IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Consultation with Young People &

Practitioners Held on the 19th May 2016 at the CCRC offices, St Phillips Square, Birmingham

1

Contents Page

Section Heading

Page Number

1. Context………………………………………………………………………………….Page 2

2. Purpose………………………………………………………………………………….Page 2

3. Background……………………………………………………………………………..Page 3

4. The Preparation…………………………………………………………………………Page 3

5. The Consultation………………………………………………………………………..Page 5

6. Recommendations……………………………………………………………………..Page 11

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….Page 12

2

1. Context

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) commissioned this consultation, and

subsequent report, to better understand why the proportion of applications from young people to

them is significantly lower than the youth population of the prison estate:

15-17 age group (866) 1%

18-20 age group (6,272) 7%

21-24 age group (12,822) 15%

(June 2013 House of Commons Library)

The CCRC receive only 0.38% of its applications from under 18’s and 3% from the under 25s.

The CCRC is not satisfied with these statistics and wanted to understand how these could be

improved. For the purposes of the consultation a young person was defined as anyone under the

age of 25.

2. Purpose

The over-arching aims of the consultation were to understand the following points through

consultation with practitioners and young people:

To what extent young people are aware of the CCRC and what could be done to improve

their awareness and recognition.

How to improve services and make processes more accessible and user friendly.

To establish if there is enough information and support available to prison officers and

YOT officers that engage with youth offenders to apply to the CCRC.

• To explore when and why young people plead guilty.

• To explore the legal advice, information and support offered to young people about the

CCRC and if this affects decision making regarding applications.

As Black Asian and Minority Ethnic groups are significantly over represented particularly in the

youth CJS (The Young Review estimated 43.7% in 2014) it was essential that Black and

or/Muslim individuals with lived experience were an integral part of the process.

3

3. The Background

Amanda Wood, Director and Founder of Safe Innovation Projects Limited

(www.safeinnovationprojects.com) initially met with the CCRC in the summer of 2015 to

discuss how a consultation may be managed in order to address the disproportionalities that exist

within applications to the service. The aims were extrapolated from this meeting with an initial

proposal from Safe Innovation Projects to deliver events in London, Manchester and

Birmingham. This would have engaged key communities and representatives from across these

areas, using spoken voice artist Akala as a means to engage and encourage the attendance of

young people. Due to resource issues the initial idea put forward by Safe Innovations Project

was scaled back to one event in Birmingham.

In February 2016, Safe Innovation Projects commissioned First Class Legacy; a professional

consultancy service with strong links into the local BAME community, specifically young

people, in order to reach what could be considered a difficult client group to engage. Safe

Innovation Projects also commissioned respected community representatives to act as facilitators

and provide a strong motivation for the client group to engage.

With a considerable disproportionality across the youth Criminal Justice System, the CCRC were

keen to consult with BAME young people and practitioners to find solutions and improve their

service for this client group.

4. The Preparation

4.1 Promoting the Consultation

The event was promoted through Eventbrite via the

existing networks of First Class Legacy given their

event management experience, with supported

distribution from Safe Innovation Projects and the

facilitators. First Class Legacy supplied a designer

to create an attractive and informative flyer that we

felt would strike the right chord with young people

and practitioners alike.

4

4.2 Chair and Facilitators

Chair – Nathan Dennis, Founder and Chief Officer at First Class Legacy

http://www.fclegacy.co.uk

Facilitators

Craig Pinkney – Criminologist & Urban Youth Specialist

(University College Birmingham)

Raymond Douglas – Executive trainer & Youth Violence

Prevention Practitioner (Anti-Youth Violence Network).

http://www.antiyouthviolence.com

Jason Sylvester – Youth Worker and Football Coach

(West Bromwich Albion).

These were carefully selected for their knowledge around the subject area and their ability to

engage constructively with the client group.

4.3 The Consultation Environment

It was decided that the CCRC offices located in the centre of Birmingham, compared to the

alternatives, would be the most ideal location for the consultation as it was a central point and

5

not linked to rival postcodes. Due to the emotive and sensitive subject matter, and the buildings

history as a statutory office, it was considered paramount that those attending the consultation

felt as comfortable as possible. The following steps were taken to achieve an environment in

which everyone felt relaxed and able to engage in the consultation:

Refreshments on arrival.

Music was played when appropriate

The rooms were arranged informally with sweets on the table and bright post-it notes for

people to make comments on at any stage of the discussion.

A spoken word piece was performed by Dan Man Poet called ‘Dear Youngers’ in which

he gives advice to his younger self. His appearance moved people into a reflective

mindset.

A warm welcome was delivered from the chair as well as a brief introduction from the

CCRC. They welcomed questions at that point and made it clear they would be available

to answer questions throughout the event and at the end.

Fun Ice breakers framed part of the introduction.

We created a hashtag specific to the event (#YouthCCRC) so attendees could tweet about

the consultation using an online platform that they were likely to be familiar with and

share the experience with their wider network.

Chatham House Rules were applied and understood by the group.

