Unrepresented Defendants Perceived effects on the Crown Court in England and Wales and indicative volumes in magistrates’ courts. Internal Ministry of Justice Report Do not quote publicly Joe Thomson & Jane Becker Analytical Services Updated February 2016 Future contact: Caroline Logue ext. 5065 Ffff Analytical Services exists to improve policy making, decision taking and practice by the Ministry of Justice. It does this by providing robust, timely and relevant data and advice drawn from research and analysis undertaken by the department’s analysts and by the wider research community. Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Ministry of Justice (nor do they represent Government policy). Acknowledgements Firstly, the authors would like thank the interviewees and the courts who kindly gave up their time to assist with this project. Thank you to Judicial Office, CPS and HMCTS for their help in gaining access to participants. Special thanks to Tom Ring for his help in organising access to the magistrates’ courts data, and to Nadia Rosun for her continued support as well as her help organising judicial interviews. Contents 1. 2. 3. Background 1 1.1 Existing Evidence 2 1.2 Research Objectives 3 Methodology 4 2.1 Summary 4 2.2 Crown Court Interviews 4 2.3 Magistrates Court Data Collection 4 2.4 Data Limitations 5 Findings 6 3.1 Crown Court Interview findings 6 3.2 Features of unrepresented cases 6 Frequency Are unrepresented defendant numbers rising? Offence type Types of defendants Level of understanding Level of participation 3.3 Effect upon other actors 10 Preparation for unrepresented defendants Adjustments for unrepresented defendants Engagement with CPS Disclosure Engagement with a barrister The effect on the jury The effect on witnesses 3.4 Outcomes and pleas 13 3.5 Efficiency 15 Length of hearings Number of hearings Length of trials Better Case Management 3.6 Solutions 17 Support offered currently Suggestions for further/future support 4. Magistrates’ courts data collection exercise 19 Data overview Comparing representation across courts Regression analysis Factors affecting the odds of a defendant being unrepresented Factors affecting the odds of representation being publicly funded 5. Policy Implications/Recommendations 23 Appendix A: Key Findings One-Pager 25 Appendix B: Judicial Interview topic guide 27 Appendix C: CPS Interview Topic Guide 30 Appendix D: Logistic regression tables. 33 1. Background Since 2014, there has been growing interest across the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in unrepresented defendants and their potential effects on court efficiencies. In this context, an unrepresented defendant is one who has no legally qualified defence practitioner to represent their interests, so therefore self-represents in court. As of 27 January 2014, any defendant whose disposable annual income is £37,500 or more is no longer eligible for criminal legal aid at the Crown Court. 1 This is a change from the previous system where there was no upper eligibility income threshold at the Crown Court. The application of this threshold is subject to a Legal Aid Agency (LAA) assessment on hardship grounds for individuals who exceed this income but show that they cannot afford to pay for their defence costs privately. The implementation of this threshold is consistent with the Government’s wider principle that those who can afford to fund their own defence costs should do so, rather than the cost being funded through the criminal legal aid scheme. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estimated that between 200-3002 Crown Court defendants per year3 would be excluded from criminal legal aid funding due to this change. It was anticipated that this would lead to more people paying their own court costs, and that this increase would represent a relatively small proportion of cases in the Crown Court. However, feedback from judicial stakeholders has suggested that since this legal aid change, they believe unrepresented defendant numbers have increased and this is disproportionally reducing the efficiency of courts. This was evident in correspondence between the Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ) and MoJ officials where the SPJ requested that MoJ conduct further work on the issue, namely to provide more robust data on the number of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. A policy paper was presented to the Council of Circuit Court Judges in January 2015 outlining research options. The proposed work was well received by the group who were very engaged in sharing their own anecdotal experiences of cases involving unrepresented defendants. 1 Disposable annual income is calculated from gross annual income of an individual and their partner, less: Income tax; Council tax; Housing costs; Child care costs and maintenance payments; and a llowance for cost of living expenses. The partner’s income is not calculated alongside the defendant in cases where the partner has a contrary interest in the proceedings. [see Reg 31 of The Criminal Legal aid (Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations2013/No.2791: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2791/contents/made]. 2 https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aidnextsteps/supporting_documents/latimpactassessment.pdf 3 https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aidnextsteps/supporting_documents/latimpactassessment.pdf 1 There has been some concern expressed by senior MoJ policy customers about the lack of information currently available in the magistrates’ courts about defendants’ legal representation status – a point echoed by the SPJ. Since implementation of the income threshold, LAA published data shows that some areas of criminal legal aid have been falling. The largest reduction was seen between October and December 2014, where legal aid funded representation at magistrates’ courts fell by around 8,000 cases (17%) compared with the same period the previous year.4 While MoJ publications do not breakdown data to monthly levels, it does not appear that there was a corresponding drop in the number of cases received at the magistrates 5. However, we have no data about the volume or representation for cases where no Legal Aid Order was made. 1.1 Existing Evidence The MoJ published experimental statistics in June 2015 relating to legal representation status in the Crown Court6. These data show that the proportion of defendants seen in the Crown Court who had legal representation7 remained stable between 2010 and 2014. During 2014, 6% (5,561) of defendants were not represented, or representation was unknown at first hearing. This compares with 5% in 2010. In 2014, 30% of represented defendants had two or fewer hearings compared with 17% of defendants who were not represented, or whose representation was unknown. Furthermore, only 17% of represented defendants had six or more hearings compared with 24% who were unrepresented, or whose representation was unknown. This suggests that legal representation may affect the number of hearings. However, prior to this paper there was no qualitative evidence to give any narrative around these statistics. There was also no quantitative data about numbers of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates’ courts. 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics MoJ. 2015. Criminal Court Statistics (Quarterly) January to March 2015. Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly (January to March 2015) available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2015 7 Representation is classed as defendants who were known to be represented by an advocate or solicitor at first hearing. The rational of looking at representation at the first hearing in Crown Court, was because if someone is unrepresented at any point during the process, the first hearing is the point that may cause delays to the Crown process. 5 6 2 1.2 Research Objectives The objectives of the research are twofold: Objective One: To understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. The current CJS processes, operation and planned reform is largely based on the assumption that defendants will be legally represented. There is an evidence gap on the potential impact of unrepresented defendants on these processes and reforms. To fill this evidence gap this report focuses on the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants on practitioners and court processes. Objective Two: To explore the scale of unrepresented defendants in a small selection of magistrates’ courts. The volumes of unrepresented defendants (including those where it was unknown whether there was representation or not) in the Crown Court has been assessed and published by the MoJ. However, limited quantitative data are currently collected centrally about unrepresented defendants in the magistrates’ courts. MoJ analysts therefore initiated a data collection exercise in five magistrates’ courts across England and Wales for a period of four weeks recording the numbers of unrepresented defendants appearing in adult charged cases.8 This research will inform risk management and policy on the indicative volumes (in magistrates’ courts) and effects on practitioners and court processes (in Crown Courts) of unrepresented defendants in criminal cases. 