Monday 22 July 2019

'Window For Reform Closed'

This from the Justice Gap website as we contemplate the prospect of a new Cabinet comprising the likes of Angela Leadsom, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab:-

Proof magazine launch: ‘Why are we obsessed with locking people up?’


The UK has an ‘obsession with imprisonment’ and needed a more considered discussion about prison reform, according to Paula Harriott of the Prison Reform Trust. As reported recently on the Justice Gap, England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe with more than 140,000 admissions last year.

The former prisoner and head of prisoner involvement at the group was speaking last week at the launch of the latest edition of the Justice Gap’s Proof hosted where campaigners expressed concerns over a Boris Johnson government clampdown on ‘soft justice’.

The event was part of the Byline Times News Club and took place at the National Union of Journalists. Other speakers included ex prison governor John Podmore, Frances Crook of the Howard League, former prisons inspector Nick Hardwick and (in a separate panel discussion) the artist Patrick Maguire and veteran crime correspondent Duncan Campbell.

Paula Harriott argued that the current prison system wasn’t fit for purpose, and the government needed to reconsider its ‘morality and humanity’ in developing a system that prevented people from re-offending. According to the Prison Reform Trust, almost half of adults (48%) are reconvicted of another offence within one year of release.

Flagging up the seemingly inevitable appointment of Boris Johnson as prime minister, Nick Hardwick, now Professor of Criminal Justice at Royal Holloway, suggested that the ‘window of opportunity’ for serious criminal justice reform had closed. Hardwick was effectively sacked as chair of Parole Board following the furore over the decision to release the Worboys.

In his column for the Daily Telegraph, the Tory MP attacked ‘the Leftist culture of so much of the criminal justice establishment’ and, in particular, slammed parole boards for being ‘slaves to political correctness’. Hardwick told the audience he had taken Boris Johnson’s attacks on liberals personally. ‘I am liberal, I don’t find that an insult,’ he added.

Rather than the evidence-based policies suggested by the panel, he predicted a ‘lurch (back) to penal populism’. One idea that Johnson floated in a recent interview in which he attacked ‘Britain’s soft justice’ was a new requirement for all those sentenced to 14 years or more to serve their full sentence.

Such a policy would mean ‘another 4,000 people a year in prison’, predicted Hardwick. ‘The consequences of that is not merely the 4,000 people who will be directly affected, but the effect that will have on sentence inflation,’ he continued. ‘It will pull sentences longer across the board and that will push up the prison population. Do you think they’re going to pay for that increase in the prison population and pump in more staff to cope with it? I don’t think so.’

Not only are too many people going into prison but their exit ramp was blocked off, argued John Podmore. He flagged the chaos over the failed part-privatisation of probation which took place after ‘key senior people were sidelined’, giving the government the opportunity, with limited resistance, to ‘nail the coffin lid down’ on the probation services.

Frances Crook, chief exec of the Howard League for Penal Reform, proposed a ten step plan aimed at reducing the number of people going into prisons, and maximising the number coming out. She pointed approvingly to Scotland’s recent abolition of short-term prison sentences, where prison sentences have been abolished for periods of under a year. Not only would this bring parity to sentencing policy across the whole of the UK, it would ‘save money’ and take ‘women out of the system completely’.

Crook echoed Podmore’s suggestion that we need to focus on community responses to crime, which have become ‘too long’ and are ‘poorly delivered’, with community sentences needing to be made ‘short, simple and effective’. She argued that ‘punishing’offenders didn’t work and the justice system needed to refocus so that those who have committed crimes ‘make amends’. A better system would be one that required an offender to take actions to ‘say sorry for what they have done’, focussing on compensation and apology rather than punishment.

Paula Harriott said that society had ignored the fact that ‘imprisoning people doesn’t work’ and that it had been a ‘total failure’. She argued for a shift of focus to the causes of crime, rather than on the people who commit crime, saying that society has ‘individualised crime’ in such a way that it allows us all to avoid looking at ‘our collusion and culpability on why people are on a pipeline to prison’.

This individualisation has meant that we don’t properly focus on the fact that four out of 10 prisoners are from a black and minority ethnic background, or consider how to redress the inequality within the social, economic and political arenas that underpins offending and re-offending.

Paula Harriott argued that the ‘othering’ of prisoners means that most prison reform charities (with the exception of the Howard League) failed to become properly involved in the political conversation, ‘holding back’ and choosing to ‘hide behind the Lobbying Act’ (which has been accused of stifling campaigners).

