Dear All
As in our last email, we have now met with our lawyers to consider the government’s response to our pre action protocol letter for Judicial Review. Please find below the appraisal of the current situation and the important next steps.
We set out our concerns in an 18 page letter to the Government which covered the following areas:
As in our last email, we have now met with our lawyers to consider the government’s response to our pre action protocol letter for Judicial Review. Please find below the appraisal of the current situation and the important next steps.
We set out our concerns in an 18 page letter to the Government which covered the following areas:
- The Staff Transfer
- Lack of effective Planning, Testing and Piloting
- Risks to Public Safety
- Fragmentation of The Service (lack of a coherent, joined-up service, and the resulting unanswered questions)
- Relationship between CRC and NPS (with an emphasis on the unanswered questions about the contractual and financial relationship between the two)
- Lack of Provision for Women Offenders and Mentally Disordered Offenders
- Failure of Service Delivery and the Pace of Change
We received a very detailed 44 page response from the Treasury Solicitor (TSol) which attempted to rubbish our claims. Having the benefit of their experience, our lawyers felt this level of detail was indicative of real concerns within government about the TR Programme. We have been advised that it would not be sensible to publish this exchange of correspondence at this stage, as in doing so we would need to provide a commentary on the 44 page response, which itself would potentially reveal too much of our detailed strategy to the MoJ. Please bear with us on this.
It is clear from the exchange of letters that some of our issues do not give us grounds for a legal challenge which have reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, we will not be pursuing these in Court. The issues that we will be taking further, though not through immediate proceedings, are highlighted in bold above (please see below for an explanation of why we are not progressing two of the issues above*).
The transfer of staff on 1st June is depressing, dangerous, illogical and morale sapping but there are powers to do this under the 2007 Act . We have explored every possible avenue to prevent it but we will have to accept it and refocus our energy on stopping the sell-off. We are still in with a chance here and we are pursuing it.
We have attached a letter (Napo letter 8 May 14 ) which has been presented to the Transforming Rehabilitation Consultative Forum. In a nutshell, the government claims that though it has not piloted the reforms as such, the processes to be in place post 1 June 2014 have been informed by other pilots as well as testing and debate. That is rubbish. There have been only two half-baked, unfinished pilots at HMP Doncaster and HMP Peterborough which bear no operational comparison with a fragmented service. They claim to have also run tests (called “Test Gates 1, 2 and 3”) which prove that the split can work and deliver a safe service. They have been secretive about the test results and we know from your messages to campaigns@napo.org.uk that the reality is completely different. The fact is that , in the absence of a proper pilot, an assessment of how the processes work, and the budgetary implications, can only be made after 1 June 2104.
The TSol letter expressly states that they will only move to the next stage of implementation when it is “safe” to do so. Our legal advice is that this should be demonstrated in a proper manner. Our focus is therefore on securing proper testing post 1 June as a pre requisite to moving to the selection of preferred bidders. We believe that we are in with a fighting chance of delaying the share sale and keeping Probation in the public sector.
Napo is leading the way on the legal challenge to stop privatisation and we can only do this with your help. Your emails to the campaigns@napo.org.uk inbox are providing the foundation for our case- please keep your examples coming in both before and (importantly) after 1 June 2014. There is some light at the end of the tunnel. It matters not a bean whether you are NPS or CRC, if we stick together we can keep probation public.
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
TOM RENDON IAN LAWRENCE
National Chair General Secretary
*The Staff Transfer is permissible within the terms of the offender Management Act 2007 ( as confirmed by two leading counsel). Provision for women offenders and mentally disordered offenders will be governed by the Service Level Agreements of the CRCs and NPS and therefore a court is likely to conclude there will be sufficient protection albeit provided through contractual terms (rather than direct public law requirements) - clearly our concerns remain, based on our knowledge and experience, but that is what a judge is much more likely than not to conclude.
'The transfer of staff on 1st June is depressing, dangerous, illogical and morale sapping but there are powers to do this under the 2007 Act . We have explored every possible avenue to prevent it but we will have to accept it'.