8 The Legal Aid Agency collect and publish quarterly data on the number of Legal Aid Orders issued across the CJS. Legal Aid Orders are issued in more serious cases. In order for one to issued, the defendant must first pass an ‘interests of justice’ test (unchanged since legal aid amendments) followed by a means test since 2014. HMCTS have a target to process 95% of Legal Aid Orders within two working days. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417157/Legal -aid-statisticsbulletin-oct-dec-2014.pdf 3 2. Methodology 2.1 Summary This project consisted of two complementary pieces of research. In the Crown Court, indepth semi-structured qualitative interviews were used to explore the views of judges and CPS practitioners in relation to unrepresented defendants. Alongside this, MoJ analysts designed a data collection tool for legal advisers / court associates in the magistrates’ courts to complete relating to volume of cases involved unrepresented defendants. 2.2 Crown Court Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Crown Court judges, as well as six CPS Crown Court prosecutors in 20159. The sample was selected in part according to availability and was therefore not random, although efforts were made to get a spread of court circuits and CPS regions. This sampling method was appropriate because the interviews were aimed to ensure that a range of experiences and views of Crown Court judges or CPS prosecutors were reflected. The aim of the interviews was to gather information around: • Practitioner experiences of unrepresented defendants. • What sort or types of defendants are unrepresented. • What effect (if any) unrepresented defendants have on the court process. • How the court experience could be improved for unrepresented defendants. The interviews were conducted by MoJ social research analysts. All interviews were recorded and transcribed with the permission of the interviewee. Following this, the transcriptions were coded and prevalent themes identified. Relevant quotes, as supporting evidence, were then used to refine themes further. It is from this primary research that the findings section has been drawn. 2.3 Magistrates Court Data Collection An exploratory data collection exercise was undertaken in five magistrates’ courts across England and Wales over the course of four weeks starting in November 2015. A purposive 9 14 of the judicial interviews and all of the CPS interviews were conducted by telephone. One judicial interview was conducted face-to-face. 4 approach was adopted in the selection of the courts, to give variation in the sample of court size and location e.g. urban/rural split. This method gave some indication of the volume of unrepresented defendants and associated offence types in these courts. However, due to problems with missing data in two courts, the data collection exercise provided baseline data for only three of the five courts. The data collection tool obtained information on the total number of adult defendants seen in each sitting of each sample court. From this a breakdown of those who were represented by a legal professional and those who were unrepresented was created. 2.4 Data Limitations When considering the findings presented in this report, it is important to note that what is presented are the views of a non-random sample of Crown Court judges and CPS practitioners. It should not be assumed that these views are representative of all practitioners regarding unrepresented defendants. Given that the data collection exercise was conducted in five purposively selected magistrates’ courts, any findings cannot be assumed to be representative of magistrates’ courts across England and Wales. Moreover, it was not possible to collect data on the number of Legal Aid Orders issued during the data collection exercise. 5 3. Findings 3.1 Crown Court Interview findings The research questions here were designed to elicit the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. The interviews focused upon interviewees’ views of: • Who unrepresented defendants are, • What effect (if any) they have upon the Crown Court, and • If the situation could be improved. The findings from the interviews were grouped under the following headings which are discussed in detail in this section: • Features of unrepresented cases • The effect upon other court users • Outcomes and pleas • Efficiency • Potential solutions These headings are similar to those used in the transcript analysis framework which was based on themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis. 3.2 Features of unrepresented cases Frequency Judicial Interviewees distinguished between the unrepresented defendants they saw based on the stage of the trial process. The majority of judicial interviewees viewed unrepresented defendants as the exception rather than the rule at trial; some interviewees perceived unrepresented defendants to be more frequent at pre-trial hearings (although still rare). Some interviewees mentioned that unrepresented defendants are more frequent at breach hearings. 6 Similarly, all CPS interviewees said that they believed numbers of unrepresented defendants were low during normal periods. However, some of the CPS interviewees discussed a rise in the number of unrepresented defendants at earlier hearings during disputes between barristers and the government in the summer of 2015. Are unrepresented defendant numbers rising? The majority of judicial interviewees believed that the numbers of unrepresented defendants had risen, although the rise was seen as small. Some explained that they thought this was due to legal aid changes10 which left more people unable or unwilling to pay for legal representatives with the result that they had to represent themselves.. Some of the CPS interviewees also believed that unrepresented defendants were on the rise, although still relatively rare. The interviewees’ views reflect data published in 2015 that suggests unrepresented defendants are relatively rare in the Crown Court11. The belief that unrepresented defendants are on the increase is not supported by these latest Criminal Court Statistics data (JanuaryMarch 2015). The data found the proportion of defendants dealt with in the Crown Court who are known to have had legal representation has remained stable between 2010 and 2014. Offence type It was unclear from the judicial interviews if there were particular cases that were more likely to have unrepresented defendants. Several interviewees said there was no particular case type or a pattern. Others believed that unrepresented defendants were more common in cases that had a ‘personal’ element to them, such as domestic violence or a neighbourly dispute. When asked why this may be one interviewee said they thought it was because the defendant believed being unrepresented would give them an advantage over witnesses. Another interviewee believed it was because these cases are personal and the defendant would not want anyone else leading their case. The CPS interviews displayed a similar lack of consensus on the offence types of unrepresented cases. Some CPS interviewees said unrepresented defendants can appear in any case, one believed they were more likely in low level offences, another in sex or 10 The Legal aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act was introduced in 2012 and set out whether someone qualifies for legal aid. It can be viewed at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents/enacted. There were further changes in eligibility criteria in 2014 particularly setting a maximum income limit for those facing charges committed to the Crown Court. 11 Ministry of Justice, 2015. Criminal court statistics (quarterly): January to March 2015. 7 domestic violence, a different interviewee in sensitive cases12, and another said they saw more in neighbour disputes. Types of defendants “Either they don’t qualify for legal aid or they qualify for legal aid but the contributions are so high that they choose not to be represented and to go it alone, …. There’s then a category who would qualify for legal aid but don’t like the advice they’re given or think they could do a better job of it themselves and who elect to go on their own” ."