DOCSLIB.ORG

Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Provincial Offences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Provincial Offences SENTENCING PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES FOR PROVINCIAL OFFENCES The Modernization of the Provincial Offences Act June 2010 Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario Prepared by The Honourable Mr. Justice Rick Libman The LCO commissioned this paper to provide background research for its Modernization of the Provincial Offences Act project. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the LCO. Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to the Law Commission of Ontario for providing me with this opportunity to author a research paper on sentencing purposes and principles for provincial offences. I would also like to thank the Office of the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice for supporting, and indeed encouraging, my interest and involvement in this project. I have particularly benefited from the guidance and helpful comments and observations made by Mark Schofield, Law Commission of Ontario Counsel in Residence; Professors Alan Young and Liora Salter of Osgoode Hall Law School York University; Professor Kenneth Jull of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and Faculty of Graduate Studies Osgoode Hall Law School York University; Senior Advisory Justice of the Peace Andrew C. Clark; Sheilagh Stewart, Crown Counsel, Ministry of Attorney General, Ontario; and Sherie Verhulst, Legislative Counsel, Ministry of Attorney General, British Columbia. I am also grateful for the assistance of Despina Cadieux, a law student, who reviewed and edited a draft of this research paper, as well as Grace Dadone for her secretarial assistance. The views expressed in this research paper represent my own personal opinions, gleaned from my combined experiences as a Crown Counsel, adjunct law professor, graduate law student and judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. They do not purport to represent the views of the any of the institutions with which I am, or have been, affiliated. Rick Libman Table of Contents INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………. 1 PART I: FRAMING THE PROBLEM A. Regulatory Offences and Sentencing Provisions 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….11 2. Overview of Regulatory Offences, Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalty Provisions………………………………………………………………………………12 3. The Nature of Regulatory Offences……………..………………………………..16 4. Overlap of Regulatory Offences and Criminal Offences………………………..19 5. Regulatory Offences and Statutory Interpretation… …………………………...22 6. The Recent Trend of Escalating Penalties for Regulatory Offences …………24 7. Matrix of Regulatory Offences Sentencing Decisions…………………………..32 8. Statement of Sentencing Purposes and Principles in Other Statutes….……..37 9. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..40 PART II: SETTING THE STAGE A. Purposes and Principles of Sentencing for Criminal Offences 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 42 2. History of Sentencing Reform prior to the Criminal Code of Canada Statement of Sentencing Purposes and Principles …………………………………………...43 3. The Enactment of a Statement of Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Criminal Offences ……………………………………………..50 4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..56 PART III: DEVELOPING THE FOUNDATION A. Purposes and Principles of Sentencing for Regulatory Offences 1.Introduction… ………………………………………………………………..58 2. Determining Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Regulatory Offences in Canada…. …………………………………………………………………………….59 3. R.. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. and its Legacy……….…………………………………..64 4. Differing Views as to Purposes and Principles of Sentencing for Regulatory Offences………………………………………………………………………………..71 5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..86 B. Regulatory Offences Sentencing Jurisprudence within Canada: A Survey of Workplace Safety, Consumer Protection and Environmental Regulation Decisions 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….88 2. Workplace Safety Sentencing Decisions……………………………………..….91 3. Consumer Protection Sentencing Decisions………………………………… 100 4. Environmental Regulation Sentencing Decisions……………………………...109 5. Conclusion… … ………………………………………………………………..129 Part IV: SETTLING ON SOLUTIONS A. The Regulatory Cycle and its Role in Shaping Purposes and Principles of Sentencing for Regulatory Offences 1. Introduction……………...…………………………………………………………132 2. Risk Assessment and Risk Management………………………………………136 3. Regulatory Enforcement Pyramids……………………………………………...141 4. The Regulatory Cycle and “Penalties Principles”……………………………...146 5. The Regulatory Cycle and Changing Regulatory Strategies…………………153 6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………162 B. Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Regulatory Offences: a New Approach for Regulatory Justice 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...165 2. The British Columbia Public Health Act: A Model of Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Regulatory Offences enacted by Legislators……………………...168 3. Identifying and Prioritizing Sentencing Purposes and Principles for Regulatory Offences………………………………………………………………………..……..173 (i) remedying the harm or potential for harm………………………………………174 (ii) rehabilitation………………………………………………………………………176 (iii) general deterrence……………………………………………………………….182 (iv) denunciation……………………………………………………………………...184 4. Sentencing Purposes and Principles in a Statute of General Application…..190 5. Sentencing Purposes and Principles for All or Some Regulatory Offences …………...................................................................................................