ReplyDeleteThere may well be the powers to do this HOWEVER the Trusts did not have the time to do it properly. Delius and OASys were new systems and data was not up to date. The fact is that the split was done on crap data. Napo need to look into this mess. There is plenty of evidence out there. When proved, the Trusts would have to re-do the staff transfer or pay out a considerable amount of compensation. It would certainly hold things up.
Within the employment law I am sure that employers are supposed to keep their staff consulted on the processes that they will be using , from what I know, none of us were told about what criteria they were using for the shafting process until after they had done it. I think this is illegal. I hope I am right in my thinking I recall reading this somewhere.
DeleteSorry, if it is not illegal it is certainly grounds for an appeal, AS STAFF WERE NOT PROPERLY CONSULTED, NAPO TAKE NOTE.
DeleteI'm not sure if this is a copy of the first email sent out, they sent a second one with the areas in bold highlighted as the ones to move forward on. Good to see non Napo members being kept in the loop, I suspect they are the ones shouting loudest on here that theUnions are not doing anything!
ReplyDeleteUnessecary.
DeleteCheque's in the post, promise not to come in your mouth, trust me I'm a doctor, please bear with us on this... all sound very familiar to me because I seem to have fallen for each & every one.
ReplyDeleteA train has not actually crashed until it hits a wall. Until that moment, it's momentum is maintained. The crash is getting closer by the mile.
DeleteMy train crashed some time ago.
DeleteDoes anyone have a list of bidders still in this?
ReplyDeleteStaff transfer maybe permissible, but there is a process by which this transfer should take place, and every staff should have been kept informed of it but we were not, tell this to your 2 leading counsels. Was this explained to them.
ReplyDeleteWas it truly legal, fair and reasonable to use a random day of the year as a basis for transferring staff to nps or crc? In many cases it seems the rules didn't apply anyway - more a case of reward or punishment (or revenge?) imposed by Trust managers.
DeleteSo what did Rumpole have to say about the impact of crc on staff? Loss of officer of the court status etc?
My thoughts too- the transfer of staff may have complied with the 2007 Act but the method used,based on questionable data and imposed AFTER the Min of J had given the impression the split would be decided after looking at the work staff did over a period of two years for frontline staff and five for team managers and above. With N Delius that became impossible so they settled on this retrospective date . I am not alone in being in a situation that I was assigned to a post by SMT -6 days before 11//11/14 which meant I was automatically assigned to the CRC. If I had been able to stay in my original post I would have been assigned to the NPS. I fail to see how you can have something like this deemed legal and fair when the outcomes are going to be so different. It remains to be seen what will happen to CRC staff but if you have ended up there (not opted to go)keep records of everything from your job description etc- if you are asked to take on new tasks and there is no negociation - keep a copy of the emil etc- this will all hit the courts/ETs in a couple of years with a few test cases-just make sure you have a record-if it isn't written down it has not happened.
DeleteAnon 21.58 have you passed that point on through the appropriate channels? This site is just turning into a soundingboard for cynics and barrack room lawyers! There are a lot of criticism s that I have of my union Napo, but I do not doubt for onr minute they are pulling out all the details stops to try and stop TR.
ReplyDeleteNo I have not I am not in NAPO, when all this happened I read a lot of employment law to see if there was grounds for appeal, I didn't know how to take this forward. But I do recall that the process should have been explained and staff consulted throughout, but this did not happen, at least not in Manchester, we were told the date of the shafting after they had done it.
DeleteAnonymous11 May 2014 22:12 - stop it by setting up probation institute? stop it by applying for a post in the CRC? stop it by attending interview on the eve the strike action was being called? stop it by chasing loose ends?
Deletecome on, the only person your kidding is yourself.
Apologies for poor spelling and grammar on my last post, having to write on my phone as I cannot post on to this blog on my ipad. Small screen, hard to see what I have written.
