Bairns' Hoose Pathfinder Phase – Research Report

10. Justice

Standard 7 focuses on supporting CYP through court and legal processes, ensuring they are informed, prepared, and able to attend remotely via live links from the Bairns’ Hoose. This chapter summarises the progress made on this Standard, as well as the facilitators and challenges to this.

Progress

Standard 7 had the lowest score of all the Standards at StART2. This related, in part to the challenges setting up live court links which, as evidenced by Pathfinders in StART2, varied in progress across Pathfinders. In one partnership, the video court link had been installed in the Bairns’ Hoose and was being used, while in another the Bairns’ Hoose had access to a court link in one local authority and to an external link in another local authority. The link had been installed but not in use in one partnership; it was in the process of being installed in another; and was under discussion in another. As one partnership did not have a physical Bairns’ Hoose at the time of fieldwork, discussions relating to the link had not started.

As part of the qualitative research, progress was discussed with Affiliates, with installation under way in one and under discussion in another. Partnerships who were at the planning stage reported ongoing dialogue with national organisations (SCTS, SCRA and COPFS) to help overcome challenges experienced (discussed below). Even among partnerships that were further on, however, participants noted that use of the live court link was not as established as other elements of the Bairns’ Hoose and that there was scope to increase its use.

Relatedly, two partnerships spoke of plans to explore how Bairns’ Hoose might increase opportunities for CYP to give evidence at Evidence by Commissioner hearings (pre-recorded evidence in advance of a trial), which they hoped would reduce the number of CYP who have to attend trials and enable them to participate at an earlier date, supporting them to move on from their traumatic experiences.

Areas of progress related to other elements of Standard 7 included having plans to deliver training for relevant staff on the topics of justice/courts and hearing processes, either in house or by national organisations. For example, two partnerships had plans for a joint webinar hosted with representation from COPFS, SCRA and SCTS to enhance understanding of court, prosecution and Children’s Hearings System processes across all relevant sectors working with CYP.

“We want to do a webinar […] that essentially has COPFS, SCRA, and the courts [...] if we can get practitioners to […] [manage] expectations, if we can get the boots on the ground to understand, truly, why the delay has happened, then they relay that to the families, so when the delay happens it’s not as negatively impacted. So, I think that would be a big bit that we do justice wise.”

StART2 also highlighted progress being made in a number of Pathfinders in relation to supporting families through the court process (see Chapter 8). This included working with third sector organisations to deliver support. As noted in Chapter 5, there had also been progress in developing information sharing protocols between organisations supporting families, to improve their experiences through the legal system (see Chapter 5, and Facilitators section below).

Finally, at the time research was being conducted, one Pathfinder was progressing the relevant discussions and necessary arrangements for embedding a specialist Procurator Fiscal.

Challenges

Some challenges to improving the experiences of CYP and families during the court process remained. These can be grouped into those that were considered to require resolution at a national level and those that could be addressed locally.

National level challenges

The need for changes to the justice system to be coordinated at a national level was cited as a key challenge to progress. One view was that it would have been preferable to have coordinated the installation of live court links at a national level, with SCTS being asked to take on this role due to their specialist knowledge. This chimes with the experience of one national partner who felt that there had been a lack of understanding among staff in some partnerships about the legal process and the technicalities associated with creating live court links. There were also wider issues within the national court system that were felt to limit the extent to which the experiences of families could be improved. These included waiting times, cancellations and the length of court cases. There was a view that a national approach to addressing these issues is needed.

“It comes back to the national question again, doesn't it? Even just things like how long it takes for some of these cases to present at court and keeping children and families waiting for dates and that sort of thing.”

There were also practical issues that participants felt required further consideration. For example, what happens when CYP provide evidence from a live court link from the Bairns’ Hoose and want to have their parent with them, yet the parent also needs to provide evidence in court.

“We had an example of just the impracticalities of that because we had a child about to give evidence and they were with their parent in the Bairns’ House. So, when the child finishes their evidence and the parent is due to give their evidence, but they're in the Bairns’ House, they're not in the court.”