(Judicial Interviewee eleven) Judicial interviewees consistently made a distinction between two main types of unrepresented defendant: 1) Those who choose to be unrepresented for non-financial reasons and; 2) Those who do so because of legal aid/funding issues. These groups were seen as posing distinctly different challenges to the court process. Those defendants who choose to represent themselves for non-financial reasons were seen as more problematic. Many interviewees made further distinctions between types of defendants. Most of judicial interviewees commented that those who choose to represent themselves for non-financial reasons fell into two groups: those who had mental health issues or those who were determined to represent themselves regardless. Both of these groups were unaffected by changes to legal aid. They said inappropriate behaviour from these individuals could be difficult to control in the Crown Court setting. Of the former group, an example was given of one defendant was assessed by a psychiatrist as fit to stand trial but displayed paranoid behaviour and continually turned up at court with a suitcase full of nappies. The court therefore had an additional task to manage this behaviour as part of the hearing. Of the latter group, some defendants chose to be unrepresented did so because they thought they knew better than lawyers did. These defendants were seen to be very difficult to handle as they would not listen to advice and would seek to manipulate proceedings. Similarly, some interviewees said that certain defendants were unrepresented because they had been told by their lawyers to plead guilty and then they sacked them. Another couple of 12 Such as domestic violence and sexual offences. 8 interviewees thought some unrepresented defendants did not trust the criminal justice system and therefore chose to represent themselves. The CPS interviews noticed the same three types of unrepresented defendants: those who had mental health issues; those who choose to be unrepresented for non-financial reasons, and those who were unrepresented because of issues with legal aid. It was said that this latter group of defendants perceived the level of contribution as too high and that selfemployed defendants had particular problems proving their level of income. Level of understanding "It’s like saying if you felt unwell would you want to go and ask someone with no medical qualification how to cure yourself?" (Judicial Interviewee One) Unrepresented defendants were seen as having varied but limited understanding of the court process by the majority of judicial interviewees and all of the CPS interviewees. Some CPS interviewees went further by explaining issues such as unrepresented defendants not understanding how to present evidence about their case at hearings, how to prepare defence statements, or how to ask questions in court. Judicial interviewees also discussed further problems which are described in the ‘Effect upon other actors’ section. Level of participation "Some of them just sit there looking like a rabbit in the head lights and they haven’t got a clue what’s going on and you really have to check that they are following and are in a position to make any relevant comments they need to. Others will be jumping up every five seconds, even when it’s not even their turn to talk" (Judicial Interviewee eleven) A commonly held view among the judges interviewed was that unrepresented defendants did not participate properly in the court process. The level of participation was seen to vary with some unrepresented defendants not participating enough, while others would ‘over participate’. These interviewees explained over participation as when unrepresented defendants may bombard the court with irrelevant correspondence or continually talk over others in hearings. The correspondence would lead to either judges having to sift through to find relevant evidence, or court staff having to respond to repeated enquiries. CPS interviewees said that unrepresented defendants attend hearings and court as much as represented defendants. Some CPS interviewees however did discuss problems about unrepresented defendant’s participation. In particular unrepresented defendants were likely to query things far more than a lawyer would. This was because some unrepresented 9 defendants were thought to be unable to accept any of the details of the case against them, making it difficult to agree evidence to submit or evidence remaining ‘at issue’. Another view expressed was that unrepresented defendants do not have their evidence questioned in as much detail as they would if they were represented. These evidential issues impact on court efficiency discussed further in section 3.5. 3.3 Effect upon other actors Preparation for unrepresented defendants Judicial interviewees gave a mixed response about whether their preparation differed for unrepresented defendant cases. Several interviewees described their preparation as being more extensive or difficult because of unrepresented defendants. One felt they had to be better prepared and be aware of anything that may come up. A different interviewee echoed this but also added that you cannot expect that ‘things will be done’ such as the preliminary work that a defence team would do to assess the evidence and agree points at issue. Most of the CPS interviewees also said that they were unable to prepare for unrepresented defendants as they were not forewarned. This posed particular issues when defendants faced charges on sensitive issues such as sexual offences. They would go to court with the full documentation and insist that the judge tell the unrepresented defendant to appoint a solicitor to represent the defendant so that they can serve the documentation on the solicitor. Adjustments for unrepresented defendants All judges interviewed agreed that they had to adjust how they conduct hearings/trials in unrepresented defendant cases. The majority of judges interviewed said that they have to explain all the processes of the court to an unrepresented defendant, and make sure the unrepresented defendants understand them. They felt that cases with unrepresented defendants took more court time and slowed down proceedings. One judge talked about the problems they felt unrepresented defendants pose for the adversarial system of justice; they were conscious that their involvement should not stretch into an inquisitorial role. A number of judicial interviewees also described practical adjustments they have to make for unrepresented defendants. The most notable of these was moving the defendant from the dock as they were not able to fully participate in proceedings when stood there. Unrepresented defendants were then allowed to sit towards the back of the barristers’ 10 benches. One interviewee said that they had to explain to the jury why the defendant is sat where they are and that this should not affect their assessment. CPS interviewees also discussed adjustments that they made for unrepresented cases. Several described how they would try to be fair and assist the unrepresented defendant. Others reported that they could not serve evidence properly on a defendant which then affects how cases progress, usually more slowly as all evidence has to be discussed in court as no prior agreements on what evidence remains at issue would have been made. Another interviewee described how they would not want to discuss aspects of their case directly with the defendant as it might appear that they were trying to encourage the unrepresented defendant to plead guilty. Engagement with CPS When a defendant is represented, their legal defence team or counsel would normally engage with the CPS prosecutor for the case prior to the initial pre-trial hearings. This leaves the unrepresented defendant in an awkward position. The majority of judicial interviewees noted the difficulty of achieving good engagement between CPS and unrepresented defendants. . They explained that there was no real engagement prior to first hearing. A reason put forward to explain this was because unrepresented defendants were suspicious of the prosecution. Some of the judges noted the difficulties the CPS have in serving evidence on unrepresented defendants for reasons such as not knowing if they have the defendant’s correct address, or the defendant saying they have not received the papers when the CPS suspect they have. In two of the interviews this topic was not discussed. Of the CPS interviewees some said that they tried to help unrepresented defendants and engage with them, explain their role and what they would be arguing. However, others maintained that they are the other side to the unrepresented defendant and that therefore there is a limit to the extent to which they can assist. Disclosure Disclosure, i.e. disclosing the evidence relevant to the contested points, in unrepresented cases was seen as difficult by most judicial and CPS interviewees. Judicial interviewees gave a variety of