State of Emergency
Should we think of prison officers as emergency workers? This week’s new law creating tougher penalties for assaults on such workers certainly does so. The categorisation seemed a bit odd to me - what about probation staff or youth workers who don’t make the list? They get thumped – or worse - from time to time - I got a head butt from a lad on Intermediate Treatment back in the 80's. Anyway, I concluded that philosophically, it might be quite helpful to think of imprisonment as an emergency – an abnormal and harmful situation which we should do everything possible to prevent, minimise and help sufferers to recover from.
This week’s warning letter from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about HMP Bedford describes a more straightforward emergency in terms of immediate risks to health, life and property. The horror stories include a prisoner luring rats into his cell and killing them - an amputee trying to stay clean by splashing water on himself from the sink - and frightened or incompetent staff unwilling to intervene with one group of rowdy prisoners or acceding to unreasonable demands from another to get them back into their cells. Peter Clarke found attacks on staff – some serious - taking place at least every other day and even more frequent incidents of self-harm among prisoners. It's little surprise that this has proved a last straw for the Prison Officers Association who have flirted with illegality to organise a national protest.
In his response to the industrial action Prison Minister Rory Stewart claimed that “we are taking the action that needs to be taken.” But are they? Alongside harsher penalties for violent prisoners, body worn cameras, ‘police-style’ handcuffs and restraints, incapacitant spray and patrol dogs on landings look like a narrow and lopsided remedy. Stewart must recognise this; in Parliament, he described as “a very reasonable proposal” Labour’s idea for an emergency plan, with new Treasury funds, to end overcrowding and end under staffing.
What should such a plan look like? There’s certainly a need to revise upward the target for recruiting new prison staff. Current plans will not lead to the necessary ratios But action is needed on the demand side too.
Given the concentration of the worst difficulties in local prisons, the government should move immediately on their proposal to reduce the use of short sentences. We don’t know the makeup of Bedford’s population today but when inspectors last went in 2016, a fifth of prisoners were serving sentences of less than 12 months. Cutting these numbers would free up not only space but officer time in receiving and releasing petty offenders every day.
Rory Stewart may be right that “something as serious as changing our entire sentencing policy would require primary legislation and a lot of discussion in the House” but while getting that process going, his boss David Gauke, the Lord Chief Justice and new Chair of the Sentencing Council should find ways of encouraging courts to suspend more short prison sentences or convert them into community orders.
One way might be to introduce a new national presumption against the use of short custodial sentences, recommended yet again this week in a thoughtful report from CREST Advisory. Another might be to reinstate the principle that courts should take overcrowding and other painful realities of prison life into account when determining the punitive weight of a sentence.
Before sending people off to HMP Bedford, judges from Luton and St Albans Crown Courts and surrounding Magistrates’ Courts ought surely to reflect on the conditions there and the fact that one prisoner in five say they acquire a drug habit after arrival. Local consultation arrangements involving police, prosecutors, courts, probation and prisons - such as those introduced after the Woolf Report into the Strangways riot - need to be reinvigorated.
Ensuring such arrangements between justice agencies are in place across the country could also help to limit the numbers on remand – over a quarter of prisoners at Bedford in 2016 -and those recalled for breaching orders - 10% in Bedford.
There are many longer term measures that need to be taken to stabilise prisons such as providing an opportunity for prisoners to earn earlier – maybe much earlier - release. Rightly or wrongly, too many prisoners feel they have little to gain by abiding by the rules. Again, while legislation would be needed in the long term, some measures along these lines might be introduced without it. Constitutional purists might quibble, but the whole point of a state of emergency is that it requires governments to do things that normally aren’t permitted.
Rob Allen
There’s no way I’m going to work in a prison in the current climate I will leave if it became likely. I am reluctant to arrange any visits too at the moment which u fortunately doesn’t help with working relationships What a mess it all is
ReplyDeleteThe problem with short sentences is they are determined by the offence committed, and not the impact that they may have on the individuals offending behaviour.
DeleteTo impose a three month custodial sentence on someone who has already served a number of short sentences is a nonsense. It achieves nothing. It's an accepted occupational hazard on the way to collecting £46 as you pass Go hoping your next chance or community chest will deliver a better result.
On the other hand a three month sentence for someones first custodial may be too long.
As with your first week in a new job your generally pretty nervous, not sure if you're doing things quite right, not sure if you fit in, or how others perceive you. When you've been there six weeks you're acclimatised, you know the ropes. It isn't daunting anymore, even if you don't like the job.
The same applies to a short term of imprisonment. Once acclimatised, and realise you can cope, it becomes far more easy, and much of the deterent factor that a short custodial may have on an individual is forever lost.
