Introduction
Both the NPS and the courts have been working closely together to improve performance and the
purpose of this circular is to focus on how further improvements can be made through more effective
listing and notification of breach hearing processes. The latest performance figures for NPS indicate that
87% of relevant offenders have enforcement action initiated within 10 working days as required by
National Standards; in 1999 it was just 44%. Figures for compliance performance have also shown an
encouraging improvement. Magistrates’ Courts have a target that 75% of warrants are completed within
28 calendar days for adults (14 days for youths) of issue. To date performance stands at 47%, clearly
below the standard but much improved on the out turn for 2003/04 that stood at 37%. However, the
current end to end process can still be very protracted, with long gaps between the decision to breach,
the offender’s appearance in court and final resolution of the case. Ministers want to see the process
expedited. Local agreements to improve listing and notification processes will help to achieve this.
At present in most areas, where breach action is required, communication with offenders through
standardised letters confirms that court proceedings will be commenced but normally gives no indication
of the date for the hearing. A summons is issued subsequently but sometimes the date of the court
appearance is several weeks ahead.
A simple but significant change to this process is proposed. After local discussion between probation and
courts to determine the best working arrangement, every court area should provide the probation service
with a set weekly time on which breaches of community penalties can be dealt with. Local arrangements
should be agreed through the local Criminal Justice Boards and Justices’ Issues Group. It is fully
recognised that there is a major demand on court hearing times with associated targets for listing and
therefore the process by which this is achieved will be dependent upon the size of the court, number of
cases and other local issues. For example, in large courts this may mean the establishment of a specialist
breach court on one morning or afternoon each week. In smaller courts it may be more appropriate to
guarantee that breaches will be able to be heard during a particular morning or afternoon but not in a
specialist breach court as such.
Of course it is important that all the necessary documentation is available so that the breach can proceed
at the first appearance. To that end it may be unrealistic to instruct the offender to report to the court
within too short a time scale. However, the hearing date should be no more than 10 working days after
the decision to instigate breach and therefore no more than 20 working days after the relevant failure to
comply.
Legal advice confirms that an offender manager can instruct an offender to report to the court building as
part of their court order. In addition, the probation service will need to formally lay an information
containing the allegation of breach before the court. Courts may still wish to issue a summons and the
best option may be for the probation service to prepare the initial summons documentation and send this
to the court for official processing and service on the offender. Local discussion should determine the best
course of action to follow.
Even if no summons has been issued however, and the offender fails to report to the court building, the
breach case will still be listed and the probation service may decide to make an immediate application for
a warrant without bail. This application would be on the grounds that the offender has failed to comply
with their order on two separate occasions and has also failed to comply with the offender manager’s
instruction to report to the court, in the knowledge that the breach would be listed for that day. Individual
offender managers may decide it is appropriate to forewarn an offender in breach, that failure to report to
court on the date of the breach hearing, will result in an application for a warrant being made.
It is recognised that in some cases an immediate application for a warrant (bypassing the summons / first
notification stage) is the most appropriate course of action if the risk of further offending is to be
minimised. At present Staffordshire and Cambridgeshire are piloting arrangements to fast-track warrant
applications and execution procedures for high risk offenders. Subject to formal evaluation during
February 2005 the processes associated with this pilot will be rolled-out nationally.
In addition, of course, a warrant should be sought for offenders who have failed to report to the court as
instructed whether by summons or following a direct instruction from their offender manager under
expedited listing arrangements.
As for summons cases, probation and courts should work closely to establish agreed procedures for more
effective listing of warrant applications. It should be noted that the information provided to the court by the
probation service as part of the warrant application can be very helpful to court enforcement staff in
locating the offender. (Probation Circular 17/2004 has already provided guidance on this and a model
proforma for use).
Offenders who breach their orders are free at any time to seek legal advice. There is little evidence to
suggest that they are proactive in doing this under present procedures. It is not therefore anticipated that
the proposed new arrangements will change the current position in terms of the proportion of offenders
turning up in court without having had prior contact with a solicitor. Offender managers should confirm to
the offender that they intend to proceed with the case at the first hearing and incorporate with this a
written notice encouraging them to seek legal advice immediately. They should also advise the court at
first hearing, that this advice was given. Local discussions between probation areas and courts should
also consider this issue and briefings through court user groups, Justices’ Issues groups or other avenues
may be helpful.
At present there could be high performance by both the probation service and the courts against their
respective enforcement targets but still be many offenders whose cases are not listed for many weeks
after the relevant failure to comply. Furthermore, these offenders may fail to attend court, have their
cases subsequently adjourned (sometimes because the probation service is not ready to proceed) and
ultimately succeed in delaying the conclusion of the proceedings. Home Office and DCA Ministers have
agreed the need for a joint end to end performance target that addresses these issues. This is likely to
focus on the proportion of breach cases that are resolved within 25 working days of the second
unacceptable failure and will be in place for LCJBs from 2005/06. Further guidance will be provided on
this shortly.
National Standards
A revision process is underway to amend standards in the light of new legislation. These enforcement
developments will be addressed as part of this process. Amended standard letters will be issued to
probation areas once the review process has been completed.
February 2005
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.