*/
Crime
A new impetus is required to identify and tackle disability hate crime, according to a new Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate report.
Police fail fully to consider disability hate crime issues in day-to-day investigative work; the CPS needs to improve case preparation to ensure effective prosecution; courts are not being reminded of their powers of sentencing; and the probation trusts are not being given good enough information in preparing pre-sentence reports, the
report concluded.
There were 1,744 disability hate crimes reported by the police in 2011-12, despite approximately 21% of the population being disabled. Figures are low, said the report, because the criminal justice system was unable “to combat prevalent social attitudes and to deal effectively with cases that can have inherent complexities”. The issue of under-reporting could be ameliorated by the use of intermediaries, the Inspectorate recommended.
There is no separate disability hate crime offence, but s 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes it an aggravating factor in sentencing if the defendant demonstrates, or is motivated by, hostility towards a victim who has a disability. One of the report’s main recommendations is that the police, CPS and probation trusts should adopt a single, clear definition of disability hate crime that is communicated effectively to the public and staff. Advocates should refer to s 146 as part of the sentencing process, where appropriate.
Despite a CPS flagging system for disability hate crime, of the files inspected for this report, 19.1% were flagged incorrectly; and of those that were correctly flagged, 47.5% were thought to have no prospect of the facts satisfying the s 146 definition. In addition, although CPS policy requires that a victim be offered a meeting with the prosecutor when an application is made for special measures, in order to build trust and confidence, there was no evidence in any of the files examined that offers were being made for meetings. Over a third of lawyers who answered the inspection team’s survey confirmed that they had not received any training in relation to disability hate crime and less than 20% described their knowledge levels of special measures as “very thorough”.
The report was published on 21 March and can be seen in full at www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/cjji/
Police fail fully to consider disability hate crime issues in day-to-day investigative work; the CPS needs to improve case preparation to ensure effective prosecution; courts are not being reminded of their powers of sentencing; and the probation trusts are not being given good enough information in preparing pre-sentence reports, the
report concluded.
There were 1,744 disability hate crimes reported by the police in 2011-12, despite approximately 21% of the population being disabled. Figures are low, said the report, because the criminal justice system was unable “to combat prevalent social attitudes and to deal effectively with cases that can have inherent complexities”. The issue of under-reporting could be ameliorated by the use of intermediaries, the Inspectorate recommended.
There is no separate disability hate crime offence, but s 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes it an aggravating factor in sentencing if the defendant demonstrates, or is motivated by, hostility towards a victim who has a disability. One of the report’s main recommendations is that the police, CPS and probation trusts should adopt a single, clear definition of disability hate crime that is communicated effectively to the public and staff. Advocates should refer to s 146 as part of the sentencing process, where appropriate.
Despite a CPS flagging system for disability hate crime, of the files inspected for this report, 19.1% were flagged incorrectly; and of those that were correctly flagged, 47.5% were thought to have no prospect of the facts satisfying the s 146 definition. In addition, although CPS policy requires that a victim be offered a meeting with the prosecutor when an application is made for special measures, in order to build trust and confidence, there was no evidence in any of the files examined that offers were being made for meetings. Over a third of lawyers who answered the inspection team’s survey confirmed that they had not received any training in relation to disability hate crime and less than 20% described their knowledge levels of special measures as “very thorough”.
The report was published on 21 March and can be seen in full at www.hmcpsi.gov.uk/cjji/
Crime
A new impetus is required to identify and tackle disability hate crime, according to a new Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate report.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