ReplyDeleteWhat hold do MOJ have over the chiefs and directors who know the above is true but are not speaking out? Okay so they felt pressured into doing the staff transfer in an unrealistic time frame and they went ahead and did it anyway. They must have correspondence advising MOJ that it would be inaccurate and illegal? They did it anyway. Someone out there can now take a stand and stick up for our service. Is this why the enhanced redundancy has been put on hold? Keeping everyone in their pockets for a little longer? Well that's fine. I just really hope ex-chiefs out there are collating the evidence for after they get their pay off. That's the very least they could do.
ReplyDeleteI have found some more information on outsourcing, and I think I was write in my thinking about consultation-"Consultation is Necessary with Outsourcing
ReplyDeleteIt is not legal to simply outsource departments to a service company without consulting employees in the first place – that's a vital part of workers' rights. The consultation should be with trade union representatives or, if no unions are active in the firm, an elected body of employees. The consultation phase should make sure that all affected employees are given good notice of the change by the employer, explain the impact, and detail any other elements of reorganisation that may happen at the same time" This is a quote taken from employment law.
Worryingly I expect moj to be able to evidence that those consultations happened with napo. And TR is not outsourcing, its exercising Sec of State powers to provide probation services as s/he sees fit. As has been oft repeated, this has been planned for many years and the slow-burn legislation has been installed over numerous Acts. Napo took its eye off the ball when Judy told everyone she was awestruck by being in the cabinet office - napo was publicly outed as being out of its league at that point. JL was a poor replacement for the otherwise excellent Judy - sadly we didn't realise how inappropriate JL would prove himself to be.
DeleteAnd blind to the sleight of hand, here we are - naked, bound and waiting for our Master to impose the next humiliation. The complicit CEOs, Chairs and others won't dare say a word. As Thatcher might have said, they're "frit".
Even if the MOJ can evidence that the consultations happened, why are there diversity issues within the shafting. Black staff, female staff, older staff and those with protective characteristics are all over represented in the CRC, they can use this data, this is also written in law and one that the consultation papers which were given to us after the split states should be equal. I didn't see this in NAPO's reasoning for a JR.
DeleteBecause napo were complicit, maybe? Just a wild thought.
DeleteWe know that has not happened as staff, however, legally as stated above and taking legal counsel who im sure have gone over everything with a fine toothcomb, it is a non starter for getting a JR. This has been communicated on a number of occasions.
ReplyDeleteI don't dispute what you are saying, but anytime I try and talk with the unions they seem to dismiss things, it seems they want something big to fight the government with but sometimes a simple thing as quoted above can shake things. I don't think NAPO advised their counsel that staff were not consulted. You can tell by the way the response has been written, "Staff transfer is permissible under the offender management act", no mention of the employment act.
ReplyDeletePlease don't forget the existing records from PAC etc. The noms and moj staff must be kept accountable for their weasel words and red herrings.
ReplyDeletehttp://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/probation-trust-landscape-review/oral/7395.pdf
That was a very interesting read; there was some serious squirming that came across there and the holes in the arguments appear to be obvious to all....
DeleteSimilarly with the justice committe papers. Jeremy Wright in March 14:
ReplyDelete"It is also worth making the point, so that the wrong impression is not given, that we are not talking about diverting everyone with a mental health problem away from the criminal justice system. Some will still need to go through that process. But there are a large number also who we would all agree simply should not be there and, once they get into the criminal justice system, they end up eventually in custody because the criminal justice system seems to have very few options other than that in the end. It is advisable that we avoid that wherever we can. That is what liaison and diversion is designed to do."
We have no liaison or diversion schemes relating to mental health OR substance misuse. RIC or NFA are the usual options, with police cells as an interim measure.
