Wednesday, 30 October 2024

Sentencing Review 2

This from the Prison Reform Trust:-

The sentencing review is a chance to reset the dial on decades of failure in penal policy

The government has launched a major review of sentencing policy that will aim to find a long-term solution to the overcrowding crisis in our prisons.

Rt Hon David Gauke, the former justice secretary and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, has been appointed chair of the sentencing review. To maintain his and the charity’s independence, Mr Gauke will step down as a trustee of the charity for the duration of his appointment as chair of the review.

Central to the aim of the review must be a commitment to bring overall numbers in prison and the use of imprisonment down to a more proportionate and sustainable level. England and Wales has one of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe at 140 people per 100,000 head of population, second only to Scotland (150 people per 100,000) and which is currently facing its own prison capacity crisis. The prison population has risen by 93% in past 30 years and currently stands at just over 87,000. It is predicted to rise by as high as 114,800 by March 2028.

The growth in the prison population over the past three decades has mostly been driven by sentence inflation at the more serious end of offending. However, a rising recall and remand population, and an increase in police officer numbers leading to a rise in arrests and convictions, have also contributed to the rise in prison numbers since the end of the pandemic.

For serious, indictable offences, the average prison sentence is now 62.4 months — almost two years longer than in 2010. More than two and a half times as many people were sentenced to 10 years or more in 2022 than in 2010.

Punitive changes to the sentencing framework introduced by successive governments over the past three decades have been a significant factor behind the overall increase in sentence length and rise in prison numbers. For instance, schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the minimum tariff length for a range of types of murder offences. As consequence, the average length of minimum term rose from 13 years in 2000 to 21 years in 2021.

Sentence inflation has contributed to a prison system characterised by chronic levels of overcrowding and indecent and inhumane conditions in many establishments. The pressure of increasing demand means that the system has little bandwidth to do more than warehouse the ever-growing number of prisoners in its care. A focus on rehabilitation and reducing the risk of reoffending on release is sidelined to the demands of population management.

Prisons have been under emergency capacity measures since November 2022. The latest round of measures — known as SDS40 — were introduced by the new government in September 2024. However, they are expected to buy the government less than 12 months breathing space before prisons will again become dangerously overcrowded. Further emergency measures are widely predicted will be needed by summer 2025.

In announcing this important review, the government has acknowledged the reality that it simply cannot build its way out of the capacity crisis. The current rate of prison building can’t keep pace with increasing demand. Furthermore, at a time when public finances are constrained, building more prisons is expensive and wasteful of taxpayers’ money.

Without a strategy to also reduce demand on the system by curbing sentence inflation:
  • The system can’t look beyond next capacity crisis — there is no bandwidth for further improvement.
  • The government will not be able to tackle chronic levels of overcrowding which is a key factor contributing to many of the problems in our prisons.
  • The government won’t be able to take prisons offline which are no longer fit for purpose.
Commenting, Mark Day, deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“The current capacity crisis has bought our criminal justice system close to collapse. Emergency measures are not a long-term solution. We urgently need to get to grips with runaway sentence inflation which has contributed to chronic levels of overcrowding and driven prison numbers and our use of imprisonment up to an unsustainable level. This important review is a vital opportunity to reset the dial on decades of failure in penal policymaking.”

Responding to the news that the review will not include the sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or its administration, Day added:

“It is vital that the government does not lose sight of the ongoing injustice faced by thousands of people still subject to the abolished IPP sentence. Particular effort needs to be focussed on progressing the sentences of those who have never been released and remain in prison many times over the length of their original tariff.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Howard League:-

The most senior former judges in England and Wales have called on the government to reverse the trend of imposing ever longer sentences, giving warning that radical solutions are needed to address the acute crisis in prisons.

In a paper published by the Howard League for Penal Reform, they outline how and why prison sentences have increased in recent decades and the impact this has had.

The paper, Sentence inflation: a judicial critique, is signed by the four surviving former Lords Chief Justice of England and Wales – Lord Woolf, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Lord Burnett of Maldon – and Sir Brian Leveson, the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also Head of Criminal Justice.

Addressing challenges around sentencing is one of the Howard League’s strategic priorities. Our strategic priorities reflect those issues that we consider most urgent and important in ending the overuse of prison.


In September 2024, five of the most senior former judges in England and Wales made an extremely rare intervention and called on the government to reverse the trend of imposing ever longer prison sentences.