reasons, including: unrepresented defendants not understanding the concept, not knowing what to ask for, and not setting out their argument. One judge gave an example of a case where an unrepresented defendant asked for 50,000 pages of documents to be provided and for Lord Chief Justice to give evidence. These problems appeared to stem in part from unrepresented defendants not being in a position to engage with CPS 11 properly due to their lack of legal training and their distrust of the CPS stopped the unrepresented defendants releasing documents. A couple of judicial interviewees said they had not experienced any difficulties with disclosure in unrepresented cases. CPS interviewees described the practical issues they face when disclosing to unrepresented defendants. These related to how to serve papers as unrepresented defendants do not have secure email and are not always easy to reach by post. They also expressed their concern as to what they should disclose in these cases, and how they could serve it because they were concerned they could reveal information about witnesses. This was a key issue in sensitive cases. Engagement with a barrister Some of the judicial interviewees discussed unrepresented defendant engagement with barristers during the trial. Several said barristers tried their best with unrepresented defendants but one interviewee noted that this was difficult for the barrister to do as it challenged their role of leading the prosecution and could be uncomfortable for them. Another interviewee said that unrepresented defendants’ behaviour towards barristers varied from openly hostile to collaborative, which was perceived to effect the engagement between the two parties. Some of the CPS interviewees discussed unrepresented defendants engagement with barristers in their interviews. One said that agreeing evidence is more difficult, another said it is difficult to drill down to the real issue of the case, while another described the engagement as awkward. This awkwardness was because the prosecution are wary of being misinterpreted by the unrepresented defendant. The effect on the jury “I think jurors may fall into really two counts, they either feel sympathy for someone who they may perceive is a little man against the whole system, … or they may form a dislike to him if his character comes through fairly quickly as someone who’s fairly bolshie, and they can see perhaps why he’s unrepresented.” (Judicial Interviewee Nine) Several judicial interviewees discussed the effects an unrepresented defendant may have on a jury in trial. There were a number of concerns raised by judges about the potential for unrepresented defendants to affect the neutrality of the jury. Of these some thought juries could feel sympathy for the defendant, while others thought the defendant would irritate the jury with their behaviour. Some interviewees said that an unrepresented defendant could, depending on their behaviour affect the jury either positively or negatively. 12 One interviewee described the risk that an unrepresented defendant might say inappropriate things or make remarks at inopportune moments, both of which could unreasonably prejudice legal fact-finding. This interviewee gave an example of where they sat a two week trial only for the defendant to say something in their closing statement which resulted in the trial being thrown out. A small number of judges went further into how, because of this, they had to operate the trial in a different manner. One described how they had to explain to the jury why they had to keep stopping the unrepresented defendant while they were presenting their case; another said they talked to juries at the outset about the situation, the judge’s role, and that the jury should not treat the defendant differently. A couple of interviewees said that the unrepresented defendant’s behaviour meant they had to continually send the jury out so matters could be discussed without influencing them. This was said to lead to delays. Generally, CPS interviewees did not discuss the effects upon juries. The effect on witnesses "he decides he’s going to represent himself, and then he’s asking questions of these people, it’s almost like committing the offence all over again " (Judicial Interviewee Five) Most of the judges and CPS practitioners interviewed expressed concern about the effect of unrepresented defendants upon witnesses. The most common reason for concern was regarding cross examination and how unrepresented defendants may behave whilst conducting it. Interviewees gave examples of defendants being aggressive, rude, and asking unnecessary questions. The common perception of these interviewees was that this led to an unpleasant cross examination experience for witnesses. Some judicial interviewees described how they have to control unrepresented defendant’s behaviour in these situations, and tread the line between allowing the defendant to put forward their case and preventing harm to witnesses. A small number of judicial interviewees discussed how they thought unrepresented defendants lead to wasted time for witnesses. Unrepresented defendants were perceived to call witnesses to trial unnecessarily as they did not understand who should give evidence. Consequently one interviewee noted that this led to witnesses being called unnecessarily and then waiting around before either being called or not being called at all. 3.4 Outcomes and pleas Despite their concerns about neutrality of juries most of the judicial interviewees thought that unrepresented cases saw the same outcomes as represented cases. Some of these 13 interviewees elaborated saying that the outcome may take longer to achieve but would still be the same; others thought there may be more of chance of unrepresented defendant cases going to trial. A few judicial interviewees said it was impossible to assess if the outcomes were any different, while some felt a higher proportion of guilty verdicts resulted from unrepresented defendants’ cases. There was a mixed response from CPS interviewees regarding outcomes. A couple of the interviewees echoed the judges, they believed that outcomes were not affected but cases take longer. Some other CPS interviewees said that they were concerned that an unrepresented defendant may not get a fair trial, as they are not properly qualified to put their case forward. Conversely, one interviewee did not think unrepresented cases were fair on the CPS. They discussed how judges would help the unrepresented defendant put their case forward and how they feel the jury could perceive the unrepresented defendant as being ‘picked upon’ by the experienced lawyer. Pleas “To me, saying that to a defendant in person is almost like saying, “You’ve got to plead guilty, mate” (Judicial Interviewee Seven) Over half of judicial interviewees mentioned problems in discussing the concept of pleas and discounts to sentence with unrepresented defendants. This was because they did not think that someone without formal legal training could understand these concepts and it was difficult to explain them to the unrepresented defendant without appearing as if they were telling them to plead guilty. These judges described that if it was an option available to them, then they would use their powers to appoint a defendants’ advocate who would then act as a conduit to whom they would pass on these messages. If a defendants’ advocate was unavailable they felt uncomfortable. A couple of interviewees believed that some unrepresented defendants think they know better and therefore cannot be persuaded to plead. Some of the CPS interviewees believed that it is harder to obtain a guilty plea from an unrepresented defendant. They perceived unrepresented defendants to be unable to assess the weight of evidence against them and therefore know whether a case is strong. One interviewee commented that unrepresented defendants may not want to face up to the likely outcome. 