DeleteI am as angry as everyone else, but I think we have known for a long time now, that the Grayling is not for turning! Collectively and individually we have mounted a campaign against TR, as we know all too well the impact this will have on us, communities and service users; but the truth is, the MoJ and SoS are not listening. I sometimes feel colleagues, in writing on this blog, naively think Napo has any real authority or trade union nous; and in holding onto that belief, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, we do ourselves no favours. There is no 'fight' as such and the absence of officials shouting loudly from roof tops and utilizing the press and media, is nothing less than cruel and unusual punishment for those of us, who see ourselves as trade unionists and not just a professional body. People are weary, fearful and confused....but I have rarely met a colleague, whether PSO or PO who is not capable of navigating their way through trials and tribulations. WE do a great job, we can continue to do a great job, the one we love and the one we have striven to achieve through decades of change and piffle. I do not want to sound unsympathetic, as I know the months ahead will have disastrous consequences for some, but there lies our next challenege. Maintain the service and support each other, to minimise the harm being done to the service, its clients and its workforce.
ReplyDeleteWe should refrain from taking pot shots at each other and concentrate on the bigger picture. Individually, we cannot passively sit by, and allow this to wash over us and the landscape; and in doing what you can, you will, ultimately feel a bit better.
'We do a great job, we can continue to do a great job, the one we love...' That job has gone for all of us if the share sale goes through. 'In doing what you can, you will, ultimately feel a bit better'. No. We won't. We don't have to be part of this. We can do our hours, stick to our job descriptions (when we get them) and go home, until the time comes when we are fortunate enough to find another job.
DeleteYes, do all that, but ensure the face to face work you do with our clients remains unchanged. Only if we put TR first, or the stick to the letter, as described above, will the job lose it's meaning for us as individuals. I recognise it's a challenge, but so is working with it and against it.
DeleteIt's a blog Jim, but not as we know it..
ReplyDeleteOff topic and a different fight, but would anyone like to sign this?
ReplyDeleteHave you heard about the latest plans for a government sell-off? HMRC are considering selling off our tax records to private companies. Our incomes, the amount of tax we pay, and our tax histories could be sold to the highest bidder.
Back in February, hundreds of thousands of us spoke out against the government’s plans to sell off our medical data - and we helped to get the plans paused for 6 months.
We can do the same with the tax data sell-off, but we need to make the outcry huge. I’ve signed a petition to HMRC which has almost hit 250,000 signatures. 38 Degrees members are handing it in to HMRC’s offices in less than two days’ time, on Wednesday morning.
Can you add your name before then to make sure that we make as big a splash as possible? Click here to sign the petition now: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/hmrc-petition
NOTES [1] The staff team invited 38 Degrees
Anon 15:04
ReplyDeleteIts the same fight we are fighting the creation of a for profit shadow state. Huge multi-national corporations fulfil the functions of the state and make mega profit as they go. The corporations buy off the politicians and enslave the workers. Its Neo-Fudalism mate that what we are fighting.
papa
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/grayling-to-be-represented-at-vhcc-protest-appeal/5041218.article
DeleteThe lord chancellor is to be represented at tomorrow’s appeal challenging a Crown court judge’s decision to throw out a major fraud trial for want of defence counsel, the Gazette has learned.
DeleteAt the last minute, Chris Grayling has sought, and been granted, leave to be represented as an interested party in R v Crawley and Others, a case arising out of the Operation Cotton investigation.
He will be represented by joint head of chambers at Blackstone Chambers Anthony Peto QC and Peter Woodall, who joined the Public Defender Service last month from Carmelite Chambers.
At Southwark Crown Court earlier this month, His Honour Judge Anthony Leonard stayed the prosecution against five defendants in relation to an alleged £4.5m land banking fraud. The five defendants were represented pro bono by the prime minister’s brother Alex Cameron QC, head of chambers at 3 Raymond Buildings.
Following the refusal by barristers to accept the most serious criminal cases after the government cut fees by 30% (barristers claim the sum is 44%), no advocates could be found to take the case.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman told the Gazette the Financial Conduct Authority, which brought the prosecution – its first since it was established in April 2013 – has made a request for Grayling to be involved in the appeal.
He said: ‘Following a request from the Financial Conduct Authority, the MoJ will be making representations at the appeal hearing to ensure the fullest possible information is before the court in reaching a decision.’
He would not comment further on the case, but said: ‘It is important to ensure that justice is properly served.’
A spokesman for the FCA confirmed the request, but would not comment on why it had been made.