Local level challenges

Participants also described challenges specific to their individual partnerships. Firstly, there were practical issues related to finding suitable spaces within buildings to install court link equipment that met soundproofing and cabling requirements. These challenges were still causing delays in some partnerships. One partnership suggested that it was important for there to be flexibility about location of the court link and that it doesn’t need to be in the Bairns’ Hoose itself, which may help to overcome practical challenges. Moreover, it was reported that some courts did not have the required technology installed for the links.

In one partnership, which spans multiple local authorities and courts, it had only been possible to establish a link with one court to date. This led to concerns around the distance CYP would need to travel to access the live court link within the Bairns’ Hoose, particularly in cases where the court was closer to them.

“The geography has been really difficult for the courts as well. […] If you're a social worker in [local authority A] and having to take a child up to [local authority B], you might be talking at least an hour in the car depending on the time of day. Ideally, if you were doing this properly from the ground up, you'd be putting a [Bairns’] House in each police division.”

In partnerships with court links already installed, there was recognition that there was more to be done in terms of ensuring that technical issues were resolved and that staff were on board and felt able to use the equipment. The hope was that this would become easier the more the suite was used. One partnership was working with police locally to resolve ongoing challenges around the identification of cases where the link could be used.

Partnerships felt that there was ongoing work to do in ensuring that there was effective coordination across agencies to support families throughout the court process. One professional felt that establishing a process for a single individual or agency to support individual families throughout the justice processes was one of the main challenges remaining for Bairns’ Hoose.

Finally, as discussed in Chapter 8 in relation to understanding how CYP and families experience the justice system, some partnerships spoke of needing to improve mechanisms for gaining feedback from CYP and families, to ensure it was standardised and came directly from them. In one partnership, it was noted that this concern expanded the concept of justice beyond formal justice processes and recognised that holding a clearer understanding of what CYP feel to be important at certain points within the justice process would aid more child-centred responses.

Facilitators

Partnerships identified several facilitators to progress on Standard 7.

Involvement of, and commitment from, a range of partners

There was a particular emphasis on partnership working, including national partners, given that any significant changes to the justice system would need to happen at a national level. SCTS, COPFS, SCRA were viewed as key partners, given their influence and knowledge of the system and their respective roles within it. Partnerships reported working with these partners in relation to both the set-up of the live court link and in improving experiences for CYP and families overall. It was considered helpful to have these organisations represented on Bairns’ Hoose justice subgroups, have them visit the Bairns’ Hoose to advise on practical considerations for installations, develop national guidance and deliver training. There was also specific mention of the importance of the input of SCTS, both in funding and installing the equipment.

Three partnerships had set up justice subgroups within partnerships, which was seen to have helped to drive progress. The role of the Bairns’ Hoose coordinator in developing and maintaining partnerships, as well as overseeing support for families was noted.

Where partnerships had worked with specialist partners (third sector organisations and/or Advocacy, Rights and Recovery workers) to support families through the court process, this was also viewed as key to improving their experiences (Chapter 8).

Improving data sharing processes between organisations involved with supporting CYP and families throughout the justice process was a further facilitator to improving experiences of CYP and families and reducing the number of organisations they needed to have direct contact with. One partnership described having a Data Sharing Agreement between COPFS and a third sector organisation to enable information to be shared in certain circumstances. Similarly, in two other partnerships, information sharing protocols were in place between the Victim Information and Advice service, which sits within the prosecution service, and Children First’s Advocacy, Rights, and Recovery service.

In one partnership, the commitment of staff involved in the justice process to drive improvements was also highlighted as a key facilitator.

“A real commitment from colleagues to make the children’s journey through the justice system more streamlined, more supportive, less traumatising. Not necessarily easy for them to change processes even around things like where evidence is taken, all sorts of procedural rules etc, but there has been a shift in that there is currently a real willingness to look at that and what can be done.”

The implementation of SCIM

As discussed in Chapter 9, participants were positive about the impact of SCIM on the experiences of CYP through the justice system. Its implementation was viewed as an enabling factor in progress towards Standard 7 in that it reduced the need for CYP to give evidence for trial in the first place.

"There's a lot of old cases where a child has maybe given a written statement and the courts have come to us and said ‘In the interests of the child, so that they don't have to come to court, can you please do a video recorded interview with them to avoid that?’. So that's a positive thing."