Sentencing Review 3

Mr Jones has spoken:- 

A statement from HM Chief Inspector of Probation, on the launch of an Independent Review of Sentencing

Last week the Lord Chancellor announced an Independent Review of Sentencing, which will be chaired by former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, and supported by a panel including representatives from the judiciary and expertise from across the justice system.

I believe this review represents a unique opportunity to deliver a more effective system, resulting in better use of resources, lower reoffending rates, fewer victims and safer communities.

The decisions HM Inspectorate of Probation stands ready to support this work, using our findings to highlight options for the future of probation, and its consequential impact on prisons, and I have shared my initial thoughts, as detailed below. 

• Use of community orders and sentence lengths 
• Increasing the use of deferred sentences 
• Length of licence periods
• Recalls 
• Better support in the community

Use of community orders and sentence lengths:

I have no hesitation in arguing that serious, violent or sexual offenders should receive custodial sentences which are long enough to punish, deter, and protect the public. However, whilst prison must be there for the most serious offences, based on the Ministry’s published evidence there is a compelling case to move less serious cases from prison into the community. There, a better resourced, more stable probation service, working closely with local partnerships, would reduce reoffending, keep communities safer, and prevent future victims. Far from being soft on crime, such a move is smarter and demonstrably more effective. This approach would also enable our prisons to become safer places, where successful rehabilitation can become the expectation, rather than the exception.

The shift in numbers over the last decade is stark. In 2012 c150,000 people received a community sentence, and it was the mainstay of the work of probation. By 2023 that number had more than halved to c71,000. Over the same period the growth in post-sentence supervision has meant that the probation service is spending a far greater proportion of its resources preparing prisoners for release and supervising and enforcing licence conditions. C137,000 people are currently subject to pre or post release supervision. This is in spite of the fact that we know that well-delivered community sentences may be more effective at getting to the root of the causes of crime and reducing reoffending.

Given the extent of the shift, a new strategy is now needed to reinvigorate and rebuild sentencer and public confidence in community sentences. Whilst undoubtedly punitive, short custodial sentences do little to achieve rehabilitation and creating a statutory presumption against their use could reduce reoffending. In youth justice there is a minimum four-month threshold for a Detention Training Order which works effectively.

I note the recent Judicial Critique on sentence inflation and believe that through a non-partisan review of the evidence it may be possible to reverse the inexorable, expensive and, in reality, ineffective increases in sentence lengths we have seen over the last three decades. Such a move would enable the Government to better refocus the finite resources available to reduce reoffending, ensure rehabilitation in our prisons, and better support intervention and supervision in the community on licence.

Increasing the use of deferred sentences:

Many of those that end up in contact with the criminal justice systems are there because of their underlying issues. People in prison are more likely to have: 

• spent a childhood in care; 
• experienced abuse as a child; 
• failed to have gained qualifications, or been excluded from school; 
• been unemployed or homeless; 
• suffered depression or other mental health issues; used class A drugs or misused alcohol.

A short time in prison will fix none of those underlying issues, nor will a short period on licence; feeding the revolving door of reoffending.

In France, some custodial sentences are not served immediately. Judges who believe custody is merited can instead provide a window for an individual who has committed a crime to turn their lives around before they invoke a prison sentence. People have an incentive to engage and receive credit where that opportunity is taken. The sentencing review might consider the case for a similar approach involving deferred sentencing for those with entrenched underlying issues. Local partnerships, led by probation, could work to deliver better provision, tackling these challenges which are cross-cutting local and central Government. For less serious offences it may be possible to deliver similar outcomes through use of conditional cautioning (with requirements that must be fulfilled).

Length of licence periods:

Whilst we can make better use of our prisons, there will always be people whose offences are so serious that detention is the only answer. All prisoners must be released when they have served the relevant part of their sentence, or (for the most serious cases) when they are no longer judged a risk to the public. At that point they need to be supervised for long enough to ensure the public are protected, but there is a risk that excessive licence periods can be a sword of Damocles, which do not allow people on probation to move on with their lives.

