Thirty-five years of practice within Leeds and West Yorkshire has exposed me to the fluctuations of economic change and its roller-coaster effects on criminal activity.

What, however, is becoming increasingly apparent – and much more worrying in my opinion – is the lack of justice that is being served by the perpetrators.

My own experience bears witness to this when I had a significant sum stolen from my firm. It took a great deal of persistence from me to prompt the police into action and, when they did make an arrest, the criminals admitted the theft. Yet they were then released with a caution.

This is certainly not unique. The happy-go-lucky doling out of cautions has been raised as an issue by people across the country. Recent newspaper reports highlighted how one Midlands magistrates court had been forced to cut the number of hours it sits each week – because of its "reducing workload".

While statistics show drops in crime, this situation is not due to good behaviour – simply that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are handing out fines and cautions rather than bringing the alleged offenders before the courts.

The official line is that this practice frees up valuable police time to focus on serious crimes, leaving "low-level" activity – including selling alcohol to under-18s, minor criminal damage and littering – out of the court's jurisdiction, thus reducing the burden on the public purse.

Noble causes they may be, but cautions have now become the panacea for a range of much more serious crimes. I have been told of serious sexual offending, another of fraud and others involved in attacks with crowbars and other weapons, all being released with a caution. Hardly "low-level" activity.

For those readers unaccustomed to the machinations of the criminal justice system, I shall paint a picture. Once someone has been arrested
or brought in for questioning at a police station, that person then becomes eligible for free legal representation.

The solicitor will advise on the expected proceedings, offer instructions on how to behave in the interview and ensure it is conducted fairly and responsibly.

Once the police officers are satisfied they have amassed enough evidence – or the accused admits guilt – a summary of the case is put to an evidence review officer, usually the custody sergeant or the CPS. It is then up to that person to decide on the next course of action. They can opt to charge, bail them pending further inquiries, release them without charge or issue a caution or fixed penalty.

If someone is cautioned, it is noted on their criminal record and they receive a "telling-off" from the custody sergeant. The case is closed and it is noted on the statistics that it has been resolved – quickly, cheaply and with a "positive" outcome.

The logic, therefore, that adopting cautions as a method of punishment balances the interests of the public with the constraints of the public purse, have propelled them to be
the method of choice. In fact, two years ago, cautions and on-the-spot fines became the most likely outcome for criminals caught by
the police.

What can work well in some instances – particularly for minor offences or first-time offenders – is now the punishment of choice for far too many serious crimes.

My fear, however, is that an increasing number of dangerous people are being released onto the streets with little or no punishment for their serious crimes as police forces come under intense pressure to meet targets.

The Government knows only too well the time and cost involved in pursuing a case through the courts, and, in my view, is responding with too minor a penalty. Its focus on reducing crime figures has undoubtedly impacted, as has the inherent demand to cut costs, at whatever cost. Serious criminal offences are being dealt with through cautions to give the impression that crime is falling.

The need to balance government budgets also weighs on the system, as many criminal defendants are eligible for legal aid. The Government is intent on reducing its legal aid bill by any means, and the current approach appears to simply reduce the number of people going through the court system.

We should be worried. My own example demonstrates the frustration and injustice of a crime being committed and receiving scant attention.

If I, as a leading criminal lawyer who understands intimately the nuances of the criminal justice system, am unable to bring a crime to a more meaningful conclusion, then how does the man on the street hope to be able to succeed?

Being driven by reducing statistics and meeting targets is placing extreme burdens on our police forces and prosecutors. By reducing the role of courts and judges, we are further eroding the bedrock of our much-vaunted legal system – and creating a platform of inequality that flies in the face of the victim.

I strongly urge the Government to call an end to its obsession with numbers, and to focus on people. The law-abiding general public is becoming the laughing stock of its supposed reforms and crime-reduction policies.


Grahame Stowe is senior partner at the law firm Grahame Stowe Bateson.