Text Only
Accessibility Options
Default Text Size icon Large Text Size icon Largest Text Size icon
[!--Start--][!--Start--]
Skip Content Skip Content

Out of Court Scrutiny Panel

Out of Court Scrutiny Panel

An out of court disposal (OoCD) is a method used to allow the Police to deal efficiently and effectively with less serious and often first time offending that can be proportionately and more appropriately handled without going to court.  An OoCD can only be used in limited circumstances and only when the suspect takes responsibility for the offence. The method for dealing with suspects in this way includes restorative approaches, community resolutions, conditional cautioning, simple cautions, cannabis warnings, Penalty Notices for Disorder and interventions for young people. More information about each of these approaches can be found by accessing the link below:

 

About the Joint Cleveland and Durham Out of Court Disposal Scrutiny Panel

The OoCD panel was established collaboratively between Cleveland Police and Durham Constabulary and was one of the first set up across the country in 2013. Members of the panel are not police officers but are from a range of partner agencies allowing them to independently review a selection of anonymised cases that have been resolved by the police with an OoCD. The Police and Crime Commissioners for Cleveland and Durham are in a unique position to provide information to the public about the work of the panel and will continue to publish updates on their websites.

The aim of the panel is to determine whether the method of disposal is considered appropriate, based on a review of the information/evidence available to the decision maker at the time. The panel cannot reopen a case and has no referral or appeals capability. The purpose of the panel is not to re-judge these cases but to assess the process and identify any appropriate learning to assist the police with continuous improvement. The panel meets on a quarterly basis and identifies key themes to scrutinise.

The intention of the panel is to provide transparency and accountability and to increase the public’s understanding, confidence and trust in how both Forces use OoCDs, with particular focus on the delivery of appropriate and proportionate justice. 

Summary of recent cases considered

 

Theme: Females  (12 December 2019)

 There were thirty cases looked at by the panel, fifteen from each police force area.  Twenty seven of these were adult offenders, and three were youth offenders.    Eleven of the cases were dealt with by way of adult caution. Three were dealt with by way of adult community resolution.  Three were dealt with by way of youth community resolution.  Twelve were dealt with by the Checkpoint/ Divert Schemes.  One was dealt with by fixed penalty.

What was the overall assessment?

  • Eighteen cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • Two cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • Three cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.
  • Seven cases required more information for the panel to reach a consclusion.

 

Theme: Young People  (19 September 2019)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area, all were young offenders.  Twenty seven of these were adult offenders, and three were youth offenders.    Ten were youth caution, two were pre-caution, eight were youth community resolution. 

What was the overall assessment?

  • Nineteen cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • One case was deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 

 

 Theme: Repeat Victim  (8 May 2019)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Seventeen of these were adult offenders, and three were youth offenders.    Nine of the cases were dealt with by way of adult caution. Four were dealt with by way of adult community resolution.  Three were dealt with by way of youth community resolution.  One case was delt with by conditional caution. Two were dealt with by the Checkpoint/ Divert Schemes.  One case needed no further action. 

What was the overall assessment?

  • Eleven cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • Six cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • Three cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Supply & Production of Controlled Drugs  (14 April 2019)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area. Nineteen of these were adult offenders, and one was a youth offender.    13 of the cases were dealt with by way of adult caution. 5 were dealt with by way of adult community resolution.  1 case was delt with by conditional caution. 1 was pre-youth caution. 

What was the overall assessment?

  • Sixteen cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • Four cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • No cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

  

Theme: Youth Related Offences (22 March 2017)

 There were 20 cases looked at by the panel, 10 from each police force area.  Twenty seven of these were adult offenders, and three were youth offenders. 9 were issued with youth caution, 4 were issued with youth conditional caution, two were dealt with by triage solution, and 5 were delt with by restorative justice.   

What was the overall assessment?

  • 13 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 4 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 1 case was deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.
  • 2 cases had no decision reached as the panel required more information and would be re-heard at a furture date.

 

Theme: Vehicle Crime (22 November 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area. 16 of these were adult offenders, and four were youth offenders.    10 of the cases were dealt with by way of adult conditional caution, 2 were isued with simple caution,  4 were issued with youth caution, 1 completed a pre-caution disposal, and 3 completed an adult restorative approach.   

What was the overall assessment?

  • 17 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 2 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 1 case were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Vehicle Crime  (3 October 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Sixteen of these were adult offenders, and four were youth offenders.    One was issued with a simple caution, 3 with restorative justice, 3 were issued youth caution, 1 was dealt with by way of PND,  2 of the cases were dealt with by way of adult caution and ten were dealt with by the Checkpoint. 

What was the overall assessment?

  • 15 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 2 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 3 cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Vehicle Crime  (18 July 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Twelve of these were adult offenders, and eight were youth offenders.    6 was issued with a simple caution, 8 with restorative justice, 2 were issued youth caution, 1 was dealt with by way of FPN and Caution, 2 were dealt with by youth triage and 1 case of conditional caution.

What was the overall assessment?

  • 9 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 5 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 6 cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Sexual Offences (23 May 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Nineteen of these were adult offenders, and one was a youth offender.    12 was issued with a simple caution, 4 with restorative justice, 2 were dealt with by juvinile restorative justice, 1 was dealt with by way of FPN and Caution, and 1 issued with a caution.

What was the overall assessment?

  • 5 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 8 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 7 cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Sexual Offences (21 March 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Sixteen of these were adult offenders, and four were  youth offenders.    10 were issued with adult conditional caution, 2 issued with simple cautions, 4 issued with youth caution, 1 completed a pre-caution disposal, and 3 recieved an adult restorative approach.  

What was the overall assessment?

  • 17 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 2 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 1 cases were deemed inapropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures.

 

Theme: Alcohol related disorder and Fixed Penalty Notices (13 January 2016)

 There were twenty cases looked at by the panel, ten from each police force area.  Nineteen of these were adult offenders, and one was a youth offender.    12 were issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice, 8 were issued with a simple caution, and one youth caution was issued.  

What was the overall assessment?

  • 9 cases were deemed appropriate with relevant organisational policy and procedures. 
  • 7 cases were deemed appropriate but with observations, with further information needed to make an accurate grading. 
  • 4 cases were deemed inappropriate and / or inconsistent with policy and procedures. 

 

Contact the Panel

If you have any questions about Out of Court Disposals, how the scrutiny panel works or have any feedback on the content and format of this web page, please contact the Durham or Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioners' office by emailing:

 
 
 
Powered by Contensis