Lord Woolf, Lord Phillips of Matravers, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Burnett of Maldon, all of whom served as Lord Chief Justice, and Sir Brian Leveson, the only surviving President of the Queen’s Bench Division who was also head of Criminal Justice, wrote that sentence lengths had approximately doubled in the half-century that they had been involved in the law, and so had the prison population.

Their paper, Sentence inflation: a judicial critique, published by the Howard League, called for “an honest conversation about what custodial sentences can and cannot achieve” and a return to “more modest proportionate sentences across the board”.

Coming only a week before the start of an emergency early release scheme aimed at easing the prison overcrowding crisis, the paper received considerable media attention. It helped to put sentencing policy, and its links to the acute problems in prisons, under the microscope. The government has announced that a former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, will lead an independent sentencing review. In the words of legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the Law Society Gazette, there is now “no time to lose”.

So, what is sentence inflation? And what impact is it having? In response to the many enquiries that we have received from politicians, journalists and the public, we have created a dedicated page on our website to explain what the problems are, how they arose, and how they might be solved.

----///----

The former judges wrote: “Faced with compelling demands to increase spending on health, education, care for an ageing population, defence, and measures aimed at increasing productivity, the government should be seeking to reduce to a minimum the amount that has to be spent on keeping prisoners locked up.”

One idea could be to introduce regular reviews of minimum terms for people serving indeterminate sentences. We must release people who are serving sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) or ‘two-strike’ indeterminate sentences and have been in prison for longer than their tariff (the point at which they become eligible to apply for release on parole).

Another option could be to change the rules so that anyone serving a determinate sentence longer than 10 years gets their case reviewed at the halfway point and then at regular intervals, resulting in earlier release on licence or a reduced sentence.

For some offences, those convicted are not eligible for release from prison on licence until they have served two-thirds of their sentence; reducing this to the halfway point, as used to be the case, would help to ease pressure on the system.

We could consider reviewing the needs and risk levels of older people in prison upon reaching a certain age, followed by a managed move to a more appropriate secure location if required. People who are very elderly, dying or suffering dementia could be removed from prisons, which are ill-equipped to care for them.

There is growing evidence that a distinct approach is needed for sentencing young adults, aged 18 to 25, as they are still maturing. Perhaps people who committed their most serious offence before they turned 25 should receive regular sentence reviews or expedited parole eligibility.

Currently, people can only apply to move to an open prison within three years of their release date. What if we offered that opportunity sooner, giving more people the chance to benefit from work, education and building family ties, all of which have been shown to help reduce reoffending?

For too long, criminal justice policies have been judged on whether they appear “tough” or “soft”, when what really matters is whether they work. Making sentences longer and longer puts intolerable pressure on the prison system and creates bigger challenges that will have to be tackled sooner or later. Dealing with the consequences takes valuable resources away from preventing crime and supporting victims.

We can start to put things right if we shift our focus away from the length of sentences and towards what people are doing while serving them. If someone needs support to move away from crime, locking them in a prison cell for hours on end with nothing to do is not going to help.

Want to know more about the prisons crisis? Read our explainer on why prisons are overcrowded.

12 comments:

  1. If this exercise is meaningful...and I do welcome this exercise...it must clarify that a review of sentencing is just that. Not a review of only custodial sentencing. Which logically leads to the pressing need for a root and branch review of Probation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://insidetime.org/mailbag/the-definition-of-insanity/

      Delete
    2. No please God, anything but another review of probation.

      There’s nothing wrong with probation if they remove ecsl, pss, OneHMPPS, reset, prisons, civil service, AED’s and all the other junk.

      Delete
    3. Definition of Insanity

      The very public debate on the predicament and fragility of our deteriorating prison system has highlighted the chasm between what ordinary people think they know and the reality of this situation we find ourselves in.

      Over recent weeks, it has become excruciatingly obvious that the public have, at best, a very limited grasp of how our justice system works, and it is this ignorance, alongside the anger and fear it generates, that has helped successive governments to mask the escalating chaos behind the scenes.

      Have you ever noticed how those who rabidly pontificate about going hard on crime, are usually the very people who know the least about prison? No progress can be made against this backdrop of ignorance.

