Garda caution scheme keeps 40,000 out of court
Research shows the number of cautions jumped by 240% — from 3,865 to 9,308 — between 2006 and 2010.
A study suggests the scheme had been a “resounding success” and that two-thirds of people given a caution had not come to the attention of gardaí in the following 12 months. But it said the scheme was “severely restricted” and was mainly used in relation to public order offences and thefts from shops.
A call has been made for the programme to be expanded.
The research, conducted by Graham Tolan as part of a masters thesis in criminology in Dublin Institute of Technology, is one of the first studies on the Garda Adult Caution Scheme. It was introduced in 2006 to help divert adults who committed certain minor offences away from the criminal justice system.
The study found the 93,308 cautions in 2010 accounted for 7.3% of all incidents in the list of offences covered in the scheme. This was up from 3% in 2006.
It said the scheme was applied relatively uniformly across all regions.
Public order offences accounted for most cautions (44%) in 2010, followed by shop thefts (32%).
Cautions were used in 14% of all theft from shop offences, 12% of drunkenness cases and 11% of public order offences.
But cautions are used in few of the six other main categories of crimes covered, including criminal damage offences (1%), handling stolen goods (3%) and trespass (4%).
The 18-22 age group make up most of the offenders (46%), with 73% of offenders male.
Mr Tolan said while a recidivism rate of 33% appeared “high”, he said the fact 67% didn’t commit a crime in the following year underlined the “success of the scheme”.
The report said while 40,000 people were diverted from the courts, there was no reduction in the total number of people being imprisoned, which actually rose by 41% in the same period.
Mr Tolan said the scheme worked “in addition to, rather then replacing existing penal options,” he said, adding “There can be little doubt the adult caution scheme has a significant role to play in diverting people away from the courts and relieving pressure on the criminal justice system.”