A presumption against short sentences would certainly help ease the prison crisis of today. But sentencing policy, how and why sentences are imposed needs considerable consideration going forward.
'Getafix
"Press release
ReplyDeleteMichael Spurr leaving role as Chief Executive of HMPPS
Michael Spurr will be leaving his role as Chief Executive of Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service at the end of March 2019, after 35 years in the service and nearly 9 years leading it."
No hurry then?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/michael-spurr-leaving-role-as-chief-executive-of-hmpps?platform=hootsuite
No doubt a golden handshake. Have to wonder though if the decision to go was all his?
DeleteCan you access this Andrew?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-to-keep-young-adults-out-of-prison-tmr5fp3n9
Are young adults a special category of offender? England and Wales’s most senior judge believes so: Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, argues that they should be treated differently by courts because they are still immature and should be sentenced more lightly, sometimes even spared jail.
DeleteHe told The Times earlier this year that offenders who are over 18 but in their early 20s are still “young”. Yet once they reach 18, they fall under the adult sentencing regime. He said, however, that there was “no cliff edge when you get to 18. And we all know from experience that those between the ages of 18 and, say, 21, 22, are still, in many ways youths.”
He added: “We know they tend to be reckless sometimes and there’s growing medical and scientific evidence that the brains of young people simply don’t fully develop until sometime after 18.”
Today the same conclusion is reached in a report funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust and researched by the Howard League, a founding member of Transition to Adulthood Alliance (T2A), a coalition of 16 leading criminal justice, health and youth charities including the Prince’s Trust, the Prison Reform Trust and Restorative Justice Council. The report concludes that 18 to 25-year-olds are a distinct group, still maturing — and that the courts are failing to take that into account.
“As a result, young adults are being sent deeper into the penal system than necessary, often increasing their risk of reoffending and harming them in the process,” the report says.
The figures are stark: more than 140,000 young adults aged 18 to 25 are sentenced each year and they are disproportionately represented in the justice system. According to a 2016 report by the Commons justice committee, “adults under the age of 25 represent 10 per cent of the general population, but account for 30 to 40 per cent of cases, including police time, of those supervised by probation and prison entrants”.
The report cites evidence of the striking and prevailing characteristics of the age group to back up its recommendation. The first point is that the frontal lobe of the brain — the area that helps to regulate decision-making and control impulses, according to the Royal College of Psychiatrists — does not cease development until about the age of 25. Such evidence has prompted senior paediatricians to urge that adolescence is redefined as being between the ages of 10 and 24.
At the same time, there is also evidence of disproportionate levels of learning disability, brain injury and communication impairment within the age group.
Among black and minority ethnic groups, higher levels of deprivation means they are more likely to come into contact with the justice system. Moreover, half of young men under 21 who enter the criminal justice system have experience of the care system, the National Audit Office has found.
Yet sentencing practice for young adults barely differs from that for older adults. While those aged between 18 and 20 are not sent to adult jails but are detained in young offender institutions, such differences of terminology do not affect the sentencing process in any material way, the report says. The sentencing process does not sufficiently factor in lessons from neuroscience, psychology and criminology concerning young adults’ development — and is out of step with the recommendations of the justice committee.
In 2016 the committee said: “In our view there is strong case for a distinct approach to the treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system . . . Dealing effectively with young adults while the brain is still developing is crucial for them in making successful transitions to a crime-free adulthood.”
It ma
It may be that the push for a different sentencing regime is being made at an opening door. The Ministry of Justice accepts that young adults have distinct needs, suggesting it is “open to a distinct approach”, the report notes. In 2017 Phillip Lee, the former justice minister, accepted that there were “particular needs for this age group” that should be taken into account where possible.
DeleteThat approach is common abroad. In Germany 18 to 20-year-olds can be sentenced under juvenile or adult law; in Austria the juvenile custodial facilities have been extended to cater for young adults up to the age of 27.
In a report last year the Howard League found that courts are able to take age and maturity into account as a mitigating factor, but are not likely to do so routinely without clear guidance. Relevant guidelines from the Sentencing Council on a case before the court that specifically mention age or lack of maturity make a significant difference.
So what should be done? The report says that overarching guidelines are needed, like those that exist for children. Just including age or lack of maturity as a mitigating factor is not enough; “Sentencing principles for young adults are required to ensure that courts fully factor in the needs of young adults.”
Critics will say that this amounts to going soft on youths and the purpose of sentencing is to protect the public from offenders. Yet, the report concludes, preventing reoffending is equally important for the public’s protection.