Phil Smith, partner at Tuckers, which represents one of the defendants, said: ‘It’s a very late move for him [Grayling] to get involved. What precise series of events has lead to it and at whose behest one can only speculate on.’
He added: ‘Because of the funding issue, I’m not surprised he is involved. In this case I wouldn’t rule anything out – expect the unexpected.’
The appeal outcome could have serious consequences for other major fraud trials.
At least seven major trials, including an investigation into the alleged manipulation of Libor rates and the FCA’s largest and most complex investigation into insider-trading, Operation Tabernula, could be in jeopardy.
Tomorrow’s case will be heard in Court 4 at 10.30 by Sir Brian Leveson with Lords Justice Treacy and Davis.
As someone has previously suggested, maybe grayling's ultimate goal was to allow these "ever so complicated" cases to collapse so his financial sectir chums can escape the justice they deserve.
Deletehttp://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/12/politicians-expertise-criminal-justice
ReplyDeleteAn excellent and succinct letter
Delete• If I want to build a bridge, I call in a firm of civil engineers who specialise in bridge-building. If I want a railway built, again I call in a team of specialist railway engineers. When it comes to human beings, however, why is it that politicians seem to believe that they are the experts on dealing with crime and punishment and not psychologists, psychiatrists, probation officers, etc, who spend their lives working and studying this particularly challenging aspect of human behaviour.
Rex Harpham
Tavistock, Devon
Anyone know about the position of the accredited programmes in all of this? Are they NPS?
ReplyDeleteOnly SOTP is being retained in NPS
ReplyDeleteWent to an 'event' yesterday when the new SMT line up was introduced to the staff and the subtext of the message was the struggle against these changes is over, now go back to your offices like good little boys and girls and embrace these changes...is it time to buckle or time for the resistance to enter another phase?
ReplyDeleteIt is not over.
Deletehttp://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80181468/
DeleteI think PbR is also just about over.
Deletehttp://mobile.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3513662/ministry-of-justice-fixes-atos-billing-system-8-years-into-500m-deal/
LONDON (Reuters) - British outsourcing firms G4S and Serco should be barred from bidding for government work until a fraud investigation into their failed criminal-tagging contracts is complete, a penal reform charity said on Tuesday.
DeleteThe two firms were found in July to have charged for monitoring criminals who were dead, in prison or had not been tagged at all. The scandal led to a ban on new work, managerial departures, business overhauls and big hits to shares and profits at both companies.
While the issue remains the subject of an investigation by Britain's Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the government said in January Serco could resume bidding for new work, and gave G4S the all-clear in April after both made hefty repayments and overhauled their UK businesses and ethics and risk procedures.
The Howard League for Penal Reform, a British charity, criticized that move and said on Tuesday it would hand a dossier outlining failures in recent years by both firms in delivering justice contracts to police in order to assist the SFO inquiry.
The Howard League said it would also send a more comprehensive report considering failures by other private firms such as Sodexo and GEOAmey to Britain's Public Accounts Committee, which has been critical of the role of outsourcing companies in delivering public services.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not know what services were delivered and paid for within its £500 million IT contract with Atos, ComputerworldUK can exclusively reveal.
DeleteFollowing Serco and G4S’ electronic tagging scandal, the MoJ dodged another overcharging fiasco at the close of last year, ComputerworldUK has found. Eight years into the contract and five months after the irregularities were discovered, work to resolve invoicing and pricing mechanism issues is “ongoing”, the MoJ said.
The MoJ Contract Management Review Findings and Recommendations Report December 2013 by Barclays and MoJ’s non-executive director Tim Breedon found invoicing and payment problems gave "rise to the risk of material errors or irregularities in charging, or a significant operational failure” in Atos' IT contract.
Ministry of Justice finds problems with more G4S contracts Ministry of Justice offender tagging contract could top £3.5bn Ministry of Defence spent £3.6bn on ICT in two years
The review found that the MoJ authorised invoices based on Atos’ own service delivery data and that, “in some instances, MoJ has minimal visibility of what is being delivered and what is being paid for”. The ministry refused to comment on exactly how much of the contract suffered from visibility issues.
