’ Young Offenders Institute/eight years’ imprisonment).
• Lucas OLDHAM — After drinking with his neighbour in his flat, he threw a kettle full of scalding water over the neighbour’s face... (33 months’ imprisonment).
• Mark WILSON — Punched the landlord of the Albion Hotel in Wimborne who received serious head injuries when he hit the ground... (18 months’ imprisonment).
• OPERATION OASIS — Prison sentences totalling 67 years for several defendants involved in supplying heroin including 61/2 years for Lee Grainger, six years for James Watson, and five years each for Ian McNichol, Richard Pitts and John Irvine. Case followed a year long police undercover operation where deals made were secretly filmed.

Extradited from Holland:

Paul TURNER was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment after admitting 28 charges of downloading child pornography from the Internet. In addition he received nine months’ imprisonment for possessing cannabis with intent to supply it.

Whilst the offences were being investigated in the early part of 1998, Turner left his flat in Bournemouth. Several years later he came to the notice of the police in Holland. The CPS gave advice to the police on the case and this led in due course to Turner’s extradition from Holland and his appearance at Bournemouth Crown Court on these matters.

Appeals to the Court of Appeal:

The appeal of Rupert MASSEY, a barrister who had been convicted of indecent assaults on three youths in the 1970’s was rejected. The sentence of six years’ imprisonment was upheld.

Review by High Court of magistrates’ court decisions:

• We asked the High Court to review the refusal of the magistrates’ court to allow rewording of the charge against Martin Short be changed. The case concerned allegations that Short was driving his car with excess alcohol. The wording of the allegation was not correct although it was clear to everyone what was being alleged. The High Court ordered that the magistrates’ court decision should be overturned and that Short should be convicted of driving his car with excess alcohol.
• We also asked the High Court to review a decision made in a case which concerned protestors who trampled on GM crops growing in a field near Sherborne. As a result of our actions the position with protest actions has been clarified.

Performance in the Magistrates’ Courts and Crown Court

All prosecutions start in the magistrates’ courts. These include offences ranging from minor motoring matters to murder. The more serious cases then proceed to the Crown Court. This year we received over 14,000 cases from the police. The majority of defendants whose cases were prosecuted were convicted (in excess of 98%).

The Crown Court deals with the most serious cases. These cases are sent or committed by the magistrates to the Crown Court to be tried or sentenced there, or when a defendant chooses to be tried there. If a defendant pleads not guilty the case will be tried before a judge and a jury. During the year 1,138 cases went to the Crown Court — this represents an increase of almost 10% from the previous year. Over 86% of defendants who went to the Crown Court for trial were convicted.

Chart 1: Caseload (receipts and finalisations)

Chart 1 shows as received the number of defendants whose cases CPS Dorset received from the police, and the number of defendants whose cases were finalised between 1 April 2001-31 March 2002 in comparison with the previous year.

Dorset area Magistrates cases received/finalised 2000 - 2002:

• Cases received from the police from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 14,615
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 13,958
• Cases received from the police from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 14,185
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 13,294

Chart 2 Case Categories

Chart 2 shows the different types of work dealt with by CPS Dorset between 1April 2001-31 March 2002 in comparison with the previous year. They are:

Summary — These cases can only be tried in the magistrates’ courts.

Indictable/Either Way — Indictable only must be tried in the Crown Court, but either way may be tried either by the magistrates or in the Crown Court.

Advice — Cases where the police seek the advice of The CPS before starting proceedings.

Other Proceedings — Non-criminal matters, such as forfeitures under the Obscene Publications Acts.

Dorset Area Magistrates Cases received breakdown 2001 - 2002:

• Iindictable/either way 35%
• Advices 1%
• Summary Offences 64%

Chart 3: Caseload (receipts and finalisations)

Chart 3 shows the number of defendants who came before the Crown Court and the number whose Crown Court case was dealt with by CPS Dorset Area between 1 April 2001- 31 March 2002 in comparison with the previous year.

Dorset area Magistrates case results 2000 - 2002

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Guilty 9779
• Proof In Absence 736
• Other 152

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Guilty 9357
• Proof In Absence 435
• Other 187

Chart 4: Case Categories

Committal for trial — Indictable only and some either way cases are committed or sent from magistrates’ courts for trial in the Crown Court.

Committal for sentence — Some defendants tried and convicted by the magistrates can be committed to the Crown Court for sentence if the magistrates decide that greater punishment is required than they have the power to impose.

Appeals — Defendants may appeal to the Crown Court against conviction and/or sentence by the magistrates’ courts.

Dorset Area : Crown Court cases received/finalised 2000 - 2002:

• Cases received from the police from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 1,039
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2000 to March 31 2001 is 1,069
• Cases received from the police from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 1,138
• Cases dealt with by The CPS from April 1 2001 to March 31 2002 is 916

Chart 5: Case Results

Dorset Area Crown Court Cases Received breakdown 2001 - 2002

• Committals for sentence 18%
• Commitals for trial 70%
• Appeals 12%

Chart 6: Case Results

Dorset area Crown Court case results 2000 - 2002

April 1 2000 to March 31 2001

• Guilty Pleas 472
• After Trial 103
• Other (acquittals) 90

April 1 2001 to March 31 2002

• Guilty Pleas 382
• After Trial 105
• Other (acquittals) 76

Charts 7 and 8: Case Results Persistent Young Offenders

The charts shown indicate the average time in which Persistent Young Offenders were dealt with from arrest to sentence in the year 2001-2002 and over the last five years. We have worked very hard with colleagues in the police, courts, Youth Offending Teams and with defence lawyers to make these considerable improvements.

Dorset Area persistent young offenders performance 2001/2002:

• April - June 2001 PYO Quarterly figs 69, target 71
• July - September 2001 PYO Quarterly figs 69, target 71
• October - December 2001 PYO Quarterly figs 51, target 71
• January - March 2002 PYO Quarterly figs 67, target 71

Dorset Area Persistent Young Offenders Performance 5 yearly comparison:

PYO Quarterly figs:

• 1997/98 135 days
• 1998/99 99 days
• 1999/00 72 days
• 2000/01 80 days
• 2001/02 67 days

Objective & Targets

To meet the needs of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, in co-operation with other criminal justice agencies. National target was to pay 100% correctly completed witness expense claims within 10 days. In Dorset we achieved 99.33% against the target.

CPS Dorset Area

John Revell, Chief Crown Prosecutor. 1st Floor, Oxford House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8HA. Tel: 01202 498 700 Fax: 01202 498 701

Any questions or complaints should be addressed to the Chief Crown Prosecutor.

Free publications about The CPS and further copies of this report can be obtained from:

Janet Lennon, CPS Dorset, Oxford House, Oxford Road, Bournemouth BH8 8HA. Tel: 01202 498 700

The CPS website can be found at: www.cps.gov.uk

Produced by Communications Branch,CPS Headquarters, 50, Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7EX 020 7796 8442