……..193 6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………199 Part V: FINISHING TOUCHES A. Retrofitting the Regulatory Offences Sentencing Toolbox: a New Set of Sentencing Options for a New Statement of Sentencing Purposes and Principles 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 203 2. Provincial Offences Legislation Sentencing Provisions……………………….205 3. Victim Impact Statements………………………………………………………...207 4. Probation…………………………………………………………………………...210 5. Fine Option Programs…………………………………………………………….218 6. Alternative Measures……………………………………………………………..219 7. Alternative Penalties………………………………………………………………222 8. Creative Sentence Orders………………………………………………………..224 9. Restitution and Compensation…………………………………………………..227 10. Forfeiture………………………………………………………………………….229 11. Conditional Sentences…………………………………………………………..231 12. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..235 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………..237 ENDNOTES…………………………………………………………………………. 241 Sentencing Purposes and Principles For Provincial Offences INTRODUCTION Sentencing. It should come naturally to judges. After all, it is what most courts do much of the time. The resolution rate of charges in Ontario, whether criminal or quasi-criminal in nature, routinely approaches 90%: very few matters, in fact, go to trial.1 Of those that do, findings of guilt often result; appeals from such cases rarely succeed.2 Judges and justices of the peace should therefore be well versed in imposing sentences, and thoroughly familiar with the legal principles upon which such sentences are based. But this is not always the case. At least not with the type of charges that arise most frequently, provincial offences under Ontario’s Provincial Offences Act3, which are a form of a regulatory or public welfare offence, and for which the overwhelming majority of persons will ever have contact with the administration of justice in the province of Ontario.4 “Provincial offences” are created by laws enacted by the province, or regulations or by-laws established under such authority, and involve all manner of regulated activities.5 There are also comparable federal laws for regulatory offences, or “contraventions,” falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.6 Such statutes, in common, set out provisions that regulate conduct for our protection, ranging from rules of the road governing motor vehicles to protecting workers from dangerous pieces of equipment; from regulating the preparation of food products to the sale of services and goods, and to safeguarding the environment. There is virtually no Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario 1 June 2010 Sentencing Purposes and Principles For Provincial Offences area that is neither the subject of regulation, nor a corresponding penalty for breach of the regulatory standard. The question which therefore arises is why should there be such uncertainty as to sentencing purposes and principles in this all encompassing area of the law? The answer appears to be relatively simple: there is no statement of what constitutes such sentencing purposes and principles for regulatory offences. Consequently, judges and justices of the peace who impose sentences for regulatory offences do not have before them a guiding rationale or legislative statement explaining what aims are to be addressed by the court’s sentence, or what goals are to be furthered through the imposition of punishment. Neither is this any more apparent to the lawyers and parties who appear before the courts, including accused persons and corporate defendants. As a result, there is the oft espoused criticism that the absence of such a statement of sentencing purposes and principles for regulatory offences makes imposing punishment a lottery, where inconsistency and unpredictability abound. The statutory provisions which govern sentencing for regulatory offences have been described, aptly, as “a patchwork quilt … in need of reform.”7 Identifying the problem is easy. What is more difficult is crafting a solution. The issue addressed in this research paper, in response to the questions posed by the Law Commission of Ontario
Load more

Recommended publications
  • the Defence of All Reasonable Care I. Canadian
    294 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW [VOL. XVIII, NO. 2 . THE DEFENCE OF ALL REASONABLE CARE . even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.1 I. CANADIAN AUTHORITY Prior to May 1978, there was no clear Canadian authority recognizing the existence of a defence of all reasonable care. For some offences it was necessary that the Crown prove affirmatively beyond a reasonable doubt a mens rea, that is, an intent to commit the offence. For other offences, sometimes called offences of strict or absolute liability, the Crown did not have to prove mens rea, but merely the actus reus. There was no sure and certain method of determining whether an offence was in the first category or the second.2 For example, in R. v. Pierce Fi,sheries3 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that mens rea or proof of knowledge was not required to convict on a charge of having possession of undersized lobsters contrary to regulations made pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 119. But the same court decided that possession of a drug without knowing what it was is no offence.4 In May 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada, with Dickson J. writing for a unanimous court, clearly defined a new category of strict liability offences. This new category does not require the Crown to prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. It allows the defendant to exculpate himself by showing on a balance of probabilities that he took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.5 A.