14 3.5 Efficiency A consistent theme emerging from the interviews with the judiciary and CPS was the perceived disruptive impact of unrepresented defendants on CJS efficiency in the Crown Court. They felt that unrepresented defendants disproportionally disrupt court efficiency. Length of hearings All of the CPS and nearly all judicial interviewees thought unrepresented hearings take longer than those with legal representation. Some interviewees said they usually last double the time, one said half as much again and the others did not elaborate. Paradoxically, one CPS interviewee felt there are occasions where the preliminary hearings are very short, as judges try to adjourn in order to give a defendant the chance to get representation, or put their case together. There were a variety of reasons given as to why unrepresented hearings took longer. The most common was that court processes and legal practices had to be explained to the unrepresented defendant, which meant interruptions to the normal proceedings, slowing down the process and judges pausing frequently to refer to defendants to check that they understood. Other reasons given were that matters cannot be resolved outside of court so there is more work to be done during hearings; that unrepresented defendants raise irrelevant points, and that contested evidence cannot be agreed in advance. A small number of interviewees mentioned that some unrepresented defendants give long irrelevant speeches that were not focused on the issue being examined or were disruptive during these hearings which slows proceedings. Number of hearings Furthermore, the bulk of judicial and CPS interviewees believed that unrepresented cases resulted in more hearings than those with representation. A number of interviewees said that adjournments took place to allow the defendant time to find representation. Also, some interviewees specifically mentioned that this was to allow the defendant to get legal aid. All judges stated a very strong preference that the defendant facing charges was represented and were willing to delay a hearing if there was any chance that representation could be obtained. This intermittent nature of representation is consistent with reports from interviewees that more unrepresented defendants were seen at earlier hearings. Some judicial interviewees also said that the greater number of hearings was because aspects of the case could not be sorted outside of court as easily, so additional hearings had 15 to be called. These aspects of the case included to agree evidence, and to understand what case the defendants would make on their own behalf. Problems in obtaining a defence statement were discussed as well as defendants not being prepared for hearings. Some of the CPS interviewees mentioned that adjournments happened to either allow unrepresented defendants more time to understand evidence, or to give them time serve their own evidence. Length of trials Most of the judicial and some CPS interviewees believed trials lasted longer in unrepresented cases. Some interviewees estimated this saying that trials would take at least twice as long. The reason for this was similar to that of the hearings but trials involve juries and witnesses which added another level of complexity. A small number of judicial interviewees mentioned that they discharged juries more frequently in unrepresented defendant cases and that this inevitably prolonged proceedings. Reasons for this were that some judges preferred to give additional advice to the unrepresented defendant compared to a case with a represented defendant without the jury to avoid influencing the jurors’ view of proceedings. Judicial interviewees gave some examples of unrepresented defendants prolonging trials because they focus upon a peculiar defence that would be unlikely with represented defendant. One interviewee mentioned a spate of cannabis cases with unrepresented defendants whereby the defendants did not accept the illegality of their actions. A different interviewee discussed a three week trial in which the unrepresented defendant based their defence on the ‘law of the sea’ in a drug dealing case. These interviewees described the difficulty of refocusing the defendant to the matters at hand. Better Case Management “having unrepresented defendants drives a coach and horses through Better Case Management." (Judicial Interview Four) When asked if unrepresented defendants could be a barrier to future efficiencies over half of judicial interviewees believed they could affect the Better Case Management (BCM) scheme13 (BCM). Some of these did not think unrepresented cases could be dealt with in the reduced number of hearings. One interviewee was sceptical as they said BCM assumes it will achieve better engagement between defence and prosecution which they did not see as 13 A scheme rolled out in the Crown Court on January 5 2016 for further information please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crime-news-better-case-management-rollout-and-new-guidance 16 possible in unrepresented defendant cases. Another couple of interviewees said that things could not be resolved at a single hearing as it takes time to understand what case an unrepresented defendant is putting forward. Other interviewees did not think unrepresented defendants would be able to access evidence or serve papers as the system becomes digitalised. CPS interviewees also thought unrepresented defendants could pose issues for BCM. One thought they would pose the same issues to BCM as they do to the current system. Others believed that BCM could make things better as proceedings should be more uniform and better recorded. 3.6 Solutions Support offered currently Judicial interviewees gave varied responses when asked what support unrepresented defendants are currently offered. Some did not discuss any support, while a couple of interviewees explicitly stated that none was offered, and a couple said they tried to persuade the defendant to get representation. A few did discuss the informal help that they or other judges may give a unrepresented defendant, such as taking time to explain what is happening, or what the defendant is expected to do. There were a handful of mentions of court staff assisting, by explaining processes to the unrepresented defendant or responding to their queries. A few judicial interviewees talked about how advocates offer support to unrepresented defendants. CPS interviewees went into further detail regarding support that unrepresented defendants are offered currently. Most of the interviewees said they try to help by explaining procedures and outline to the defendant what case they will be putting forward. The majority of CPS interviewees said that judges help unrepresented defendants. It was mentioned on a couple of occasions that judges would give them the opportunity to seek representation. One CPS interviewee said that judges do not like to have someone unrepresented at trial so will do all they can to prevent this. There were also instances of judges explaining what was going on to unrepresented defendants and asking them questions to elicit what their defence is. CPS interviewees considered some other forms of support that unrepresented defendants are offered. These included court staff advice on process, local members of the bar offering advice and lawyers working before legal aid being granted. 17 Suggestions for further/future support A variety of suggestions as to how unrepresented defendants can be supported further were given by judicial interviewees. Several thought that unrepresented defendants needed more education of the ‘goings on’ of the court. Suggested ways of achieving this were things such as leaflets or videos to explain aspects of court and what is expected of them. A couple of judicial interviewees believed that they should have discretion to grant representation where appropriate. One of these interviewees explained this by saying that in certain cases an advocate should be appointed when defendants are deemed vulnerable by the judge, to protect unrepresented defendants from themselves. They suggested that this would be cost effective as particularly difficult unrepresented defendants take a lot of court time. One interviewee recommended training for newly qualified prosecution advocates on unrepresented defendants to allow them to feel more comfortable in dealing with them. Some judicial interviewees believed that all defendants at risk of custody should be represented if they wish to be, as the outcome is so severe. A couple of interviewees suggested a duty solicitor scheme like that of the magistrates’ courts would be an appropriate model, if unrepresented defendant numbers increased. One judicial interviewee lamented the loss of dock briefs14 as they allowed a lawyer to discuss a case with a defendant for a small fee. The other interviewee suggested having bar students providing advice to defendants on their cases. While a couple of interviewees said nothing could be done to support a defendant if they chose to represent themselves. This was because they believed these defendants were considered to be so set in their way of doing things that they would not listen to advice. The majority of CPS suggestions for further support were linked to giving unrepresented defendants access to someone with legal training. A couple of interviewees said that defendants need someone to give them advice and help them assess strength of evidence. Another couple of interviewees went further and suggested employing legal representatives on an ad hoc basis, or creating a duty solicitor style scheme to support defendants. 