From the centre.....April 2014 is about to become July 2014....and then some...a 'theoretical split' now being talked about along with whispers about a new face at Justice.....watch this space and see the tide slowly beginning to turn 21.16 17/12/2013
and then as if by magic this happens yesterday, as reported in the Guardian:-
The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes, has been appointed as minister of state for justice in a mini government reshuffle.
The move follows the decision by Lib Dem peer Lord McNally to quit the government to chair of the Youth Justice Board.
Hughes, a libertarian, will have to work with Chris Grayling, the Eurosceptic Conservative justice secretary. They are likely to clash over the Human Rights Act, legal aid, secret courts and prisoner voting rights.
Hughes is a former barrister, and has so far refused to take ministerial office, preferring to act as link-man between ministers and the party during the coalition. He also undertook a brief review for the coalition on how financial support for students could be improved in the light of the decision to increase tuition fees.
The switch of Lib Dem ministers at the MoJ may reflect grassroots pressure within the party over justice issues. Recent party conferences have condemned the coalition government for its policy on secret courts and cuts to legal aid. There has been an exodus of senior lawyers from the party in protest at the moves.
According to tweets from Harry Fletcher, it remains extremely important that contact and pressure be maintained on the Liberal Democrats in Parliament. Clearly they hold the key to stopping TR in it's tracks, but I guess there's a fairly long list of arguments they would like to pick with their Tory partners, so we must make sure that TR and the risks it poses to the public climbs further up the agenda.
The sticking point would seem to be the supervision of under 12 month custody people being proposed as part of TR. We simply must find a way of dealing with this issue as part of a plan B and an escape route for Chris Grayling and the political corner he is boxing himself into. Get thinking about this dear readers, and I will return to the subject again in the very near future.
This is a germ of an idea that I haven't properly thought through so feel free to shoot down in flames! How about simply abolishing under 12 month sentences? This would force more use of Community sentences and help to ensure custody is only used in the more serious cases to protect the public. All custodial sentences will be subject to licence. A revision of HDC or early release schemes would be useful at the same time.
ReplyDeleteRe UK criminal law blog: included in Ian Watkins mitigation was a probation report that set him at "medium risk" ! Just one more reason as to why we are sitting targets for privatisation. As pointed out time and time again on this blog we have been de professionalised through tick box computer systems particularly oasys. Common sense has been replaced by a "lets ignore the bleeding obvious " because the computer tells us to and when the proverbial hits the fan we can blame the computer or the poor sods who will be "supervising" low to medium offenders on probations behalf.
ReplyDeleteI supervise only sex offenders and that risk assessment beggars belief given the information now in the public domain, his risk is VERY HIGH - that sums up why we as a profession have lost standing
DeleteI suspect that was an RM2000 assessment, mis-quoted by someone. Roh assessment was likely high at least
DeleteOh dear,this has been my biggest bug bear throughout this whole palaver. In this discussion about separating Low/ Medium and High Risk it's become almost inevitable that people are neglecting to say risk of WHAT! It's so fundamental. Are you talking about Risk of Reoffending or Risk of Serious Harm? The mitigation is clear in the Ian Watkins case: "A PSR indicated he had a medium risk of reoffending." This is likely to be absolutely correct, based on his OGRS score, as with most sex offenders he probably hasn't been convicted much and this is one of the limitations of OGRS. Come on folks, lets not shoot ourselves in the feet.
DeleteQ: who's lying about the breakdown of negotiations? Grayling has told Parliament (via committee) that the unions sabotaged that final day; the unions insist a MoJ official (who they have named) sabotaged the day with SoS instructions. Grayling has since put his assertions in writing, alleging the unions shafted their own members. I'm not inclined to believe SoS, but either he's lying, and should be sanctioned for so doing, or he's right - which isn't an easy pill to swallow.
ReplyDeleteLove the 'germ' posted above - get thee to a policy unit... can't see much wrong with the idea at all.
I agree its the 12mth and under group that needs attention.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I've been wondering lately because this groups offending contributes significantly to the yearly crime statistics, surely it can't just be some sort of oversight that they are not subject to some form of supervision or assistance?
I think its more likely that they are a problematic and expensive group.