ComputerworldUK understands that the IT infrastructure services that were subject to payment queries consist of desktop, service desk, networks printing, hosting/data centre, applications and security services as part of the DISC (Development, Innovation and Support Contract), which covers all aspects of the Ministry of Justice and the court system. The 10-year long DISC contract cost the MoJ £47.2 million last year.
The MoJ insisted that: "There is absolutely no evidence of overcharging or misreporting of information regarding the Atos contract to provide IT services to the courts.
"The report merely identified areas where the MoJ could further improve the management of the contract. These are being taken forward to ensure the taxpayer continues to receive value for money."
Atos has said that it supports transparency in its contracts, and that it is working with the government to enable this.
Contract problems were not confined to IT, the report revealed. Visibility problems and authorisation of invoices based on suppliers' own service delivery data occured in seven of the 15 most expensive MoJ contracts last year.
I agree, it is not over by a long chalk!
ReplyDeleteHad an interesting experience this morning - 6.45am to be precise. I walk my dogs each morning - it's cathartic and they'd eat the furniture, if I didn't. My usual stroll on open fields was particularly enjoyable this am, due to heavy rainfall, the grass has grown very high and as my dogs entered into the field, seemingly, empathically aware of what I am going through, they ran headlong into the long, wet and mazelike field. Something else happened. On route home, as I joined a main road, I witnessed mayhem...cars and vans pulling off all kinds of dangerous maneuvers, in the battle to get to their workplace before everyone else; but there was 2 large obstacles in their way - 2 cows had escaped from an adjoining field and were startled and confused, as I was. Most of the motorists gave no thought to the dangers, as these beautiful animals desperately sought to find their way back into the fields. So, I decided, simultaneously with another female driver to effectively manage the traffic...I pulled out with hazards on, to ensure the traffic could be staggered; and the other woman did likewise. You would not believe the abuse, pipping of horns and downright nastiness from other drivers, who ii seems as so important, they did not mind endangering the lives of other motorists and the cows. As if by magic another farmer happened by and he, on foot attempted to herd the cows, open a gate to a field and try to usher them in, but they were having non of it. We persisted, undaunted by the madness erupting all around and finally ensured the cows were back in their field. What really made my day was this, as the other female driver who stopped, shewas on her phone to the intensive care unit at the local NHS Hospital where she worked, to advise she would be running late, it occurred to me, that she and I were living proof of all we think to be good about public services, we care...whereas, almost everyone else on the road this morning, couldn't give a shit.
JB - This also reminded me of a certain story in the Justice of the Peace Magazine, from 1979, I think! "Mornin' George".
Thks for this! What is going to be under increasing pressure in days ahead though is colleagues willingness to take extra demands on whether its for clients/colleagues or whatever.Good will has been stretched too far and Gov't & mansgement have to recognise this.
ReplyDeleteI think if Grayling is on the road this morning he may be just a tad concerned too.
ReplyDeleteIf he loses this appeal about legal aid cuts and being able to get a fair trial all his CJS reforms will once again be put under the media microscope.
I really hope its not your day Chris G.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5e05-POA-conference-Is-now-the-time-for-a-general-strike
ReplyDeleteNicola Hill, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, said: "Isn't it interesting that the justice secretary, when he finds himself in need of legal representation in front of the courts, turns to a top-drawer set of chambers at the taxpayers' expense."Meanwhile he expects someone whose liberty is at stake, who can't afford a private lawyer, to make do with whatever is left once he has destroyed the criminal justice system. The irony and hypocrisy of the MoJ double standards isn't lost on any of us."
ReplyDeleteAnyone know where the court staff for the electronic monitoring are left in this. Apparently only NPS can breach so I assume we will be taking on their stand alone breaches as well? Anyone have any clarification?
ReplyDeleteInteresting article by Sadiq Khan.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/13/comment-grayling-has-closed-his-ears-to-civil-society-and-pu
Prisons should be about punishment and reform, something I've repeatedly said since I became shadow justice secretary in 2010. Depriving someone of their liberty – their freedom to come and go as they please, to go to the pub, to see their kids and go shopping – is one of the state's most important powers. It's reserved for those committing the most serious offences.