14 A dock brief was where at the discretion of the trial judge, a defendant could select a barrister from among those present to represent the prisoner for a nominal fee. 18 4. Magistrates’ courts data collection exercise The research question here was to explore the scale of unrepresented defendants in a small selection of magistrates’ courts. The aim of this exercise was to give an indicative measure of the level of representation in magistrates’ courts and fill an evidence gap as no data is currently held centrally. Data was collected on all hearings between 9th November and 4th December 2015 in five magistrates’ courts. During this four week period, court staff completed a brief data collection tool on each case that went through their court1. This data was then returned to MoJ analysts to be cleaned and analysed. This section will first give an overview of legal representation in the 2,840 valid hearings identified in this exercise, before exploring the factors associated with being unrepresented and the type of representation a defendant had. Data overview Fig 4.1 Overall representation type 1000 900 Number of hearings 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Court One Court Two Court Three No Yes: Duty solicitor Yes: Private legal representation Court Four Court Five Yes - Unknown if private or legal aid Yes: Legal aid represenation Missing When the data is split by court, differences regarding data returns and missing data are evident15. Court Three had by the far the highest case volume of those involved in the 15 Analysis based on 2,840 cases occurring between 9 th November and 4th December in Courts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five. 19 exercise, accounting for 57% of the hearings in total. However, Court Three’s returns contained a large amount of missing data, accounting for 53% of their returns. Therefore, Court Three accounted for 99% of the missing data within the whole dataset regarding representation. Court One returned lower numbers of cases due to their method of data collection. Court One returned data from court rooms only when an unrepresented defendant had appeared in it that day; the other courts returned cases for all hearings during the four week period. The data collection procedures and quality from courts two, four, and five was the most similar. Given the high amount of missing data from Court Three and the sample selection on representation in Court one, further analysis was based upon only courts two, four and five. Comparing representation across courts The data from these three courts combined 16 shows that the approximately 85% of defendants were represented. Approximately six out of ten defendants were represented through legal aid, making it the most common representation type. Following this, 14% were represented by a duty solicitor, 13% had no legal representation and 9% were privately represented. 16 Analysis based on 1,168 cases occurring between 9 th November and 4th December 2015 in Courts Two, Four, and Five 20 800 Fig 4.2 Representation for courts Two, Four, and Five 61% 700 Number of hearings 600 500 400 300 200 14% 13% 9% 100 1% 1% 0 No Yes - Unknown if private or legal aid Yes: Duty solicitor Yes: Legal aid Yes: Private legal represenation representation Missing Regression analysis Logistic regressions predicting whether the defendant was unrepresented at trial, and if represented, whether representation was publicly funded (via legal aid or the duty solicitor) or private were performed. All cases from Court One and Court Three were excluded from the analysis to ensure it was based on data that was consistently collected. This resulted in a sample of approximately 1,031 cases for analysis17. All results that are discussed are significant at 5% level18. The full results can be found in Annex D. Factors affecting the likelihood of a defendant being unrepresented Several factors affected the odds of a defendant being unrepresented. Unrepresented defendants were more likely to appear in certain Crown Courts and not in others. For instance, compared to defendants in Court Two, defendants in Court Five were 2.18 times more likely to be represented while defendants in Court Four were about 70% less likely to 17 18 The number of cases included in the regression analysis is lower than for the descriptive statistics. This is because the regressions required critical data fields to be complete, therefore further cases were excluded for this analysis. The significance level, also denoted as alpha or α, is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. For example, a significance level of 0.05 indicates a 5% risk of concluding that a difference exists when there is no actual difference. 21 have representation19. Custody also seems to matter for representation: defendants were 41% less likely to be unrepresented if they were in custody compared to non-custody. Defendants facing ‘Other Summary Motoring’ offences were 3.5 times more likely to be unrepresented than other offences. Factors affecting the odds of representation being publicly funded There were several variables that appeared to affect the odds of a defendant being represented publicly compared to privately during this four week exercise. A defendant at Court Four was 2.2 times more likely to be publicly represented compared to a defendant at Court Two. Day of the week mattered for the type of representation, i.e. in comparison to Fridays, defendants were 67% less likely to be publicly represented in hearings on Wednesdays and 70% less likely on Thursdays. Defendants were 2.15 times more likely to be publicly represented if they were in custody compared to if they are not. Older defendants were less likely to be publicly represented. For example, those aged 65 or older were 89% less likely to be publicly represented compared to 18-24 year olds. The results indicate that motoring offences were less likely to be associated with public representation. Specifically, public representation was significantly less likely20 in ‘Drunk Driving (Summary)’, ‘Other Summary Motoring’ and ‘Summary non-motoring’. 19 Odds ratios greater than two are described in full numbers, while Odds ratios less than two are described in percentages. 20 ‘Drunk Driving (Summary)’ (Odds of 0.06), ‘Other Summary Motoring (Odds of 0.19), and ‘Summary nonmotoring’ (Odds of .28). 22 5. Policy Implications/Recommendations The data from the Crown Court interviews showed that there are different types of unrepresented defendants, with different needs and who pose their own challenges to the court. However, a consistent theme emerging from the interviews with the judiciary and CPS was unrepresented defendants’ disproportionally disruptive effect on CJS efficiency in the Crown. This is described as disproportionately disruptive as they have a large impact on efficiency relative to their low numbers in comparison to cases where defendants are represented. They were perceived to lengthen hearings and the process as a whole, i.e. the overall case length was seen to take longer. Interviewees suggested that this occurred because of a lack of understanding from unrepresented defendants which limited the extent to which they could participate in court activities. This affected other actors within the court such as judges and advocates who had to adjust how they conducted hearings, generally slowing them down. In addition to this, unrepresented defendants were seen as a barrier towards achieving early guilty pleas. Interviewees also expressed concern about unrepresented defendant’s effect upon witnesses, with particular concerns about the cross examination process. The data collection exercise in the magistrates’ courts gives an indicative idea of unrepresented defendant numbers in the five courts. Further data analysis on three of the courts showed that unrepresented defendants were more likely to appear in certain courts, offence types, and age groups; as well some differences between private and public representation. Additional work on the outcomes in these cases could give greater understanding the effects of representation in the magistrates’ courts while centrally collected data would allow a better understanding of the picture across England and Wales. On the basis of this report, the following recommendations are made: 1. Work with HMCTS colleagues to create a central bank of data on representation in the magistrates’ courts. 2. Ensure that unrepresented defendants are considered within the MoJ’s efficiency programmes and reforms. For instance, MoJ policy delivery teams need to look at the impact of unrepresented defendants when collecting management information data for schemes such as HMCTS Reform, Better Case Management, and the Common Platform. 3. Explore via further analysis whether representation status has any implications for outcomes in the magistrates’ courts. The exercise conducted for this report could be 23 replicated on a larger scale and for longer, however we would recommend a system built solution as per point 1. 