The aim of this guidance is to describe good practice for reviewing cases (both custodial sentences and remands to custody), and ensuring that robust gate-keeping processes are in place. It describes different examples of effective practice that have been used by the participating YOTs. Some of these ideas may be adapted for use in your own area.
Robust processes for reviewing bail applications, along with the effective review of custodial sentences, can have the following effects:
-
reduction in the use of custodial/secure remands
-
reduction in the use of custodial sentences
-
increased number of diversions to appropriate community alternatives.
There are three main models that can be used to review custodial remands and sentences:
-
Monthly review meeting
Where historical custody cases are considered on a monthly basis, usually as part of a custody panel meeting. By reviewing cases that have resulted in a custodial/secure remand or sentence, you can check that all possible diversions are being identified and improve practices and processes where appropriate.
- Weekly planning review
To consider those cases appearing in court in the coming week. The aim is to enable full preparation for these cases, so that alternatives to custody can be suggested to magistrates where appropriate.
- Continuous gate-keeping processes
Continuous gate-keeping embedded in day-to-day YOT practice. This is to ensure that appropriate proposals have been developed for young people at risk of custody, at the first court appearance, or in time for the subsequent court appearance. It is also necessary to have effective gate-keeping of reports for young people at risk of custody to ensure that all preparation has been done prior to the sentencing date.
An overview of when these three methods of quality assurance might be used is shown in the table below.
| Method of review |
Aim of review |
Usefule when |
Benefits |
|
Monthly review meeting
|
|
|
|
|
Weekly planning review |
|
|
|
|
Continuous gate-keeping |
|
-
few custody cases
- areas that have made progress with the monthly/weekly reviews and can move on to further refine their processes
|
|
Monthly review meeting
The methodology for running a monthly custodial review meeting is outlined in the table below.
| |
Remands |
Sentencing |
|
Aim |
|
-
to review the previous month’s custodial sentences
-
to assess if appropriate proposals were made in sentencing reports to the court, and that community alternatives were proposed where appropriate
|
|
People |
|
|
|
Information required |
-
list of the previous month’s custodial remands, taken from YOIS/Careworks
-
list will include basic information on charges and gravity, date of remand episode, name and age of young person, previous convictions or PYO status, remand outcome and, where available, the bail proposal made by the YOT. Where the information is held on YOIS/Careworks, ISSP eligibility should also be included in the list
-
|
-
list of the previous month’s custodial sentences, taken from YOIS/Careworks.
-
list will include basic information on charges and gravity, date of sentencing episode, name and age of young person, previous convictions or PYO status, PSR proposal made by the YOT, court disposal outcome and term, and any notes on the reasons for the custodial decision
-
PSRs for the cases that will be reviewed – e.g. review only 4- and 6-month DTOs
-
|
|
Process |
-
Where there are a large number of episodes the chair/information manager should select a few episodes for review at each meeting and highlight them in the list
-
For sentencing: target 4–6 month DTO decisions or where the young person is young (i.e. under 15) or has limited previous convictions
-
For remands: target low gravity or few charges, and where the young person is young or has limited previous convictions
-
Chair/information manager sends out case lists to the review team 2/3 days in advance of the meeting
-
Each member of the review team prepares for the meeting by reviewing case notes and gathers information on each case for the meeting
-
The actions recorded from the previous meeting on individual cases should always be reviewed to ensure that agreed actions have been completed
-
Click for an example terms of reference [134Kb Word document, opens in new window] for this meeting which provides further detail for the process that can be followed |
|
Meeting outcome |
Consider the targeted cases that resulted in a custodial remand, and assess whether sufficient steps were taken to divert the young person from custody where possible, e.g.
-
Was the young person ISSP eligible and referred to the ISSP team?
-
Was an appropriate community bail package proposed on the first bail application?
-
Were accommodation needs considered and met?
-
Why was bail refused by the court?
-
Was a member of the bail or ISSP team present to provide further information to the court? (This is particularly important in Crown Court cases).
Issues identified should be recorded, and steps taken to close any gaps. If the same issues recur monthly, you will know that the actions arising from the meeting are not being addressed. Any issues that cannot be resolved should be escalated to senior managers. |
The list of cases should have enough information to provide a background to the case. Consider the targeted cases and assess if the YOT completed all possible actions to present an appropriate package, e.g.