5. The Consultation

A total of 37 people registered for the event and

23 people attended on the evening, excluding

those involved in its delivery.

Questions were asked of the full group, and an

opportunity given for Q and A with the CCRC,

before the full group was split into 3 workshop

groups. The room was split into three groups of

roughly equal size by allocating each person a

number between 1 and 3. This meant the groups

were not necessarily made up of people who

knew each other or had arrived together and were each big enough to get the range of

opinion/comments we hoped for.

6

5.1 Opening questions to full group:

When asked if they were aware of the CCRC’s role, key responsibilities or service, only 2 people

who attended could answer positively.

When asked where they would go if they were incorrectly sentenced the group responded with:

Solicitor

Police

Citizens Advice Bureau

Google search “Wrong conviction advice”

Go through prison

Give up

Go to their local MP

Don’t know (5 in total)

5.2 Q and A

The perceived injustices in relation to Imprisonment for Public Protection and Joint

Enterprise came out strongly from the open group as a source of stress and confusion for

families. When those affected sought support from community organisations those

organisations were uncertain as to what to do. It was felt there is a culture of conspiracy

and an assumption of guilt before innocence.

Attendees expressed shock and dissatisfaction that before coming to the event they had

never heard of the CCRC and questioned how the service was promoted. The CCRC

responded that they did this through posters and information packs sent to prisons; Inside

Time (in-house prison paper) and the CCRC website. The CCRC were keen to pursue

what links could be made with the YOS and probation.

The CCRC were asked about how they engage with Governors and prisons. The CCRC

make about 12 visits and presentations every year but this is difficult both in terms of

CCRC time and resources and prisons are only advised to provide adequate access to the

CCRC. The CCRC were clear that they had unbridled access to information requests to

all statutory organisations but had limited ability to enforce access to prison.

The CCRC were asked if they had a good relationship with the community, they said this

was limited and they would welcome a better relationship.

7

5.3 Group sessions

Each facilitator was assigned a question along with prompts designed to draw out information

around the aims outlined in section 1 and 2. Prior to the consultation they had also received

three case studies (successful, unsuccessful, and rejected) so they had some context of the

CCRC’s work. These questions and prompts were to act as a guide and if there were other

comments or individual cases people wanted to discuss space should be made for this.

5.3.1 Group 1

Question: What types of things could the CCRC do to raise its profile and make it easier to

communicate with them?

Prompts for facilitator:

- What kind of things / communication (from services / public bodies) do young people

take notice of?

- What would you do to make young people aware of whether / when they should appeal of

apply to the CCRC.

- Why don’t young people a) appeal and b) apply of the CCRC?

Three key themes came out of this group’s discussion:

1. Social Media Platforms

Social Media platforms such as Snap Chat, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and

Periscope were regarded as important in reaching out to young people but they

stressed it was essential that this was approached in a creative way and music,

images and slogans were key in getting the attention of young people.

2. The importance of the direct promotion of the CCRC by other people such as:

Developing young people within the CJS as advocates of the service. This was

considered relevant to reaching ethnic minority group representatives, young

people in prison post-conviction or after completion of their order

Youth Boards

Utilizing those who have already a relationship of trust with young people such as

youth workers, community workers and private agencies

Previous applicants to the CCRC

Engaging with solicitors

A business card which details the work of the CCRC

8

The right engaging images are just as important as logo’s and slogans

3. Social issues

Potential clients feel defeated, limited knowledge of the appeals process

They need more awareness of rights

Anti-system – they just tag it on with other poor experiences

They need to be informed and shown independence

Building trust will be a step by step process

5.3.2 Group 2

Question: Would you know what to do if you were wrongly convicted or sentenced incorrectly?

Prompts for facilitator:

- Why / when do people plead guilty?

- Are the consequences/ benefits of pleading guilty explained? Who by?

- Why don’t young people a) appeal and b) apply of the CCRC?

- What could the CCRC do to connect better with young people about the appeals process?

The group felt the proposed question had already been answered in the full session, therefore

they used the group to session to contribute to the prompts around guilty pleas and sentencing.

In order to give context to the prompts the group felt it necessary to first reference an historical

perspective:

Injustice and incorrect or inappropriate legal representation

Encouragement by duty solicitors to plead guilty and register no comment without a

thorough understanding of the implications around guilt

Institutional racism within sentencing*

Lack of understanding of the CJS

* MOJ statistics support this claim: 20% per cent of Black and Asian defendants were more

likely to be jailed than white defendants for similar offences and the average sentence given to

an African Caribbean defendant is seven times longer than that for an average white defendant.

Then relate this to the Present Day:

9

No fundamental change by the CJS to challenge historical bias

The System is not perceived to be about justice

Disproportionate numbers in specific groups

“We are our own enemy”, meaning that the community don’t always engage and can be

hostile toward the CJS and there is a reluctance to understand the system better

How could the CCRC connect better with young people?

Schools and Assemblies

Online surveys

Drama workshops

Apps

Promotion of case studies using video’s via social media

Citizenship

Building real links with the affected young people

5.3.3. Group 3

Question: What advice and guidance do young people receive about the CCRC?