Instead of this timidity, Harriott called for reform groups to be ‘courageous’, to ‘talk about the causes of crime as a way of preventing the pipeline’ and to ‘involve prisoners in the debate’. The ‘discrimination in the sector’ means that even those supportive of prison reform are reluctant to call upon prisoners to speak for themselves, concerned that they may ‘disrupt and disturb the narrative’ which the organisations have established. More prisoner voices would emphasise their humanity and add persuasive force to the arguments for reform

Flagging up the prospect of a Boris Johnson-led government with a sustained attacked on ‘soft justice’, Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform charity, also added ominously: ‘Be afraid, be very afraid.’

6 comments:

  1. Reading yesterday's and today's blog I'm struck by a number of thoughts.
    Firstly, a presumption against short sentences for more community based sentences really does change the dynamic of probation services. It means probation must become an agency more focused on enforcing punishment given by the courts, rather then rehabilitation and keeping people away from the courts in the first place.
    Secondly, I fail to see how either a lengthy sentence or a shorter one can resolve issues like addiction and mental health.
    For me the powers to be are looking through the wrong end of the microscope. They take a reactionary approach to offending. But surely preventing it occuring in the first place is where the focus should be?
    There are many cases being reported now of people offending so they can be sent to prison. It's the only way they can see to access mental health services or avoiding rough sleeping. That's a terrible situation that clearly indicates that the fabric and social structures of society are clearly broken.
    When prison is seen as a resource by many that the state wish to punish, then looking for solutions to reduce the prison population and reduce offending must go beyond the CJS and be viewed in the context of social changes. I doubt that is a position Boris's new SoS for justice will embrace whoever they might be. Philip Davies or Esther McVey perhaps?
    I think it's also worth keeping in mind just how big a business the CJS has become, and how any solutions that may be found need to be shaped around free market enterprise.
    Whats good for society, isn't necessarily good for business and there lays a dilemma for everyone.

    https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-49067285?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/21/youth-prison-violence-crisis-staff-inmates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assaults in youth prisons in England and Wales have risen by almost two-thirds over the last five years, a Guardian analysis has found.

      Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults rose by 43% and assaults on staff more than doubled, prompting fears the government is failing to respond to a growing crisis in youth prisons.

      Assault incidents per 1,000 prisoners in youth estates, including immigration removal centres, rose from 1,908 in the year to December 2013 to 3,102 in the year to December 2018. Assaults on staff per 1,000 prisoners increased from 321 to 824, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice.

      Over the same period, staffing at youth offending institutes, including immigration removal centres, fell by 25%, but from March 2018 to March 2019 an extra 300 staff members were added to youth estates.

      In May a prisons inspectorate report on Feltham prison said self-harm, use of force and levels of violence had increased significantly since the last inspection. It said 47% of boys there spent no more than two hours a day out of their cell on weekdays and 75% on weekends.

      The shadow justice secretary, Richard Burgon, said the significant increase in violence in youth custody was “extremely disturbing”.

      He said: “Holding young people in conditions where violence against inmates and staff is routine undermines not only their rehabilitation but ends up leaving our society less safe. Instead of offering excuses, the Tories must immediately put forward an emergency plan to make the youth estate safe for staff and inmates.”

      A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We are grateful for the continued hard work of our staff. We will never tolerate violence against them and will always push for the strongest possible punishment.

      “The number of young people entering the youth justice system continues to decline and as a result a higher number of those in custody have complex needs and might be prone to violence. We have responded to this by putting 400 frontline staff through degree-level specialist training and have employed additional psychologists and support staff to ensure the most vulnerable children are managed appropriately.”

      Prison reform campaigners rejected the suggestion that the rise of assaults was down to the changing needs of young prisoners and called for these institutions to be closed down.

      Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “The government’s own figures show that the total number of assaults recorded in prisons holding children has rocketed while the number of children held in them has fallen significantly. To suggest that this alarming statistic has anything to do with a change in the cohort is misleading.

      “There have always been children with complex needs and damaged backgrounds in prison. Prison has always been used to hold damaged children. The correct interpretation of the figures is that these children require skilled support rather than being locked up behind a metal door for hours on end with little intervention or care.”

      Carolyne Willow, the director of Article 39, a children’s rights charity, said high staff turnover and children being locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day “inevitably leads to behaviour problems”.