4. Work with the Judicial Office to create guidance for Crown Court judges on how to handle unrepresented cases. 5. Work alongside the CPS colleagues to create guidance for advocates on how to handle unrepresented cases. 6. Work together with HMCTS and Judicial Office colleagues to create practical guidance for unrepresented defendants on court processes. For example, an explanation of what occurs at various stages of the process and a glossary of legal terms. 7. Assess the options that could be used to provide unrepresented defendants with legal advice in the Crown Court. This option would need to be fully costed and explored as we currently do not have a baseline to assess whether more support for unrepresented defendants would be cost neutral or in the public interest to attach funding to. This point ties into the objectives of the Better Case Management scheme. 24 Commented [GC1]: I would add a short intro bullet point on the aims of the research and then move this to a one page summary at the start of the report. Appendix A: Key Findings One-Pager • The majority of judicial interviewees and all of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) interviewees saw unrepresented defendants as the exception rather than the rule at trial. • All judicial Interviewees consistently made a distinction between two main types of unrepresented defendant: 1) Those who choose to be unrepresented for non-financial reasons and; 2) those who do so because of legal aid/funding issues. These groups were seen as posing distinctly different challenges to the court process, with those who choose to represent themselves for non-financial reasons being seen as more problematic. • Unrepresented defendants were seen as having a limited understanding of the court process by the majority of judicial interviewees and all of the CPS interviewees. • A consistent theme emerging from the interviews with the judiciary and CPS was unrepresented defendants’ disruptive effect on efficiency in the Crown Court. They were perceived to lengthen hearings and the case progression process as a whole was seen to take longer. This occurred because of a lack of understanding from unrepresented defendants which limited the extent to which they could participate in court activities. This affected other actors within the court such as judges and advocates who had to adjust how they conducted hearings, slowing them down. • In addition to this unrepresented defendants were seen as a barrier towards achieving early guilty pleas. Interviewees also expressed concern about unrepresented defendant’s effect upon witnesses, with particular worry about the cross examination process. • An exploratory data collection exercise was undertaken in five magistrates’ courts across England and Wales over the course of four weeks. This provided an indicative idea of unrepresented defendant numbers. Given the high amount of missing data from Court Three and errors with the sample selection on defendant representation in Court one, further analysis focussed upon only courts two, four and five. • Data from these three courts combined showed that approximately 85% of the defendants were represented. Approximately six out of ten defendants (61%) were represented through legal aid, making it by far the most common representation type. 25 Following this 14% were represented by a duty solicitor, 13% had no representation and 9% were privately represented. • Logistic regressions predicting whether the defendant was unrepresented at trial, and if represented whether representation was public (via legal aid or the duty solicitor) or private were performed. This showed that unrepresented defendants were more likely to appear in certain courts, offence types, and age groups; as well some differences between private and public representation. For instance, defendants facing ‘Other Summary Motoring’ offences were 3.5 times more likely to be unrepresented than defendants facing other offences. 26 Annex B: Judicial Interview topic guide Objective: To understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. These interviews will elicit interviewee views on unrepresented defendants • Thank you for taking part • Introduce self and note-taker (if present) • • o Name o Working in Analytical Services at MoJ Explanation of study aims: • The aim of this interview is to understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. • What sort of defendants are unrepresented. • What effect (if any) unrepresented defendants are having on the court process. • This will feed into the policy decisions on this area. Explain interview practicalities: o Interview to last up to 45 minutes, although this may take less time o A number of questions that I will work my way through o We intend to write a report that summarises the findings of the interviews. The report will be seen by MoJ and HMCTS staff and by representatives from the criminal justice system. This report may be subject to Freedom of Information requests. We will not identify individuals by name in the report, although we will likely mention the viewpoints of different roles and professions, for example ‘the majority of judges interviewed believed that …’. o We hope to record the interviews and then transfer the recordings to a professional transcription service – who will write up anonymous transcripts of what’s said to assist with analysis. We will also see the transcripts when they’re written. • • o Are you happy to continue? Are you content for this to happen? If, after taking part you decide that you would prefer not to be included in the study, you can contact Joe Thomson (02033340802; joseph.thomson@justice.gsi.gov.uk) or Jane Becker (; jane.becker@justice.gsi.gov.uk) from Ministry of Justice. *Practitioner to sign the consent form* 27 *Start recording* Warm up Please can you describe your current professional role, and tell me how long you have been in this role? Tell me about your experience of cases when defendants were unrepresented Probes: How often are you facing cases with unrepresented defendants? For instance, how many have you seen in the last month? Has this increased in the last 6 months? How do you prepare for these cases? How do you manage these cases? Do you make any adjustments? Y/N If yes please describe them. If talking about one particular case, ask if it is typical? Do unrepresented defendants attend court to defend themselves? Y/N If yes, how do unrepresented defendants participate in court proceedings? Thinking more about the features of cases where defendants are unrepresented Details: Are there certain types of cases that tend to have unrepresented defendants? Y/N If so, what types of cases do these tend to be? Are there certain types of defendants that tend to be unrepresented? Y/N If so, what types of defendants do these tend to be? Interviewer to note: the MoJ statistics for Crown Court showed 6% of cases in 2014 and this has been stable since 2010. Focusing on the court process, how do unrepresented defendants affect court room activities? Probes: To what extent do unrepresented defendants participate in court proceedings? Have you found that unrepresented have more hearings than cases where the defendant is represented? Y/N please explain What level of understanding do you think unrepresented defendants’ have of court processes? How do unrepresented defendants affect engagement with the CPS at the first hearing stage/ preliminary hearings? How do unrepresented defendants affect engagement with the CPS during the trial? What impact do unrepresented defendants have on other actors involved in the trial? E.g. jurors, witnesses How long do hearings tend to last when defendants are unrepresented compared to hearings when defendants are represented? How long do cases as a whole tend to last (hearings and trial) when defendants are unrepresented compared to represented cases? Efficiencies Are there any other impacts on the court process? Y/N if yes please give details 28 Interviewer to note: Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice in June 2015 indicated that Crown Court cases where representation is unknown/defendant is known to be unrepresented have more hearings than cases where representation is known. From your experience what outcomes have you seen in unrepresented cases? Probe: Have you found that there is a difference in outcomes between unrepresented and represented cases? Y/N If Y please explain Finally thinking about solutions, how could the court experience be improved for defendants who represent themselves? Probes: Are unrepresented defendants offered any support currently? Y/N If yes please give details. What more could be done to support unrepresented defendants further? Have you got anything further to add