    [Show full text]
  • UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION Law No. 25/2008 of 5 June Establishing The
    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION Law No. 25/2008 of 5 June Establishing the preventive and repressive measures for the combat against the laundering of benefits of illicit origin and terrorism financing, transposing into the domestic legal system Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council, of 26 October 2005, and Directive 2006/70/EC, of the Commission, of 01 August 2006, relating to the prevention of the use of the financial system and of the specially designated activities and professions for purposes of money laundering and terrorism financing, first amendment to Law No. 52/2003 of 22 August, and revoking Law No. 11/2004, of 27 March The Assembly of the Republic decrees, pursuant to Article 161 c) of the Constitution, the following: CHAPTER I General provisions SECTION I Subject matter and definitions Article 1 Subject matter 1- This Law establishes preventive and repressive measures to combat the laundering of unlawful proceeds and terrorism financing and transposes into Portuguese law Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26th October 2005 and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1st August 2006 on the prevention of the use of the financial system and designated non-financial businesses and professions for the purpose of money laundering and terrorism financing. 2- Money laundering and terrorism financing are prohibited and punishable in accordance with the procedures established by the applicable criminal law. Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Law the following shall mean: 1) «Entities
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Criminal Law
    Syllabus Canadian Criminal Law (Revised November 2020) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the most current syllabus available. World Exchange Plaza 1810 - 45 O'Connor Street Ottawa Ontario K1P 1A4 Tel: (613) 236-1700 Fax: (613) 236-7233 www.flsc.ca Canadian Criminal Law EXAMINATION The function of the NCA exams is to determine whether applicants demonstrate a passable facility in the examined subject area to enable them to engage competently in the practice of law in Canada. To pass the examination candidates are expected to identify the relevant issues, select and identify the material rules of law including those in the Criminal Code of Canada and the relevant case law as understood in Canada, and explain how the law applies on each of the relevant issues, given the facts presented. Those who fail to identify key issues, or who demonstrate confusion on core legal concepts, or who merely list the issues and describe legal rules or who simply assert conclusions without demonstrating how those legal rules apply given the facts of the case will not succeed, as those are the skills being examined. The knowledge, skills and abilities examined in NCA exams are basically those that a competent lawyer in practice in Canada would be expected to possess. MATERIALS Required: • Steve Coughlan, Criminal Procedure, 4th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020) • Kent Roach, Criminal Law, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2018) • The most up-to-date Criminal Code (an annotated Criminal Code is highly recommended).