As sentences have grown longer, so has the number of people being supervised by the probation service. Nearly 60% of the service’s caseload are people being prepared for release or being managed in the community. This has been a seismic shift of focus. As a result, there is a danger the probation service becomes focused on supervision and ensuring compliance with rules rather than seeking to turn lives around. It would be reasonable to consider pruning that caseload. Until 2014, those serving less than twelve months in custody were not supervised by the probation service at all, nor could they be recalled to custody.

The sentencing review could usefully consider shortening those licence periods to give the probation service more time and space to better manage the cases where its supervision can make the most difference. Before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there were periods where people on probation were not supervised on licence, but would instead face a tougher sentence if they reoffended in their “at risk” period. Such changes would also limit recall numbers.

Recalls:

Whilst, for understandable reasons, there has been a focus on the remand population which has been driven up in recent years by the Crown Court backlog; the fastest growing part of the population over the last two decades has been the recall population. This has been driven by sentencing changes including the now abolished IPP sentence, and an increase in the number of people supervised and subject to recall.

In the year 2000, the recall population was under 1,000 (even then a record high). By 2010, as a result of sentencing changes including growing licence periods and a reduction in judicial oversight of recall, it had increased to over 5,000. According to the last published figure the recall population now stands at 12,199 which equates to 14% of the total prison population. Recent increases have been driven by the extension of supervision to short sentences, and the underlying fear of serious further offending. According to official figures over 2,000 prisoners are recalled to prison every month. Whilst it is important that licence conditions are enforced, it is unclear to me what this scale of recall is achieving.

Recall can be a vital tool to protect the public when there are signs that a person on probation’s risk has increased. I am certain that a timely, well-judged recall keeps the public safer – particularly where there is high risk (as seen in our independent reviews of cases like McSweeney and Bendall). However, it may not always be necessary. Despite the twelve-fold rise in the recall population, there is little to indicate that the overall rate of serious further offending has changed significantly over the period. In 2009-10 there were 273 convicted SFOs. In the latest year for which figures are available (2021-22) there were 288. The number of SFOs remains broadly stable at close to 300.

According to the publishes figures on reasons for recall, the majority of recalls are for non-compliance (39 per cent), failing to keep in touch (17 per cent), failing to reside (13 per cent), or problems with drugs and alcohol (4 per cent). These figures support my assessment that recalls are inexorably linked with pressure on the probation service, a lack of confidence, and a lack of adequate support in the community.

I would fully support moves to draw upon international evidence to reimagine the way in which recall is used. In most common law countries (including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand) there is judicial oversight by the courts, or the Parole Board, of executive use of recall. It is noteworthy that the recall population started to rise steeply following the removal of judicial oversight of recall in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Under Canadian law, there is a statutory requirement that even if a prisoner’s recall is endorsed by the Canadian Parole Board, a new automatic release date is calculated to avoid a situation where prisonersare released with no supervision by probation. They argue this keeps the public safer, and I am minded to agree.

Better support in the community:

We know from the evidence that having a place to live, the opportunity for employment, help with drugs, alcohol or mental health problems, and support in the community, are key to reducing reoffending. However, the unsustainable pressures on prisons, probation and local services make this extremely difficult to achieve. The high rates of recall and reoffending we see at present demonstrate that there is much more to do to improve preparedness for release. I am hoping that we will identify some helpful lessons through our planned Approved Premises inspection programme which is due to commence in 2025, and our upcoming national inspection of the Probation Service.

In recent inspections HM Inspectorate of Probation have found that recall is often the result of a lack of support in the community. In essence a lack of help with drugs, alcohol, mental health, and accommodation, combined with probation officers being under too much pressure to spot early warning signs, precipitates a “crisis” that results in recall. Avoiding that crisis by earlier action would represent a significantly better use of resources. Although unpalatable, it may be necessary to move a proportion of offender managers in custody to better manage people in the community.

Based on the annual cost of a prison place, the 12,000 recall population currently costs the taxpayer c£600m a year. I am certain that, through prudent change, that number could be reduced and some of those resources could be reinvested to better manage people in the community. It is noteworthy that Youth Justice Services tend to achieve better results because they have strong statutory partnerships and local leadership to get to the heart of the reasons children offend. Within a national organisation it should still be possible to provide delegated local budgets which empower local probation leaders to work with local partners to design and develop services that are capable of breaking the destructive cycle of reoffending.