DeleteBut we also know that nine out of ten of those behind bars now will have finished their sentences and be back living in the community again within a decade. Nobody wants them to repeat their crimes. We don't want any more misery inflicted on society. So the time spent behind bars needs to be time spent making sure offenders are reformed. That means tackling deep-seated mental health problems, alcohol and drug dependency, equipping them with the skills and education that makes finding and holding down a job is easier. Dumping them back onto the streets no different than when they went into jail is a failure of our prisons.
This won't be made any easier if prisons are violent places where offenders are left to fester. In fact, it'll be made all the more harder. And our prisons are getting worse under this government. There were more deaths in custody last year than ever before, staffing levels have seen deep cuts, there's a shortage of places and violence against prison staff is up sharply. Prisoners are idling away more of their time in their cells and on landings than four years ago. None of this adds up to an environment conducive to punishment and reform.
And this is important because when people are held in prison they are in the care of the state. Yes, that time behind bars is meant to be a punishment but it's not meant to be a den of violence where people fear for their safety on a daily basis. That's not right, and won't do much to stop re-offending, or prevent more victims of crime in the future. I take that responsibility very seriously indeed. Too many people die in prison and too many mistakes are still made. We need to be much better at how prisons are run, and how they punish and reform.
But politicians and officials in the Ministry of Justice don't have a monopoly on how this might best be achieved. Other groups are crucial. And civic society performs a major role. Organisations with a specific cause bring their expertise and views to the debate. They might be opposing views to mine, or to other groups involved, but that makes for a heady mix of opinions and a healthy debate. That tension leads to improved scrutiny of government policy and, ultimately, better decision making. In short, there's nothing to be feared from this kind of atmosphere.
Yet this government appear to have declared war on civil society. Stung by criticisms of their policy, they've pursued an agenda designed to silence those daring to question the impacts of government legislation. They’ve even gone so far as to try to insulate themselves from legal challenge, meaning that the government has placed itself above the rule of law. Just think about that for a moment – a Tory-led government deciding the legality of its actions can no longer be questioned – and consider the implications for our democracy.
Let's remember the roll call of shame - cuts to legal aid, curtailing judicial review, attacks on human rights legislation, making freedom of information request more difficult and legislating for the loathed gagging bill amount to a substantial onslaught on free speech, campaigning and democracy. The Tories have been taken over by a majoritarian view that the party that wins an election has the right to do whatever it likes, free from being held to account and even free to ignore the rule of law.
Unlike the Tories, Labour believes that democracy is more than just voting. Democracy is about active citizenship, mass-membership of political parties, trade unions and campaign groups. It's about holding to account those in power at all times, and not just at elections. We know such criticism can be tough when you're in government but that’s a product of a healthy, open democracy. You don’t shut down debate just because you don’t like it.
DeletePolitics.co.uk's report that Chris Grayling has blocked research into sex in prisons by the Howard League for Penal Reform fits this pattern of behaviour. Some suggest it's because they’ve been a persistent thorn in his side. Others have argued that it's because it's an embarrassing subject he doesn't want out in the open. Either way, this is another example of the Tory-led government elbowing civic society aside, and shows a justice secretary unfit for the job.
I've been on the end of the odd stinging rebuke from the Howard League myself, but that wouldn't mean I'd want to shut them up. What is the point of having pressure groups if they don't put pressure on politicians? It is their job to be an advocate for their vision for prisons. Credit where credit is due, it was their chief executive Frances Crook’s original blog post for Politics.co.uk on the iniquitous ban on sending books to prisoners which exploded the issue into the open.
Should I become justice secretary, a request to research the subject of sex in prisons would be looked on favourably. After all, this is isn't a frivolous topic, like some kind of 1970s Carry On film. It's deadly serious. Sex does go on in prisons and there's no point the justice secretary denying it. And any seasoned visitor to a prison will be struck by the posters warning of Hepatitis B plastered to the walls. There are genuine public health concerns this research would get to grips with that have implications for public policy.