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Territory Criminal Code Act 2013
    NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA CRIMINAL CODE ACT As in force at 1 May 2013 Table of provisions 1 Short title ......................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement .............................................................................. 1 3 Repeal ............................................................................................. 1 4 Interpretation ................................................................................... 1 5 Establishment of Code .................................................................... 1 6 Liability to trial .................................................................................. 2 7 Civil remedies .................................................................................. 2 8 Contempt of Court ........................................................................... 2 Schedule I Criminal Code of the Northern Territory of Australia Part I Introductory matters Division 1 Definitions: Commission of offence: division of offences: attempts 1 Definitions ........................................................................................ 3 1A Harm .............................................................................................. 10 1B Person against whom offence may be committed ......................... 10 1C Birth ............................................................................................... 10 2 Commission of offence .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crown's Newsletter
    VOLUME TEN CROWN’S DECEMBER 2019 NEWSLETTER 2019 CanLIIDocs 3798 THE UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED: Craig A. Brannagan 3 UNDERSTANDING EXPLOITATION: Veronica Puls & Paul A. Renwick 15 THE NEW STATUTORY READBACK: Davin M. Garg 22 A HANDFUL OF BULLETS: Vincent Paris 26 SECONDARY SOURCE REVIEW: David Boulet 37 TRITE BITES FIREARM BAIL HEARINGS: Simon Heeney & Tanya Kranjc 65 REVOKING SUSPENDED SENTENCES: Jennifer Ferguson 69 2019 CanLIIDocs 3798 Crown’s Newsletter Please direct all communications to the Editor-in-Chief at: Volume Ten December 2019 [email protected] © 2019 Ontario Crown The editorial board invites submissions for Attorneys’ Association publication on any topic of legal interest in Any reproduction, posting, repub- the next edition of the Crown’s Newsletter. lication, or communication of this newsletter or any of its contents, in Submissions have no length restrictions whole or in part, electronically or in 2019 CanLIIDocs 3798 print, is prohibited without express but must be sent in electronic form to the permission of the Editorial Board. Editor-in-Chief by March 31, 2020 to be considered for the next issue. For other submission requirements, contact the Editor- in-Chief. Cover Photo: © 2019 Crown Newsletter Editor-in-Chief James Palangio Editorial Board Ontario Crown Attorneys Association Jennifer Ferguson Suite 2100, Box #30 Lisa Joyal 180 Dundas Street West Rosemarie Juginovic Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Copy Editor Ph: (416) 977-4517 / Fax: (416) 977-1460 Matthew Shumka Editorial Support Allison Urbshas 1 FROM THE EDITORIAL BOARD James Palangio, editor-in-chief Jennifer Ferguson, Lisa Joyal & Rosemarie Juginovic The Crown Newsletter would like to acknowledge the contribution to this publication of David Boulet, Crown Attorney, Lindsay, for his years of support and contributions in providing a comprehensive review of secondary source materials.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Due Diligence Defence: a Look at Strict Liability As Sault Ste
    In Defence of the Due Diligence Defence: A Look at Strict Liability as Sault Ste. Marie Turns Forty in the Age of Administrative Monetary Penalties by Allison Meredith Sears A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Allison Meredith Sears 2018 Defence of the Due Diligence Defence: A Look at Strict Liability as Sault Ste. Marie Turns Forty in the Age of Administrative Monetary Penalties Allison Meredith Sears Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2018 Abstract The author looks back at the Supreme Court of Canada’s creation of a presumption that public welfare offences are strict liability offences affording defendants the opportunity to make out a due diligence defence. It is argued that the availability of this defence is receding in the face of a resurgence of absolute liability by means of administrative monetary penalties, which are increasingly being used by regulators to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements. While there is some support for the availability of the due diligence defence in the face of a potential administrative monetary penalty, the courts remain divided and numerous statutes expressly exclude it. It is argued that this ignores the important function that strict liability offences have served in encouraging corporate social responsibility through the development of compliance programs with the dual purpose of preventing harm and being able to demonstrate the taking of all reasonable care. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Kent Roach for his helpful guidance and light-handed regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Ohio Correctional Facility 2009 Inspection Report
    CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Prepared and Submitted by CIIC Staff May 20, 2009 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INSPECTION PROFILE……………………….……………………………………...… 7 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................... 8 Attendance at a General Meal Period Attendance at an Educational or Rehabilitative Program BACKGROUND ON INSPECTION: Warden’s Invitation INSPECTION GOALS……………………………….…………………………..……...... 10 GOAL: Respond promptly to Warden’s invitation GOAL: Fulfill inspection and evaluation duties GOAL: Include positive changes cited by Warden in inspection INSPECTION ASSIGNMENTS…………………………………………………............... 12 Table 1. Planned Areas and Activities for Inclusion in the SOCF Inspection with CIIC Team Assignments INSTITUTION OVERVIEW..........................……………………………........……….. 13 Mission Statement STAFF Table 2. Breakdown of SOCF Staff by Gender and Race Table 3. Unit Management Positions Eliminated FY 08 Southern Ohio Correctional Facility.......................................................... 14 Meeting with Representative Staff INSPECTION.......................................................................................................................... 18 Processing/Entrance Initial Meeting Food Services................................................................................................................. 19 Library.............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Reform Trust Response to Transforming Rehabilitation
    Prison Reform Trust response to Transforming Rehabilitation The Prison Reform Trust is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform. The Prison Reform Trust's main objectives are: Reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime Improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families Overview The Prison Reform Trust welcomes, with the caveats outlined in our response, the focus of the consultation on rehabilitation and extending support to short sentenced prisoners. The needs of this group have been neglected for too long. We welcome the acknowledgement of the importance of addressing common social factors behind their offending, including “broken homes, drug and alcohol misuse, generational worklessness, abusive relationships, childhoods spent in care, mental illness, and educational failure.” This presents a compelling case for government and local authority departments to work together to address the social factors that drive crime. This needs to be reflected in plans, and budgetary arrangements, for cross-departmental working at national and local levels. Our key points in response to the proposals are: Mentoring should be available to all prisoners serving less than 12 months on a voluntary basis Responsibility for the statutory supervision of all low, medium and high risk
    [Show full text]
  • Act on Regulatory Offences Act on Regulatory Offences in the Version Published on 19 February 1987 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I P
    Service provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in cooperation with juris GmbH – www.juris.de Übersetzung durch Neil Mussett Translation provided by Neil Mussett Stand: Die Übersetzung berücksichtigt die Änderung(en) des Gesetzes durch Artikel 4 des Gesetzes vom 13. Mai 2015 (BGBl. I S. 706) Version information: The translation includes the amendment(s) to the Act by Article 4 of the Act of 13 May 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I 706) Zur Nutzung dieser Übersetzung lesen Sie bitte den Hinweis auf www.gesetze-im-internet.de unter "Translations". For conditions governing use of this translation, please see the information provided at www.gesetze-im-internet.de under "Translations". Act on Regulatory Offences Act on Regulatory Offences in the version published on 19 February 1987 (Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I p. 602), last amended by Article 4 of the Act of 13 May 2015 (Federal Law Gazette I 706) PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER ONE SCOPE OF APPLICATION Section 1 Definition (1) A regulatory offence shall be an unlawful and reprehensible act, constituting the factual elements set forth in a statute that enables the act to be sanctioned by imposition of a regulatory fine. (2) An act that is subject to a regulatory fine shall be deemed to be an unlawful act, which constitutes the factual elements set forth in a statute within the meaning of subsection 1 even if it is not committed in a reprehensible manner. Section 2 Substantive Application This Act shall apply to regulatory offences pursuant to Federal law and to Land law.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Torture in US Prisons.Pdf