Prompts for facilitator:

- Do YOT/probation officers offer advice about how to appeal or mention the CCRC?

- Do lawyers offer any advice about how to appeal or mention the CCRC?

- Do prison officers offer any advice about how to appeal or mention the CCRC?

- Do people have trouble finding a solicitor or lawyer to take their case? If so why?

- What could the CCRC do to connect better with other practitioners about their work?

Not known presently but potentially this would be:

Parents

Mentors

Teachers (SEN)

Young People

Youth Workers

Do probation services advise on how to appeal?

The experienced professionals in the room had not heard of the CCRC before the event.

10

Young people are in and out of prison on short sentences these days, it would be those

serving longer sentences who would be more likely to have heard of them.

Why don’t young people know?

No awareness; practitioners not knowing

Practitioners should know

Do lawyers mention them?

No/ never heard of that happening

“Lawyers are money makers”

“Lawyers put you off or tell you it’s going to cost too much money”

Your own awareness of whether your conviction is sound or fair or not

In the end, young people accept what the state say.

Do prison officers ever mention them?

No they [prison system] are a law unto themselves

Do young people have trouble finding a solicitor or a lawyer?

Legal Aid – big barrier – especially for those over 18

“Difficult to find a representative passionate about the case; they just want money”

How do you find a good solicitor?

Recommendation

Word of mouth

What could CCRC do to connect better?

It was felt the CCRC lacked a personal touch, alongside a lack of knowledge within the

community; you wouldn’t know unless you needed to know.

Engagement with schools

Schools should teach this as part of citizenship

Teacher training

Engagement with YOT and Probation

Community Centre’s

Innovative Online presence

11

SBTV – youth media platform and NFTR – political

Stands at community festivals such as Vasaki

Rico – knowledge base for practitioners

WM transport, advertising on public transport

Advertisement that is easy to look at and read

6. Recommendations

Communications

1. Create new literature and communication tools that reflect young people, include images they

can identify with and incorporate individuals of varying ethnicity.

2. In co-production with young people create these new communication tools and ensure there is

clarity on the CCRC’s role and place in the process. This could be in the form of a simple

tick box. Other sources of advice and guidance available from the Criminal Justice System

and its partners should be included on the material.

3. Explore Social Media platforms, with YouTube probably having the most traction, but the

content is key in order to effectively engage young people. First Class Legacy shot a video on

the evening which does have some content the CCRC can consider commissioning.

4. Improve the diversity of the staff team and consider how it uses the apprenticeship and

internship scheme to facilitate this. It is essential that this includes workforce development in

terms of conduct, recruitment, retention and promotion.

Engaging Communities

1. Use Social Media platforms to engage more constructively at a community level, Periscope

could be used for live Q & A sessions, for example around the topic of Joint Enterprise.

2. Explore how it uses previous applicants to promote their work.

3. Utilise newspaper articles, this consultation and the work completed with those with learning

disabilities to build trust and understanding and as part of the step by step process to

demonstrate independence from Government.

CJS Partnerships

1. Engage with external agencies such as the YOT and probation services, and also reflect on

how it makes links with the Transition2Adulthood service (http://www.t2a.org.uk) to manage

the issue around short sentencing for the youth population and develop partnership

approaches across the CJS.

2. Engage with OFSTED, schools and partners working in schools around Citizenship

requirements to promote learning around the CJS a cross-section of young people.

12

3. Make links with JENGbA. Clear confusion came through both before, during and after the

consultation about Joint Enterprise and IPP. With recent developments in relation to Supreme

Court Judgements around Joint Enterprise and reports such as The Centre of Crime and

Justice Studies it is imperative that the CCRC act to support those who have been affected by

these legislative difficulties and therefore subject to wrongful sentences or convictions.

4. Support key partners and where possible provide a level of advice, guidance and training to

lawyers and solicitors, and consider how it utilizes the Society of Black Lawyers, the Society

of Asian Lawyers and young lawyers to achieve this aim.

5. Support Safe Innovation Projects Limited to make strategic links to the related David Lammy

MP Review into disproportionality and be part of the step by step process of creating change,

jointly building positive solutions across disparities the Criminal Justice System.

7. Conclusion

There is much work to be done to address the disparities that exist within the CCRC service and

its engagement of young people. It is not simply a case of engaging young people through

schools and youth offending teams as the issues are too complex and historically embedded. The

CCRC were clear that managing expectations within communities was paramount and

highlighted on more than one occasion that they did not want to give false hope to those that

knew of their service. This is understandable given the statistics around the proportion of

applications which result in cases heard at the Court of Appeal, however they should trust

communities to manage their own expectations and not allow this concern to influence how they

create a more inclusive service.

The CCRC are a small cog in the machine of the CJS and have limited resources, but it is clear

that communities did not know about service, and to add insult to injury, practitioners did not

either. There is clearly an issue about knowledge and understanding around the CJS across the

piece and the CCRC has a key role to play in facilitating change.