A Dictionary of Criminal Justice

Peter Joyce, Neil Wain

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136961410
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Droit
• Subtopic: Droit pénal

ADictionary of Criminal Justice is the only dictionary that deals with criminal justice from a UK perspective, and in doing so provides a comprehensive guide to all aspects of the British criminal justice system, including its historical context and contemporary operations.

The first three sections of the book explore in turn key definitions, key pieces of legislation and key documents that have helped to shape the operations of the criminal justice system, whilst the fourth details websites of particular relevance to this field. As such, this dictionary provides an extensive but accessible introduction to the important terms that relate to both the development and the contemporary processes of criminal justice. It also succeeds in placing the UK criminal justice system within an international setting through the inclusion of entries that acknowledge the global setting in which British justice operates.

Guides to key legislation and documents are included, and each definition is accompanied by references for further reading, making this book an invaluable learning tool for both students and practitioners of criminal justice.

Section One

Definitions

A

absolute discharge

See sentences of the criminal courts

accountability

Accountability (which is sometimes referred to as ‘responsibility’) is a political concept whereby individuals or agencies to whom responsibilities have been delegated are required to submit to the scrutiny of another body (or bodies) and justify their actions. Accountability thus constrains the autonomy enjoyed by criminal justice agencies and practitioners.

In addition to being required to answer for their actions (‘answerability’), accountability requires that the body to whom the individual or organization is responsible possesses sanctions which may be deployed if actions that are proposed or which have been already undertaken are deemed to be unacceptable. These sanctions may be imposed within an organization (for example at a disciplinary hearing) or from outside of it, by a separate body or agency.

There are two forms of accountability. The individual or organization which discharges functions may have to seek permission before acting. Alternatively, accountability may entail an individual or organization being free to undertake actions but required to report what has been done to another body. The latter is termed ex post facto accountability.

Accountability underpins the operations of the criminal justice system at a number of levels. Those who are involved in enforcing the law are subject to the constraints which this imposes on them regarding the performance of their responsibilities. They are required to act within the law and failure to do so may result in penalties being imposed on them.

The professions which operate in the criminal justice system have codes of practice which may impose sanctions on members whose conduct falls below the standards that are expected of them. These standards of behaviour hold professionals accountable for their actions, one example of which is the code of professional standards for police officers.

Some agencies in the criminal justice system operate in a hierarchical fashion so that the actions of one body may be overruled by a higher one. Thus the decisions of a Crown Court may be overruled by the Court of Appeal to which the former is ultimately accountable for its decisions. Alternatively, the actions of one agency may be subject to review by another to which it becomes accountable.

Agencies and individuals within the criminal justice system may be accountable to ministers who can deploy disciplinary sanctions against persons or bodies whose conduct they deem unacceptable. For example, magistrates and judges may be disciplined by the Ministry of Justice which has an Office for Judicial Complaints to investigate complaints (Evans and Hirsch, 2009).

Criminal justice agencies may also be accountable for their actions to the general public. Consultation is one mechanism through which communities may be involved in criminal justice affairs. Consumerism is another approach through which this objective might be achieved. This has been developed as an aspect of new public management since the 1980s which has sought to enhance the rights and responsibilities of members of the general public through market choice rather than formal political mechanisms of accountability (Brake and Hale, 1992: 37).

Practitioners and agencies of the criminal justice system are also informally accountable for their actions. The media is an important mechanism through which actions undertaken within the criminal justice system can be scrutinized and through which changes in practice may be influenced.

See also: constabulary independence, consultation, judges, criminal court system England and Wales, magistrates, new public management

References and further reading

Brake, M. and Hale, C. (1992) Public Order and Private Lives: The Politics of Law and Order. London: Routledge.

Evans, R. and Hirsch, A. (2009) ‘Names of Misbehaving Judges “Should Be Made Public” ’ Guardian [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/16/judges-discipline-freedomof-information

accredited programmes

Accredited programmes are utilized by the prison and probation service to ensure that interventions directed at offenders are of a high quality in terms of both content and the way they are delivered. The aims of these programmes are to aid an offender’s reintegration into the community, to enable an offender to desist from crime in the future and to reduce the risk of harm to those who might otherwise become victims of crime.

There are a wide range of accredited programmes which include cognitive behavioural programmes. These may be delivered within the community, or in prison, or in both settings. Offenders may be required to participate in designated programmes by a community order issued by a court under the provisions of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, or involvement may be a condition of a prisoner’s post-release licence.

The Prison Service has made use of cognitive skills programmes since the early 1990s which ‘aim to teach offenders the process of consequential thinking in order to avoid patterns of thinking which lead them to offend’ (Cann et al. , 2003: 1). The key programmes have consisted of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programme (introduced in 1992 following its success in Ottawa, Canada, in significantly lowering recidivism among adult offenders) and the Enhanced Thinking Skills Programme (commenced in 1993). Both target offenders with convictions relating to sex, drugs or violence (Parkin, 2002: 295).

Accredited programmes were initially certified by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) (formerly known as the Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Board) that was set up in 1999.