    Evidence of U.S. Human Rights Violatiom American Friends Service Committee New York Metropolitan Region Criminal Justice Program 972 Broad Street, 6* moor Newark New Jersey 07102 XI* Bonnie Kernesr, Associate Director, Coordinator, Prison Watch Edited by Julia Lutrky Regional Director, Ehabeth Enloe CrinJnal Justice Program Director, Michael Ekner Prison Watch Program As&tant Masai Ehehosi Dedicated to Holbrook Teter 'odd (Hymg-Rae) Tarselli -.-- - - .- .-. .-. .- .. -- %OW.. They Live Squeezed Together, t- The forceful rushes ofthis isolational perversion has pulled my essence into a cersspool incesantly devoted to a grime of darlmess and sordid pungents of evil.. This just ain't life as the innumberable scopes of hurt-filled anxieties come forth in stripped depths! of a consciousness wrapped within interiors of doctrines in- with control cries diseased insanity traumatic and situated from cold functions! of wickedness .. This just ain't life pathologbed in a subsumed litany of steel and cement codes preoccupied with the disturbing thrust of death TABLE OF CONTENTS :;ourcesotherthanleners ........................................................... iv I'rcj:~~: ~ ~ ... Inrroduction .Thc En-XISof lsolalion .... ................................... ........ I I . Excessive Use of Force .......................................................... 4 i. Excessive Use of Restraints ........................................................ 8 Genaal ................................................................... 8 FourPointRestraint .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Conspiracy Law and Enforcement: New Risks and Opportunities Paul S
    Recent Developments in Conspiracy Law and Enforcement: New Risks and Opportunities Paul S. Crampton and Joel T. Kissack" The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Nora La rdcente decision de la Cour supreme du Canada dans Scotia PharmaceuticalSociety case is the most important l'affaire Nova Scotia PharmaceuticalSociety est Ia plus competition law decision in decades. In the first part of this importante ddcision en droit de Ia concurrence depuis plu- article, the authors discuss the Supreme Court's ruling and its sicurs ddcennles. Dans Ia premibre patie de cet article, les implications for the enforcement of the conspiracy and other auteurs discutent de la ddecision de Ia Cour supreme et de ses provisions of the Competition Act. The authors analyze the consdquences pour Ia raise en application des dispositions de Supreme Court's treatment of two key issues: (i) whether the Ia Loi sur la concurrence, entre autres celles portant sur les conspiracy provisions in section 45 of the Act are too vague to complots. Les auteurs analysent le traitement qu'a fait la Cour meet the requirements of the CanadianCharter of Rights and supreme de deux questions clds : (i) si leasdispositions sur les Freedoms because of the requirement that competition be pre- complots h I'article 45 de la Loi sont trop vagnes pour satis- vented or lessened "unduly" and (ii) whether the conspiracy faire aux exigences de Ia Charte canadienne des droits et provisions of the Act require subjective mens rea with respect libertis, Acause de l'exigence que la concurrence soit emp8- to the effects of the impugned agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • The Care Not Custody Coalition
    cnc2018.qxp_Layout 1 18/06/2018 14:53 Page 1 2018 The Care not Custody Coalition Providing the right interventions at the right time is vital to improving outcomes for vulnerable individuals within the criminal justice system, and to breaking the cycle of reoffending. I am pleased to see that NHS England’s roll out of Liaison and Diversion services is now operating across over 80% of the country. We continue to support this important work, which places clinical staff in police stations and courts to provide assessments and referrals to treatment and support for a range of vulnerable offenders. Further building on this approach, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and NHS England in setting out a clear plan for delivering community sentences with treatment requirements. This sets out how health and justice staff should work to ensure appropriate treatment is in place for community sentences, and in doing so reducing the number of vulnerable people in prison. Finally, I am also pleased to see that the National Police Chiefs Council strategy promotes simplification of the Out Of Court Disposal framework and an increased use of conditions attached to disposals. This provides an opportunity for early intervention and to see positive outcomes for vulnerable offenders. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon David Gauke MP cnc2018.qxp_Layout 1 18/06/2018 14:53 Page 2 Background The National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) has called consistently for the diversion of people with mental health needs from custody into treatment and care.
    [Show full text]