OK, I'm thoroughly confused about this 'reform'
The current government introduced new rules for simple cautions in April 2013, which were supposed to address the inappropriate use of police cautions
This was followed up by further revised guidance in November 2013, specifying classes of offences for which is it inappropriate to issue a simple caution.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/cautioning_and_diversion/#a02
Conditional Cautions have been available since 2003, which may include reparative, rehabilitative and financial penalties (i.e. fines) as conditions. Failure to comply with those conditions means the offender will be prosecuted for the original offence.
The same set of amendments to the CJA 2003, introduced in October 2013, require consultation with victims before application of a caution of either type.
It appears that both will be replaced by Community Resolutions, which are already available to the police, but with similar effect.
So, the 'reforms' are (quoting the BBC story)
Under the new system, offenders would repair any damage they have done or pay compensation for less serious crimes.
Already available to the police
Those who commit more serious offences would face court if they fail to comply with conditions set out by police.
Already the law
The government says the scheme - which will also give victims a say in how the offender is dealt with
Already the law
Quite how this would apply in this case from July this year, for example, I am not quite sure
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...for-sexting-explicit-selfie-to-boyfriend.html
A schoolgirl has received a police caution after texting an explicit photograph of herself to her boyfriend, it has emerged.
The teenager sent the image via her phone, but after the couple had a row, he forwarded it to his friends.
Police were called in because she was under the age of 18 and therefore both were committing an offence of distributing an indecent image of a child.
Both received a caution but police are now warning other teenagers they could end up on the sex offenders register if they send explicit pictures of themselves via text messages or social media.
It seems to me that a simple caution was the only appropriate response in these circumstances, which will not be available to police any more.
As for the other claims for the reform
police said:
Chief Constable Lynne Owens, national policing lead on out-of-court disposals, said the reforms should reduce bureaucracy and help increase public understanding.
She said: "The pilots seek to test a new approach which gives officers and staff the discretion to deal with cases appropriately.
I don't see how anything in the reported proposals will reduce bureaucracy. Indeed, it seems that it can only increase it, unless the police paperwork is simply shifted on to the CPS.
It seems that the purpose of he proposal is to
reduce the discretion available to police, by mandating community resolutions in place of simple cautions. If it does not reduce their discretion, then how is it going to ensure a greater adherence to Home Office guidelines?
Sadiq Kahn's comments as Labour Shadow Justice Secretary seem mostly to be political point scoring on issues that were also true at any time since the CJA 2003 (and before) or are not actually
"On their watch, cautions have been dished out wrongly for serious sexual and violent crimes like rape.
"Slap-on-the-wrist community resolutions meant for minor crimes have instead been used by the police thousands of times for violent offences.
Possibly already dealt with by the April and November 2013 guidelines reforms already enacted? Who knows? Where is the evidence that those have not had any effect. Has there been any time to evaluate their effects.
Prior to that, police were acting (and continue to act) within the framework of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, introduced by Labour, so I don't know why he is complaining.
"And the public are no longer protected from the most serious criminals after the government watered down sentencing rules for the most dangerous and violent criminals.
Discussion of sentencing guidelines is wholly irrelevant when no prosecution takes place.