Following the creation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), the CSAP became a non-statutory body in May 2005 whose role was to assist the Ministry of Justice in developing and implementing high-quality offender programmes. One consequence of the establishment of NOMS as an executive agency within the Ministry of Justice is the likelihood of programmes of this nature being increasingly delivered by the private and voluntary sectors.

An important aspect of accredited programmes is that their success (or otherwise) should be capable of evaluation. They thus constitute an important aspect of the criminal justice policy ‘What works?’ agenda.

See also: cognitive behavioural programmes, desistance, National Offender Management Service, political oversight of the criminal justice system, prisons, recidivism, What works?

References and further reading

Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F. and Friendship, C. (2003) Understanding What Works: Accredited Cognitive Skills Programmes for Adult Men and Young Offenders. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Findings 226.

Parkin, J. (2002) ‘Offending Behaviour Programmes’ in M. Leech and D. Cheney, The Prisons Handbook. Hook, Hampshire: Waterside Press.

actuarial assessment

See assessment tool

administrative law

Administrative law is a branch of public law that relates to the rules and regulations that control the operations of government agencies or of agencies that have been granted statutory powers of administration.

Administrative tribunals constitute an important mechanism to adjudicate disputes arising between the citizen and the state and to review decisions undertaken by government agencies (Cane, 2009).

They are viewed as a more effective manner for matters of this nature than civil courts because of the cost and delay which aggrieved members of the public would be likely to experience in the courts.

Tribunals grew up in an ad hoc manner which resulted in ‘wide variations of practice and approach, and almost no coherence’. It was argued that the current arrangements seemed to have been developed ‘to satisfy the needs and conveniences of the departments and other bodies which run tribunals, rather than the needs of the user’ (Legatt, 2001: para 1.3). This resulted in a number of reforms seeking to establish a unified system which includes regulatory supervision and appeal mechanisms.

In 2006 the Tribunals Service was set up as an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice to manage administrative tribunals and in 2007 the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act (TCEA) replaced the Council on Tribunals (which had been set up by the 1958 Tribunals and Inquiries Act to review the constitution and operations of a number of stipulated tribunals) with the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.

The TCEA provided tribunal judges (the new name given to legally qualified tribunal members) with the same guarantees of independence as is possessed by judges. Members of administrative tribunals are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The legislation created a two-level tribunal system consisting of a Firsttier Tribunal and an Upper Tribunal, both divided into areas of specialization (although some tribunals including the Industrial Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission remain outside of this system). The Upper Tribunal possesses limited appellate functions arising from decisions made by First-tier Tribunals and possesses enforcement and supervisory/guidance functions.

The legislation also set up the office of the Senior President to exercise management and supervisory responsibilities, performing a role akin to that carried out by the Lord Chief Justice for the court system.

Although tribunals were established to perform functions of a judicial nature, they perform a range of other functions that include the administration of government policy. This is sometimes reflected by their designation as ‘Board’, ‘Authority’ or Commission.

Additionally, they are also used to settle certain types of disputes between two private parties. Examples of the latter include industrial tribunals which were created by the 1964 Industrial Training Act and deal with a very wide range of issues concerned with disputes between employers and employees in connection with employment rights (covering issues such as unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and sexual or racial discrimination). The remedies available to employment tribunals include awarding compensation or reinstatement.

See also: judges, judicial review

References and further reading

Cane, P. (2009) Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Legatt, Sir A. (2001) Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs.

adversarial justice

Adversarial justice underpins the operations of a legal system in which ‘evidence against the defence is presented by the prosecution and tested by the defence before an impartial adjudicator’ (Walker and Starmer, 1999: 182). The proceedings take the form of a contest, at the end of which those arbitrating the dispute declare the defendant to be guilty or innocent of the charges that have been laid against him or her.

Adversarial justice is associated with countries possessing common law legal systems and has its origins in the medieval system of trial by battle. ‘Under this model one is usually judged by one’s peers (the jury) and the system emphasises oral presentation of evidence’ (van Koppen and Penrod, 2003: 3). Rules of evidence are drawn up to ensure that jurors are presented with evidence that is reliable and the trial judge plays an important role in determining fair play between the contestants by strictly enforcing these rules. These determine, for example, what evidence is appropriate for the jury to consider.

Adversarial justice permits those accused of crimes to be represented by lawyers who put their client’s case to the court. Although the role of advocates is to present evidence, they face considerable pressure to ‘win’ a case and the outcome of the trial may depend on their skilful questioning of witnesses, the evidence they choose to bring forward and how this is presented to the court.

Adversarial justice rests on the principle that an accused person is regarded as innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution and does not normally require defendants to testify in court or face crossexamination. In the United States this right is enshrined in the fifth amendment to the constitution. However, since the enactment of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, juries in England and Wales have been able to draw inferences if a defendant has refused to answer questions put to him or her by the police in the investigation conducted before the trial and subsequently declines to give evidence in open court.

See also: judges, jury system, right to silence, rules of evidence

References and further reading

van Koppen, P.J. and Penrod, S. (2003) (eds) Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (1999) Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)

Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were put forward in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act as a resp...