These are strange times indeed as we wait to see how the Tories find a new leader and wonder what it will all mean for the future of our extremely-troubled criminal justice system. To assist us, Rob Allen has been reading the runes:-
Sentencing Blues?
Justice Secretary David Gauke told MPs this week that he had tried out a GPS electronic tag that had monitored his whereabouts for two days. The question is where he will be after July 22 - the date a new Prime Minister will be in place - and more importantly what will become of his plans to reform sentencing.
On the abolition of short prison terms for most offences, Gauke told the Commons “we are working towards having firm proposals by the summer”. I read that as at best a White Paper. At worst the proposals may not see the light of day.
Why? For one thing, it’s hard to see a traumatised probation service being able to up its game in time. More importantly, a new Downing Street regime eager to reclaim Conservative supporters from the clutches of Nigel Farage, may be reluctant about -or hostile to - a policy that can be made to look soft on crime.
Conservative Home and Justice Secretaries have embraced a wide spectrum of views over the years - with hardliners like Leon Brittan, Michael Howard, and Chris Grayling, as likely to forge penal policy as the more liberal Douglas Hurd, Michael Gove and now Gauke.
Tory Prime Ministers have varied too in the interest they have shown in criminal justice. Margaret Thatcher surprisingly let Hurd (with his special adviser David Lidington) pursue a moderate Home Office agenda, culminating in a 1991 Criminal Justice Act which aimed to reserve prison for the most serious cases. By contrast, John Major’s desire to condemn a little more and understand a little less gave a green light to Howard’s baleful notion that Prison Works - though it was actually revisions to the 1991 Act by Ken Clarke - usually thought of as a liberal - which started the punitive counter revolution. Cameron’s attachment to prison reform was as superficial as it was hyperbolic- something that might be said of Gove’s tenure as Justice Secretary too.
Of the current leadership contenders, for what it’s worth, I’d place Leadsom, McVey, and Raab - all from the right of the party - in the punishment camp with former prison ministers Gyimah and Stewart, with Gove in the more rehabilitative tradition. The others are harder to call. Javid looks a far from liberal Home Secretary but has endorsed a public health approach to violence. Hancock, though Health Secretary denounced that approach, seemingly badly briefed. Hunt is socially liberal, though suggesting in 2010 that hooliganism played a role in the Hillsborough disaster raises questions. As immigration minister, Harper piloted the “Go Home or Risk arrest Vans, which he apparently doesn’t regret.
What of the favourite? A recent Telegraph piece by Boris Johnson promised a harder line, on serious offenders than “our cock-eyed crook-coddling criminal justice system” currently provides. Yet as London Mayor, he funded an interesting resettlement programme at Feltham YOI though then proceeded to overclaim its success.
Many factors influence a politician’s stance on crime as on anything else. For good or ill, ideological preferences can be modified by short term political calculation, affordability, technical feasibility even personal experience. I’ve seen it suggested that Tony Blair’s tough approach to crime was at least reinforced when his mother in law was the victim of a mugging.
It’s possible Johnson might allow a modest attempt to reduce short sentences alongside a more restrictive regime on early release for those on longer ones. Offsetting a positive reform with a crackdown elsewhere would be nothing new.
40 years ago, Thatcher’s first Home Secretary William Whitelaw tried to introduce a more generous early release scheme to reduce prison numbers but is mainly remembered for notorious short sharp shock Detention Centres. Making prisoners serve longer will lead to a potentially large increase in the prison population, even if short sentences fall. This is what seems to be happening in Scotland where despite a presumption against short prison terms, the overall numbers behind bars have gone up. If something similar is the political price to pay for Gauke’s reforms, they could prove something of a pyrrhic victory. Lets hope its not a price that has to be paid.
Rob Allen
Howard and Grayling created hostile environments, with the notion that making things as tough as you can then people will refrain from criminal behaviour because they will be fearful of the punishment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, neither took any interest in the underlying causes of offending, just beat them hard enough and they stop offending. That approach to my mind belongs back in the middle ages.
But we may aswell be in the middle ages if someone like McVey were to take up the reigns at the MoJ. Not is she herself a nasty piece of work, but her approach and decision making would surely be heavely influenced by her other half, hang em high and flog em hard Philip Davies. They together would end short sentences by making sure even the most trivial infringment was met by a much longer one.