Formal sentencing principles for young adults would help judges and magistrates says Howard League report
Deletehttps://www.t2a.org.uk/2018/09/20/formal-sentencing-principles-for-young-adults-would-help-judges-and-magistrates-says-howard-league-report/
DeletePrison service chief Michael Spurr told to step down
Announcement of Spurr’s departure comes amid ongoing crisis in jails in England and Wales
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/20/prison-service-chief-michael-spurr-told-to-step-down?CMP=share_btn_tw
Most of that period is likely to be garden leave.
ReplyDeleteAttended CJM 2018 yesterday. Very little mention of Probation or Police which I fed back as a criticism. Primary focus was on prisons. My point was that conference was about Justice (not just prisons).
ReplyDeleteHave also fed back for the next conference that I think they should introduce a session looking at international lessons learnt and areas of international good practice that we could consider in the UK.
Evidently there is some very innovative thinking happening in Albania especially in the areas of restorative justice and rehabilitation (on the services side).
A writer of "Weasel Words" has been appointed "New Chair of the Parole Board"
ReplyDeletehttps://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2013/11/weasel-words.html
Great news Spurs lost his spurs hahah sorry for the pun. No more excessive and objectionable unearned bonus whilst prisoners suffer inhumane conditions staff underpaid under valued underrated for the jobs. Probation in a shambles and the architect of stupidity walks with his pension unlike all the others he destroyed. Are you taking your number 2 Mr Barton with you as you are all accomplices to the same gross failures. Good riddance.
ReplyDelete"Mr Spurr will remain in post and will be a part of the team that will manage the transition."
ReplyDeleteIf probation staff could leave on the sort of terms Spurr will doubtless enjoy we'd all leave. Instead Grayling gets a trainset and Spurr departs unscathed and we get left with the mess of their creation.
ReplyDeleteOh, contrary to popular belief, the government will say Spurr's done very well over the years so undoubtedly he'll be showered with even more rewards:
Delete* 2007/08 Salary £120-125K + £34,700 'benefits...'
* 2008/09 Salary 130-135K + £32,500 'benefits...'
* 2009/10 Salary £130-135K + Bonus £10-15K, or...
? 2009/10 Salary £140-145K + Bonus as above + £17,900 'benefits...'?
* 2010/11 Salary £140-145K + Bonus £5-10K
* 2011/12 Salary £140-145K No Bonus declared
* 2012/13 Salary £140-145K No Bonus declared + Pension Benefits of £38K
* 2013/14 Salary £145-150K No Bonus declared + Pension Benefits £2K
* 2014/15 Salary £145-150K No Bonus declared + Pension Benefits of £22K
* 2015/16 Salary £145-150K No Bonus declared + Pension Benefits of £37K
* 2016/17 Salary £145-150K + Bonus £15-20K + Pension Benefits of £25K
* 2017/18 Salary £145-150K No Bonus declared + No Pension benefits declared
He's had to work bloomin' 'ard, y'know:
"The bonus, of between £15,000 and £20,000, was awarded for his work in 2015-2016 when, according to the report, he “exceeded at least one finance and efficiency objective”.
And all that 'ard work has netted him to date, between £1.5m-£1.6M in Salary payments; up to £50,000 in Bonuses & £219,100 'benefits in kind'.
Inquest data shows:
2008 - 166
2009 - 169
2010 - 197
2011 - 190
2012 - 192
2013 - 215
2014 - 243
2015 - 256
2016 - 354
2017 - 292
2018 - 211 & counting
That's 2,485 deaths in prison over the same period, with an increasing trend from 166 in 2008, through a peak of 354 (when Spurr got his biggest bonus), to a current 211 for 2018 to date.
And he's being allowed to stay until next year...???
Its a sick & twisted world that values one man's comfortable retirement plan over the lives of two and a half thousand others.
For completeness:
DeleteAccrued pension at pension age as at 31/3/18 and related lump sum:
* £65-70K plus a lump sum of £200-205K
* CETV = £1.423m
(The CETV is a lump sum meant to be equivalent to what it would cost you to buy the same pension income that the scheme would have provided you... If you agree... you receive the sum of money on offer. This is known as a final salary pension transfer.)
The poor lamb.
Michael Spurr is 57 years of age.
DeleteAccording to this mornings ‘Guardian,’, our favourite politician was taken to task over the state of the railways. They report that, “Grayling’s defence was that he fell for expert assurances that massive timetable changes were ready to roll out. Then he bleated that it was hard for politicians to overrule professionals.”
ReplyDeletePerhaps when he listened to what they were ere telling him, he didn’t have one of his famous ‘gut instincts.’
The man is a buffoon who hangs himself with his every word but who is bolstered by his cronies because he enriches them through his strict adherence to party dogma