      She said: “It is ridiculous for the Ministry of Justice to suggest that child prisons are failing to protect children because they have fewer children to look after. This just doesn’t stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

      “When numbers of children in prison were sky-rocketing, the same narratives were pushed out about children being complex and troublesome. The plain truth is that children respond to appalling living conditions and lack of sustained, expert care. It’s time for these institutions to be closed. They cannot be saved.”

      Delete
  3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49067285

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. G4S made profits of more than £2m per year for running an immigration centre where detainees were filmed being mistreated by staff, a report says.

      The National Audit Office found the security firm made £14.3m profit running Brook House from 2012 to 2018.

      The findings raise serious questions about the Home Office's handling of sensitive contracts, MPs said.

      The Home Office said it had been working to improve leadership, management and training at the centre.

      Panorama footage broadcast in September 2017 showed alleged assaults, humiliation and verbal abuse of detainees by officers at the centre, near Gatwick Airport.

      In total, 21 members of staff were identified as part of the Panorama allegations - 12 were later dismissed and three resigned.

      The NAO report found G4S has been making "significant profits" on the Brook House contract.

      Between 2012 and 2018, G4S made £14.3m gross profits, (before deducting a share of company overheads, such as human resources), with gross profit rates of between 10% and 20% each year.

      It also pointed to the fact that under the terms of its contract G4S cannot be penalised if staff use excessive force or inappropriate language.

      Labour MP Yvette Cooper, chairwoman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said the findings raised "serious questions" about the Home Office's handling of sensitive contracts and claimed the department's monitoring should have picked up problems sooner.

      She said: "For G4S to be making up to 20% gross profits on the Brook House contract at the same time as such awful abuse by staff against detainees was taking place is extremely troubling.

      "Given that profits reduced when G4S had to increase staffing and training after the Panorama programme, this raises very serious questions about G4S's running of the centre to make higher profits whilst not having proper staffing, training and safeguarding systems in place."

      She confirmed that the committee will further pursue both G4S and the Home Office.

      Despite the problems, the NAO found that G4S "broadly delivered" on the terms of the contract.
      Image caption Covert footage was filmed inside Brook House, near Gatwick Airport, for BBC Panorama

      A Home Office spokesman said it was making "significant changes" to the contracting model.

      They said: "The Home Office and G4S have been working together and we remain committed to improving leadership, management and training at Brook House."

      John Whitwam, managing director of G4S custodial and detention services, said: "Building on the significant progress already made at Brook House IRC, we continue to work closely with the Home Office to improve further the services we provide."

      According to the NAO, the Home Office has now concluded that the Brook House contract as written is no longer fit for purpose, given the lack of scope to impose financial penalties and enforce improvements in conditions and treatment.

      Any new contract is expected to include new performance measures covering staff recruitment, induction, training, mentoring and culture, and establish a contractual role for the Home Office to monitor the appropriateness of the use of force against detainees and the care of staff and detainees following an incident.

      Delete
  4. "It also pointed to the fact that under the terms of its contract G4S cannot be penalised if staff use excessive force or inappropriate language."

    Well, as Antonia Romeo said (https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/interview/interview-antonia-romeo-moj):

    - "The Cabinet Office has a very clear process for awarding contracts.” The Crown Commercial Service [CCS] has “brought together all the things departments need to be doing, and obviously we are following those guidelines”: the ministry is currently “building a best practice contract management function, and that will have the deep domain business expertise that is required as well as the commercial expertise and the corporate services support.”

    But she also said...

    - The CRCs and NPS will also be expected to share offices, facilitating joint working and the retention of a strong local branch network. “They will be separate organisations, but there won’t be separate approaches,” Romeo claims."

    I also missed this gem from bully-boy Grayling way back when (https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/03/19/failure-of-scrutiny-how-grayling-got-his-way-with-new-prison):

    - Chris Grayling's behind-the-scenes attempts to appoint a more pliable prisons inspector could trigger a change in the code of practice for ministerial appointments, following a damning report calling for action to stop it happening again.

    The Commons' justice committee raised the alarm when it discovered that both supposedly independent members of the appointment panel for the new chief inspector - Lord Oliver Henley and Amanda Sater - were actually active members of the Tory party. This information was kept from the justice committee. A third member, Antonia Romeo, was former director of criminal justice at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the figure responsible for Grayling's probation privatisation programme. So out of four panel members, three had a reason to pick someone favourable to the justice secretary.

    As if that weren't enough, Grayling then vetoed their suggestion and refused to put forward a candidate who was considered "excellent" by the panel.

    ReplyDelete