As for short sentences, I'm not sure they are a significant problem, or responsible for keeping the prison population as high as it is. I much rather think its the short recalls as a consequence of licence breach that represents a far greater problem for driving up the prison numbers. Some people are just constantly on licence, many being returned to custody for non compliance rather then a criminal offence.
I think that's the real problem for the prison population growth.
'Getafix
Barristers have read the runes and voted overwhelming for a one-day strike. It's good to see some group solidarity in the criminal justice system for a change. Perhaps if they are successful, probation staff will understand that sometimes you have to stand up and fight your corner... instead of creating agony columns on Facebook.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/07/criminals-barristers-in-england-and-wales-vote-to-stage-national-walkout
Criminal barristers in England and Wales have voted overwhelmingly to stage a national walkout on 1 July in protest at low fees in action that is likely to close down the criminal justice system for the day.
DeleteThe announcement of ballot results by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents thousands of lawyers who carry out defence and prosecution work, marks a sharp escalation in the long-running dispute over payment for legal work. Some barristers are paid as little as £46.50 for a day in court, the association says.
The threat of bringing the criminal courts to a standstill comes as the government, drifting towards political paralysis over Brexit, appears vulnerable and after the Ministry of Justice agreed this week to a temporary settlement for high court judges that in effect gave them a 27% increase in the space of two years.
The turnout of more than 2,700 CBA members represents more than 80% of criminal barristers actively practising in the courts. Barristers were asked whether they agreed to staging what amounts to a national strike on 1 July in relation to separate demands over prosecution and defence fees. By majorities of about 94%, the membership backed the call for action on both claims.
A significant proportion of all Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) cases are conducted by independent barristers. Their refusal to work would prevent trials going ahead and bring the criminal justice system to a complete halt. Among the CBA’s demands are:
Payments for barristers for reading unused disclosed material.
Raising the £46.50 minimum fee to £100.
Increased fees for looking at evidence released through disclosure.
The release of the ballot results was delayed for several days as negotiations carried on between the CBA, the CPS and government officials.
Other disruptive action is also planned, including adopting a policy of “no returns” – refusing to cover for transferred casework from barristers who could not attend court on a certain date.
Chris Henley QC and Caroline Goodwin QC, chair and vice-chair of the CBA, said: “Your message is very clear. Your engagement has been overwhelming. We have set out the changes that the bar needs to see. In the background, a great deal of activity has been going on. There has been very constructive engagement with the CPS chief executive and the government on an almost daily basis for several weeks. We are hopeful that there will be a positive outcome to these discussions which, if successful, would result in substantial new investment.”
A government spokesperson, responding to the ballot, said: “We’ve recently committed to a full review of legal aid payment schemes and are already engaging with a wide range of legal professionals on this. “We are considering the most constructive way forward with representatives of the bar, while keeping all members of the criminal legal aid profession in mind.”
Under austerity measures, the Ministry of Justice has endured deeper cuts to its budget than any other Whitehall department and fees were not upgraded in line with inflation for years.
11:24 Having a dig at those who express themselves through social media that includes this blog that has proven cathartic for many seems a little unfair and self contradictory. Those who set up groups and this blog were all doing what they could to fight TR using the means available to them. Some persons have been and gone whilst others have have had an undeservedly bad press driving them away from posting under their own name or wanting to be associated with the blog and yet some of them have stuck at it and continue to campaign consistently behind the scenes. We should be supportive of those we know are doing their best and a bit less dismissive of those who fall short of our version of perfection. There is a lot of negative talk about people who are actually doing something and also strong statements about holding people to account but not too much talk of stepping up, getting involved, doing some hard work and actually contributing positively to something practical and helpful.
DeleteThe main point is probation staff will do absolutely anything, as long as it avoids taking industrial action. Yes, some are supportive and positive, but that's not enough when facing a government that will screw you forever unless there is some real resistance. And this is usually where a divided, docile and apathetic probation workforce falls down. This contrasts with the barristers who have had enough and are now prepared to take on the MoJ. All probation managed was a late in the day judicial review - when what was needed was for the MoJ to see an example of solidarity from the workforce.
DeleteBarristers aren’t really s good example. Most are self employed and the motivation is for higher payments and the MoJ altimately sets those. The work force has always been conservative and is becoming deunionised which is not helped by constant negative comments about the union whenever it is mentioned. NAPO actually performs quite well compared to similar sized specialist unions and has the advantage of experienced staff It would have greater clout if it had more members but it is important to remember it weilds soft power.
Delete