What's more, sex isn't always consensual. Sadly, sexual violence and rape does go on, and we should be determined to root it out and do all we can to stop it. Crimes are crimes even when behind bars. Instead, Chris Grayling wants to bury his head in the sand and ignore it, probably because it doesn't fit his right-wing agenda of throwing red meat to his restless backbenchers. But that's no way to run a justice system and love them or loathe them, the Howard League and other organisations are here to stay. Long may that be the case.
Sadiq Khan is Labour MP for Tooting and shadow justice secretary.
I note that many organisations are taking the opportunity to raise CJ issues with the media today knowing that what ever happens with the appeal regarding legal aid Graylings policies will by this evening be all over the media networks. I fear that probation has not taken that same opportunity. It seems clear to me that Graylings involvement by bringing in representation has put the appeal court in a very difficult. In short he's asking the judges to ratify his political policies rather then uphold the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteWin, lose or draw, it's going to be a bad day for Grayling (I personally feel the appeal will be dismissed), and good on those that have used todays events as a platform for drawing attention to their own plights. Maybe theres lessons to be learned there somewhere?
From the Law gazette
ReplyDelete"The Court of Appeal today allowed the lord chancellor to intervene in a challenge to the decision to stay a very high cost case (VHCC) prosecution hit by protest action over cuts to legal aid.
Sir Brian Leveson (pictured), sitting with Lords Justice Treacy and Davis, agreed to allow the last-minute intervention but refused the lord chancellor permission to introduce new evidence.
Anthony Peto QC, appearing for the lord chancellor, said that Chris Grayling is 'entirely neutral' as to the outcome of the appeal.
The court is hearing an appeal by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) against a decision by His Honour Judge Leonard earlier this month to stay the 'Operation Cotton' prosecution against five defendants.
The FCA argues that the stay should be reversed as sufficient Public Defender Service advocates would be available in January and it is in the public interest that the case is adjourned until then.
The FCA also argues that the Crown court should have opted for an adjournment as a lesser remedy than a stay.
Automatic reporting restrictions under S71 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act were lifted after a request by the press. Judgment has been reserved."
I think this merits repeating here in the light of the finding:
DeleteAnonymous13 May 2014 11:19
Nicola Hill, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, said: "Isn't it interesting that the justice secretary, when he finds himself in need of legal representation in front of the courts, turns to a top-drawer set of chambers at the taxpayers' expense.
"Meanwhile he expects someone whose liberty is at stake, who can't afford a private lawyer, to make do with whatever is left once he has destroyed the criminal justice system. The irony and hypocrisy of the MoJ double standards isn't lost on any of us."
Rather than using our brass to dig Grayling out of the shite, perhaps the govt could put the ultra-expensive Peto to work prosecuting some well known scoundrels (a la Howard League dossier) given his particular expertise and commitment to working for the Crown:
Delete"Prior to his appointment to Silk, Tony was counsel to the Crown on the Attorney General's 'A' Panel.
Tony Peto QC has practised commercial and corporate litigation in the Queen's Bench, Chancery Divisions and Commercial Court since 1986. His single largest specialist practice area is in international corporate fraud, but he has also acted in a wide range of Commercial and Public Law matters. He has also represented Government bodies in commercial and public law cases as an ‘A’ panelist and as a Silk."
How can Grayling be 'neutral'? He's entirely the reason that the whole debacle has come about. Nicola Hill hits the nail squarely on the head. If the FCA appeal is upheld, Grayling gets his political way. If its turned down, Grayling gets hammered as he'll be seen as responsible for the alleged fraudsters walking free - and it becomes a new get-out-of-jail stunt until the loophole is closed.
DeleteGrayling is 100% partisan to the outcome.
30 years in13 May 2014 08:17 - great example - kept me tuned in. Sadly, I would say that some of those drivers are also present in probation i.e. driving this reckless Grayling's TR agenda.
ReplyDelete