      Any rational thinker would agree that an effective prison sentence is one that helps offenders reform before successfully reintegrating them back into the community. With this in mind, why are we continually surprised that the approach of warehousing people in abject squalor for years, without addressing any of their underlying issues, really does not work?

      If a person leaves prison with no money, no support network, no accommodation and no skills, what outcome do we expect? You can see why the early release scheme will need to negotiate a very long and wobbly tightrope.

      The challenge we have is a society who are very quick to outrage yet reluctant to understand. By proactively working to change ill-informed public opinion, forward-thinking countries are now reaping the rewards of dramatically-reduced prison populations and lower reoffending rates. We can do the same. To carry on as we are when a cheaper, more effective, and proven approach exists will be totally bonkers.

      Delete
  2. The apathy in Probation ranks astounds me. How long are we going to allow our paymasters to keep shafting us. The starting salary for a PSO is now little over the minimum wage ? Are we going to wait until PO pay rates are little over the minimum wage before we start to do something about it? We have been taken for a ride year after year. I'm lucky enough to own my own house however even I am considering downsizing to make ends meet after years of a falling standard of living. I feel so sad for young colleagues who are committed to the job however cannot see any future in an organisation that pays its staff a pittance and treats them so badly. It's time to use our position of leverage and take a stand to try and play some sort of catchup when the next pay talks commence. NAPO need to start rallying the troops and organising industrial action. If we'd followed the actions of the junior Dr's at the last pay round we'd have been offered a double digit offer for one year not three. Come on people let's have proper debate into how we can improve our dire situation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Napo couldn't fill a paper bag with all their hot air. No one will support action because probation staff have little confidence other than to push offenders around.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely agree—it’s beyond time to stand up and demand the respect, pay, and conditions we deserve. The situation has gone from bad to worse, and if we don’t take a stand now, things will only continue to spiral.

      One thing is clear: nothing will change until we show those in their ivory towers that we’re serious. A 3-day strike every 3 weeks. We keep this going until they listen—until they understand that we won’t be ignored, dismissed, or undervalued any longer.

      This isn’t a protest; it needs to be a movement. Let’s come together, support each other, and make it clear that probation staff won’t be taken for granted. We need to take a stand!

      BIONIC

      Delete
    3. We should have been balloted for industrial action for the days of the scheduled SDS40 releases. No it wouldn't have brought the country to a standstill, but it might at least have been an embarrassment to the MoJ during those sensitive and newsworthy events which I think would have been worth losing a days pay. It was the first time in years (maybe the last) that the press might have given us any time or column inches. It's beyond me why the unions looked the other way. Maybe they were still basking in that £120 one-off payment they heroically clawed back for (some) staff? There really must be something else we can do other than putting ourselves through this and waiting to burn out or die.
      For the benefit of anon 07.34, I've been a Napo member for 2 decades. I continue to pay my membership fees and I really do believe in collective representation. But I just cannot identify any single benefit its brought in the last 12 years or so. They have no political guile and just seem to be lost in virtue signalling about global affairs.

      Delete
  3. all too complicated , would it not benefit all , offenders , victims, society in general that from now on ~.if you commit a crime that means you have to go to prison , you simply serve the time you are given, end of , no fucking about. If it was deemed at sentence that you need to be locked up for 18 months then that’s it everyone knows where they stand.
    Invest or use any money saved to get prisoners out of their cells and into ETE/ addressing offending behaviour . Get the prisons to do their job in other words

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real problem is that it's all stick and no carrot.
      It dosent really matter if release is at the end of the total sentence or at the halfway mark when both are automatic.
      There exists no opportunity for the offender to gain anything by demonstrating change or even good behaviour whilst in prison.
      Give people a pathway where they have the possibility of changing there circumstances and many will take it.
      Universal automatic release at whatever point it's set at only removes hope and the incentive to strive for change.
      There has to be a bigger offer then just getting through the end.

      'Getafix

      Delete
  4. Left on an earlier blog post:-

    Bashing people who are trying to do something positive to maintain the profession is counterproductive. The Probation Institute does good work with very little financial support. The probation profession has damaged itself by turning on its own advocates and supporters. What a bunch of losers. It does not even support its union or its institute. Easy to be pushed around as it has no strong body independent of the employers. Maybe time to reflect on the fact that probation is its own worst enemy and those that bash Napo and the PI without getting involved are themselves a plague upon probation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need on action from Napo conference last month was there or any news on anything.

      Delete