about your experience of unrepresented defendants that we have not covered? Thank you very much for your time Joseph Thomson – Ministry of Justice -Analytical Services - - 020 3334 0802 29 Appendix C: CPS Interview topic guide Objective: To understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. These interviews will elicit interviewee views on unrepresented defendants • Thank you for taking part • Introduce self and note-taker (if present) • • o Name o Working in Analytical Services at MoJ Explanation of study aims: • The aim of this interview is to understand the perceived effects of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court. • What sort of defendants are unrepresented. • What effect (if any) unrepresented defendants are having on the court process. • This will feed into the policy decisions on this area. Explain interview practicalities: o Interview to last up to 45 minutes, although this may take less time o A number of questions that I will work my way through o We intend to write a report that summarises the findings of the interviews. The report will be seen by MoJ and HMCTS staff and by representatives from the criminal justice system. This report may be subject to Freedom of Information requests. We will not identify individuals by name in the report, although we will likely mention the viewpoints of different roles and professions, for example ‘the majority of judges interviewed believed that …’. • Are you happy to continue? o We hope to record the interviews and then transfer the recordings to a professional transcription service – who will write up anonymous transcripts of what’s said to assist with analysis. We will also see the transcripts when they’re written. o If, after taking part you decide that you would prefer not to be included in the study, you can contact Joe Thomson (02033340802; joseph.thomson@justice.gsi.gov.uk) or Jane Becker (; jane.becker@justice.gsi.gov.uk) from Ministry of Justice. • Are you content for this to happen? *Practitioner to sign the consent form* 30 *Start recording* Warm up Please can you describe your current professional role, and tell me how long you have been in this role? Tell me about your experience of cases when defendants were unrepresented Probes: How often are you facing cases with unrepresented defendants? For instance, how many have you seen in the last month? Has this increased in the last 6 months? How do you prepare for these cases? How do you manage these cases? Do you make any adjustments? Y/N If yes please describe them. If talking about one particular case, ask if it is typical? Do unrepresented defendants attend court to defend themselves? Y/N If yes, how do unrepresented defendants participate in court proceedings? Thinking more about the features of cases where defendants are unrepresented Details: Are there certain types of cases that tend to have unrepresented defendants? Y/N If so, what types of cases do these tend to be? Are there certain types of defendants that tend to be unrepresented? Y/N If so, what types of defendants do these tend to be? To note: the MoJ statistics for Crown Court showed 6% of cases in 2014 and this has been stable since 2010. Focusing on the impact on unrepresented cases on the court process how do unrepresented defendants affect court room activities? Probes: To what extent do unrepresented defendants participate in court proceedings? Have you found that unrepresented have more hearings than cases where the defendant is represented? How do unrepresented defendants affect engagement with the CPS at the first hearing stage? Y/N Please explain What level of understanding do you think unrepresented defendants’ have of court processes? How long do these unrepresented hearings tend to last compared to cases where defendants are represented? How long do unrepresented cases as a whole tend to last compared to cases where defendants are represented? Are there other impacts on the court process? Y/N if yes please give details Interviewer to note: Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice in June 2015 indicated that Crown Court cases where representation is unknown/defendant is known to be unrepresented have more hearings than cases where representation is known. 31 From your experience what outcomes have you seen in unrepresented cases? Probe: Have you found that there is a difference in outcomes between unrepresented and cases where defendants area represented? Y/N If Y please explain Finally thinking about solutions, how could the court experience be improved for defendants who represent themselves? Probes: Are unrepresented defendants offered any support currently? Y/N If yes please give details. What more could be done to support unrepresented defendants further? Have you got anything further to add about your experience of unrepresented defendants that we have not covered? Joseph Thomson – Ministry of Justice -Analytical Services - - 020 3334 0802 32 Appendix D: Logistic regression tables Table 1. Logistic regression predicting whether defendant was unrepresented by a range of covariates. Shown are odds-ratios O/R Std. Err. z P> z Court Two ---- ---- ---- ---- Court Four 0.30 0.10 -3.79 0.00 0.16 0.56 Court Five 2.18 0.49 3.45 0.00 1.40 3.39 Monday 1.15 0.36 0.45 0.65 0.63 2.11 Tuesday 1.14 0.34 0.44 0.66 0.64 2.03 Wednesday 1.45 0.49 1.11 0.27 0.75 2.81 Thursday 1.11 0.38 0.31 0.76 0.57 2.18 ---- ---- ---- ---- First Hearing 1.24 0.25 1.05 0.30 0.83 1.84 Custody 0.59 0.14 -2.14 0.03 0.37 0.96 18-24 ---- ---- ---- ---- 25-29 1.13 0.36 0.40 0.69 0.61 2.11 30-34 1.32 0.42 0.86 0.39 0.71 2.46 35-39 1.29 0.44 0.77 0.44 0.67 2.50 40-44 0.97 0.35 -0.08 0.94 0.48 1.98 45-49 1.02 0.42 0.05 0.96 0.45 2.29 50-54 1.22 0.53 0.45 0.65 0.52 2.85 60-64 1.08 0.90 0.09 0.93 0.21 5.54 65+ 0.95 0.78 -0.07 0.95 0.19 4.71 Burglary 0.66 0.51 -0.54 0.59 0.14 3.06 Criminal Damage 0.26 0.20 -1.76 0.08 0.06 1.16 Drugs Offences 1.87 0.67 1.74 0.08 0.93 3.77 Drunk Driving (Summary) 1.94 0.75 1.72 0.09 0.91 4.14 Fraud and Forgery 1.27 0.86 0.35 0.73 0.33 4.82 Friday 33 95% Conf. Interval ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Indictable Motoring Offences 2.71 3.30 0.82 0.41 0.25 29.50 Other Indictable 1.26 0.47 0.61 0.54 0.61 2.60 Other Summary Motoring 3.50 1.41 3.10 0.00 1.59 7.71 Summary Non-Motoring 1.08 0.35 0.23 0.82 0.57 2.05 Theft and Handling Stolen Goods 0.73 0.27 -0.85 0.40 0.36 1.51 Violence against the Person ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Notes: • • • • All 55-59 year olds were dropped from analysis because they are all represented at trial in these data. N = 1,031 defendants appearing in Courts Two, Four and five between 9th November 2015 to 4th December 2015. Model X2 = 87.29, p < 0.001 Numbers in bold are significant at p < 0.05, numbers in italics are significant at p < 0.10 34 Table 2. Logistic regression of whether defendant used public representation (duty solicitor or legal aid) or private representation by various covariates. Shown are odds-ratios. O/R Std. Err. z P> z Court Two ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Court Four 2.20 0.78 2.23 0.03 1.10 4.41 Court Five 1.41 0.50 0.97 0.33 0.70 2.81 Monday 1.24 0.75 0.36 0.72 0.38 4.04 Tuesday 0.43 0.21 -1.70 0.09 0.16 1.14 Wednesday 0.33 0.17 -2.12 0.03 0.12 0.92 Thursday 0.30 0.16 -2.28 0.02 0.10 0.84 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- First Hearing 1.58 0.44 1.63 0.10 0.91 2.73 Custody 2.15 0.82 2.00 0.05 1.02 4.54 18-24 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 25-29 0.62 0.28 -1.05 0.30 0.25 1.52 30-34 0.44 0.20 -1.77 0.08 0.18 1.09 35-39 0.91 0.49 -0.17 0.86 0.32 2.62 40-44 0.51 0.24 -1.42 0.15 0.20 1.29 45-49 0.42 0.22 -1.62 0.11 0.15 1.20 50-54 0.32 0.19 -1.93 0.05 0.10 1.02 55-59 0.59 0.52 -0.60 0.55 0.11 3.31 60-64 0.83 0.95 -0.17 0.87 0.09 7.86 65+ 0.11 0.08 -2.91 0.00 0.02 0.48 Burglary 0.84 0.94 -0.15 0.88 0.10 7.48 Criminal Damage 0.35 0.22 -1.70 0.09 0.10 1.17 Drugs Offences 0.75 0.49 -0.44 0.66 0.21 2.68 Drunk Driving (Summary) 0.06 0.03 -5.50 0.00 0.02 0.17 Friday 35 95% Conf. Interval Indictable Motoring Offences 0.15 0.19 -1.49 0.14 0.01 1.82 Other Indictable 1.12 0.72 0.18 0.86 0.32 3.95 Other Summary Motoring 0.19 0.12 -2.60 0.01 0.05 0.67 Summary Non-Motoring 0.28 0.13 -2.83 0.01 0.12 0.68 Theft and Handling Stolen Goods 3.18 2.56 1.44 0.15 0.66 15.37 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Violence against the Person Notes: • • • • All case of fraud and forgery were dropped from the analysis as all defendants in these matters are represented through public means (duty solicitor or legal aid) in these data. N = 874 defendants with representation appearing in Courts Two, Four and five between 9th November 2015 to 4th December 2015. Model X2 = 108.32, p<0.001 Numbers in bold are significant at p < 0.05; Numbers in italics are significant at p< 0.10. 36