-
Was the young person ISSP eligible and referred to the ISSP team?
-
Assess the PSR for clarity of argument, appropriateness of language and strength of conclusion
-
Were any points of concern raised by magistrates at the PSR request addressed in the PSR?
-
Was the PSR supported by further information in court from the PSR writer or young person’s worker?
-
Where an appropriate package was proposed in the PSR, why did the court decide on a custodial sentence?
-
Feed any learning points back to the PSR writer, writers’ group or line manager.
Issues identified should be recorded, and actions taken to address any quality issues. If the same weaknesses keep arising, consider running PSR writers’ training, and review the PSR gate-keeping processes.
|
|
Case study examples |
Data showed that far fewer bail ISSPs were given in October than September. Possible actions:
-
Ensure YOT court team know eligibility criteria for bail ISSP
-
Ensure YOT bail worker is proactive in court and is presenting alternatives to custody effectively
-
Ensure that case referral to ISSP processes are robust
-
Consider whether magistrates require further information on bail ISSP, bail support or electronic monitoring programmes |
PSR review revealed that author did not consider ISSP as an option for an eligible young person. Possible actions:
|
Weekly review meeting
The methodology for running a weekly review meeting is outlined in the table below. The process and outcomes are similar to that of the monthly meeting.
| |
Remand |
Sentencing |
|
Aim |
- to review the cases already remanded to custody, which are appearing in court in the coming wee
|
- to review the cases in court for sentencing in the coming week, to ensure that appropriate preparation has been carried out
|
|
People |
- ISSP/bail support manager
-
remand management worker
-
accommodation officer
-
bail support worker
-
YOT court team/manager |
|
|
Information required |
A list of remand hearings should be provided for the coming week. The information with the list is the same as for a monthly review meeting, except:
-
the date of the next bail application hearing or appearance is also required
-
the second bail application/bail Asset or bail report should also be reviewed where available.
-
The list should be sorted by court date to ensure that the closest cases are reviewed first. |
A list of sentencing hearings should be provided for the next week. The information with the list is the same as for a monthly review meeting, except the date of up coming sentencing hearing is required.
The list should highlight those cases at risk of custody. The YOT should identify the factors that apply depending on local practice, e.g:
-
all young people who have been remanded in custody prior to sentencing
-
all sentencing cases where a PSR has been requested by magistrates
-
all ISSP eligible cases
-
all cases where a magistrate has stated that custody is being considered.
It is easier to review cases if the list is sorted by hearing date. |
|
Process |
Send out the list of cases to be reviewed to the team, who should prepare in advance of the meeting as per the monthly process. The meeting can either be done in person, or the chair can organise a virtual process by emailing the list to all members and doing a phone or email review of actions by a pre-arranged day every week. |
|
Meeting outcome |
The same issues should be considered as highlighted in the monthly process. In addition, prior to the second application:
-
where a second application or sentencing occasion is coming up, ensure that all effort had been made to develop an appropriate package for the next occasion
-
prior to the second bail application, had the young person been visited in the secure establishment or the YOI remand worker contacted?
-
has the defence solicitor been contacted to check status of the application?
-
has CPS been contacted to see if they will oppose bail?
-
prior to the second application, have issues that prevented bail being granted on the first occasion been addressed in the package, e.g. no accommodation available, lack of information on personal circumstances, etc?
Any actions to address issues with the quality of the proposed bail package must be followed up prior to the next bail hearing. |
The same issues should be considered as highlighted in the monthly process. However any actions to address issues with PSR quality must be followed up prior to the sentencing hearing. |
|
Case study examples |
A young person is appearing for a second bail hearing in court. On the first occasion s/he was remanded in custody, as no bail package was presented. Possible actions:
-
Complete a bail Asset on the young person
-
Prepare a bail package to be presented in court
-
Ensure a staff member can attend court to present the case
A young person has a remand hearing at Crown Court this week. Possible actions include:
-
Ensure a referral to ISSP has been made
-
For judge in chambers applications, ensure the solicitor has been contacted and that an appropriate bail package is being prepared
|
A young person is due for sentencing in two days’ time. At the weekly review meeting, you notice that this particular all-options PSR has a weak conclusion and that ISSP has not been proposed (as the young person is not eligible). The author has implied that custody seems inevitable. Possible actions include:
-
Consider other options, e.g. would a strict supervision order with a tag be appropriate?