I have to agree that I see some merit in the comment above suggesting no custody if a sentence doesn't warrent 12mths and over. However that would still leave the same group subject to supervision, and for longer as supervision would extend accross the period normally spent in custody. (I haven't thought it through either- just innitial thoughts).
With the recent report regarding the failings of prisons and ressettlement proccesses, maybe the 12mth and under group could be incorporated into probation (remember its about cost and savings too), by seconding a very small team to work with that group alone.
They could operate within existing budgets, and have some autonomy to better understand and manage this until now pretty much neglected group. Also have some autonomy in developing networks and pathways in the local communities they operate.
Again only innitial thoughts I'm affraid.
As a PO in the 80's and 90's I, along with many colleagues, did what was called VPAC (Voluntary Prison After Care). We always had a few on our caseloads. They could be very easy, or extremely time consuming. Some who came out homeless and penniless (except for the discharge grant-not much use for anything) might need 4 or 5 meetings a day, and endless calls to benefits offices, landlords, etc, plus work to dissuade the frustrated frightened client not to take an easy way out and go shoplifting on the first evening out to get rearrested and so secure a bed for a night. (No apologies for terminology, , they were and are clients in my world).
ReplyDeleteMy point is that these clients can be very very time consuming and intensive, and work to assist will need to be very well organised, targeted and monitored.
With all the welfare reforms bedroom tax, sanctions etc, I guess the 12mth group will grow too.
DeleteHi Jim
ReplyDeleteIn the last hour the BBC website has posted the story on Serco having to pay back £68.5m as a result of the tagging fiasco: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25448674
Now I may be reading this out of context but within the story it also states; "Both security firms have withdrawn from the bidding process to win contracts to supervise offenders on their release from prison."
Is it me or does this effectively kill off the TR omnishambles in its current form?
Many would say it's a fatal blow, or at least a very serious blow and will make other bidders, shareholders and investors very wary indeed.
DeleteIn the light of today's developments, the Ministry of Justice said both G4S and Serco have decided to withdraw from the competition for rehabilitation services.
ReplyDeleteThis means that neither company will play a role as a lead provider of probation services in England and Wales in this competition.
G4S and Serco have decided to withdraw from the MoJ competition for rehabilitation services. Credit: Press Association
The Government said it has left open the possibility of either supplier playing a supporting role, working with smaller businesses or voluntary sector providers.
Unlike Serco, G4S has not yet agreed a position on repayment over the overcharging fiasco, although discussions are continuing.
Is it just me perhaps I am missing something but if someone is caught with their hands in the till then they should be sacked ASAP and be thankful they are getting the opportunity to pay it back and not being sent directly to jail. Never mind having continued involvement with the organisation they have stolen from. This is the first time I have put any comments on anything like this but I feel so angry about this whole fiasco.
ReplyDeleteYes it makes a lot of us very angry indeed! Some would say it's the very nature of capitalism and privatisation - maybe better to stick with public service after all?
DeleteJim Its "Crony Capitalism"at best or a form of fascism at worst. The definition of Fascism is where the government works for the benefit of corporations rather than the people. The corruption at the heart of government is stark; we are a small player in the middle of a battle to defend the Welfare State and the benefits fought for during two World Wars. Jim some would say It's class war and until recently with only one class fighting.
DeleteI have always thought it perverse that lay magistrates have had any powers to send anyone into custody - particularly as our criminal justice system has a means of dividng the less serious from the more serious, ie summary offences and those which need to be committed to Crown Court. Also, the apparant inequity of sentences passed on individuals across the country. It have oftimes been suggested that sentnecing is a postcode lottery also affected by discrimination and prejudice. Think about it, justice delivered by ones peers... I used to share a caf park with Magistrates and apart from the fact that they parked wheever they liked,ignoring reserved bays, they drove vehilcles so big they couldn't park them and a real give away the private plates - ask a working class female shoplifter/mother heading for HMP, if she considers them her peers? I digress...I also share the feelings expressed above in respect of the sheer unfairness of how corporations are treated, mostly forgiven, and the individual, mostly punished. Here's hoping the introduction of Simon Hughes has Mr Grayling reaching for the headache remedies and plan B.
ReplyDelete