-
Feedback to PSR author. Ensure all PSR authors are aware of the variety of packages that can be proposed
-
Review PSR gate-keeping processes to discover how the report slipped through |
Continuous gate-keeping
Examples of good practice gate-keeping, embedded in day-to-day YOT work, are provided in the table below. The Making it Count in Court handbook also provides examples of good practice gate-keeping methods.
| |
Remands |
Sentencing |
|
Aim |
|
|
|
People |
The senior manager or practitioner responsible for overseeing bail workers in the YOT, e.g.
-
YOT court team manager
-
senior bail worker
-
bail ISSP manager |
The senior manager or practitioner responsible for overseeing PSR writers in the YOT, e.g.
-
YOT court team manager
-
area team managers
Alternatively, quality assurance of PSRs can be completed by peer review or by a PSR writers’ group rather than a senior manager.
|
|
Information required |
Ensure that the YOT receives a list of cases at risk of custody daily as early as possible prior to the hearing through one of the following:
-
Appropriate adult at police station informs YOT of youths at risk of custody
-
Identify police contact, and get information regularly on overnight cases where police bail has been reviewed
-
Court provides daily list of overnight remand hearings
-
Liaise with CPS on a daily basis to identify those cases where bail is going to be opposed
|
This process is similar to the weekly process.
Ensure that the reviewer receives a list of cases at risk of being sentenced to custody on a weekly or daily basis (depending on volume)
Ensure reviewer receives all PSRs for young people at risk of custody as soon as the PSR is complete, or at least a few days prior to the sentencing hearing |
|
Process |
Once you have the above information, you need to make sure that gate-keeping processes are robust.
-
Bail worker to interview all and complete a bail asset
-
Develop a verbal or written bail package
-
Manager/team leader to review package where possible prior to court. This is generally easier for second bail applications
|
Once you have the above information, you need to make sure that gate-keeping processes are robust.
-
Review PSR to quality assure contents. Many YOTs have developed PSR checklists or gate-keeping forms to assist with the review of reports
-
Immediately following the review ensure that feedback is provided to the PSR writer
-
Assure the report again if necessary prior to the sentencing hearing
|
|
Outcomes |
This process will enable more effective preparation for cases that could potentially result in a custodial remand. More cases will be diverted from custody at an earlier stage, which should result in a reduction in the number of custodial remands |
As described, gate-keeping PSRs ensures that appropriate sentences are proposed and that alternatives to custody are considered where appropriate. Providing constructive feedback to PSR writers should help the quality of reports to improve over time
|
Six good practice points for custody panel meetings
- Consistent attendees
- Ensure that all key staff attend the meeting. If a panel member cannot attend, they should send their case review to the meeting chair in advance
- Aim to have the same people attending regularly
- Keep the numbers of people in the panel to a minimum so that it includes key managers only. The more people in the meeting the longer the review will take
- Consider case reviews by email/telephone if time does not permit face-to-face meetings
- Case information
- Send out the case list in advance of the meeting – YOIS/Careworks can provide this information automatically
- Ensure all necessary data is available, including date of the next court hearing, type of court hearing for the cases to be reviewed (e.g. for trial, for sentence, etc)
- For remand episodes: at risk of custody cases may include remands to local authority care, as well as remands to the secure estate. Consider any breaches of bail that might be in court
- Chair to collate and provide PSRs for sentenced cases being reviewed
- Advance preparation
- Each attendee should research their own area of responsibility relating to the case (e.g. ISSP manager to consider whether ISSP was identified early and a proposal developed, bail worker to assess bail package proposed, etc)
- Focused action
- Chair must control the meeting, so that it remains action-focused rather than a general chat about the cases. Any problems that the group cannot resolve should be escalated to senior management
- Feedback
- Feedback learning points from PSR reviews to authors as close to the custody panel date as possible
- Feedback the results of the review process to the court either by developing case studies or to highlight concerns through normal channels such as the youth court user group
- Share good practice/success stories within the YOT
- Review
- Minute the actions, and review those from the previous meeting
- Note key learning points and agree how recurring problems will be addressed
- Escalate any recurring problems to senior management, or other appropriate forum (e.g. court user group)
- Use monthly meeting to check progress against the target and identify any patterns in the use of custody to raise with the senior management team.