Off Piste 2

In case you're wondering, you have to go back to 2015 for Off Piste the original, but I guess you all know we quite often wander down various interesting avenues and rabbit holes on here.

Regular readers will be well aware that the blog has not had my usual attention over recent months and that has largely been due to the various consequences of my treatment journey whilst under the superb care of our wonderful NHS. I'm told I'm doing very well and my oncology consultant regularly beams a smile that somewhat unnervingly reminds me of Wallace, that well-known occupant of 62 West Wallaby Street.

I had a PET scan on Friday in readiness for a short course of precautionary radiotherapy that starts on Friday. This is the third time, and I've never really given it much thought, until that is last night and listening to Inside Science on BBC Radio 4. It turns out I've been rather lucky because there's currently a shortage of medical isotopes that are vital for the process, with many patients having diagnoses delayed. Why? Because a nuclear reactor in the Netherlands unexpectedly shut down and has been 'offline' for a month.

It turns out that these isotopes used to be made in nuclear research reactors all over the place, including here in the UK, but due to having become life-expired, have closed down, hence the NHS has to purchase from a dwindling worldwide supply. One might well wonder how such a predictable situation could have been allowed to develop? Apparently the Welsh Government has had their eye on the ball and last year produced a plan for a former nuclear power station site in North Wales. This from BBC news website last week:-

Nuclear medicine shortage will lead to deaths

Lives will be lost because of a shortage of specialist medicine used to detect diseases such as breast and bowel cancer. That is the stark warning from experts who have said the lack of medical radioactive isotopes available in the UK means delays in tests to diagnose cancer. It has also led to renewed calls for the UK to develop its own manufacturing facility, rather than rely on imports of nuclear medicines. It follows a proposal to build a new £400m medical laboratory at the site of a former nuclear plant in north Wales.

The scheme dubbed Project Arthur would see a small-scale nuclear reactor placed at Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd, to produce the radioactive materials. The nuclear-based medicine is used to help detect cancer tumours in patients and track the progress of the disease. But there have been no fresh supplies available to be shipped to the UK after a reactor in the Netherlands was forced to halt production for the whole of last month.

"For every month that we don't have diagnosis, or a person doesn't have a diagnosis, their chances of succumbing to cancer increase by 10 per cent," said Prof Simon Middleburgh, at Bangor University's Nuclear Futures Institute. "It is actually resulting in people dying from this now. "These people are not getting the diagnosis, they are not getting those cancers caught early on, cancer will spread, people will die. "It's going to be hundreds if not thousands due to just this month's shortage in isotopes this time around."

Prof Middleburgh said it was why he had been backing the case for Project Arthur, which was originally unveiled by the Welsh government in January 2023. A feasibility study was commissioned into the project, and since then a business case is being submitted to the UK government asking for the cash to approve the scheme, providing a home-grown supply of the nuclear isotopes needed for the whole of Britain.

"The business case is there, it's not new technology, it's old technology - we can buy it of the shelf," said Prof Middleburgh. "It's not just a Wales thing - it's an across the UK thing - we're all ready to go, it is just time to press the green button and get on with it."

Radioisotopes can be used to diagnose cancer and treat certain types of the disease such as prostate and liver - when they are injected or swallowed and absorbed by cancers from within the body. Using them is a very common way of treating people or diagnosing people in the NHS already.

People typically get a dose of the nuclear medicine which is put into their body and it radiates. A gamma, for example, is a type of radiation. When it leaves the body, it can be detected to show its size and location on a scanner. But it should not be confused with external radiotherapy where they blast tumours from outside the body with radiation.

It is estimated it would take until about 2030 to get a facility up and running, if it was approved now. In the meantime, the UK government's Department of Health and Social Care said it was working to address the current shortages in nuclear isotopes.

"We know this may be concerning for patients and we are working closely with the company involved to resolve the issue," said a UK government official. "We are also working in close partnership with NHS England and the devolved governments to distribute available stock and prioritise patients with critical needs."

The Welsh government insisted it was still behind the proposals for Trawsfynydd, and said it was working with all partners to develop and progress plans. "We will provide an update on progress in due course." However, the Plaid Cymru MP for the area, Liz Saville-Roberts said action needed to be taken sooner rather than later, to help avoid a repeat of the current isotope shortage.

"Welsh government need to be pushing the business case as hard as possible. They need to have it costed, they need to work with Bangor University who will be alongside this, and the UK government has got to recognise - yes - this will cost, but look at the cost if we don't. We are going to be talking about a cost in life."

Sentencing Review 6

MoJ press release today:-

Innovation and international comparisons front and centre of Sentencing Review

The review, which aims to end the crisis in our prisons and make sure the country always has the prisons space needed to keep people safe, will consider how other jurisdictions who have faced similar capacity challenges have been able to tackle rising prison populations and reducing reoffending.

To ensure the review considers all aspects of the justice system, including the impact of changes on victims, an expert panel has been appointed to support independent chair David Gauke. This includes former Chief Executives of the Crown Prosecution Service, Peter Lewis and HMPPS, Michael Spurr, as well as former Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and Executive Director of End Violence Against Women Andrea Simon.

The review will be further informed by a call for evidence launched today [14 November 2024] with academics, experts and the public encouraged to share ideas for innovation and reform over the next eight weeks.

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Shabana Mahmood said:

"No Lord Chancellor should be put in the invidious position I was on taking office – faced with a prison system on the verge of collapse. We must make sure there are always a cell to lock up dangerous offenders.

This panel represents a wealth of experience. I have no doubt it will be invaluable in delivering a review which will help set out the long-term plan for our prisons."

The panel appointed to support David Gauke are:

• Lord Burnett – Previous Lord Chief Justice (2017 – 2023)
• Catherine Larsen KPM – A retired inspector from Avon and Somerset whose work included transforming the way rape and serious sexual offences are investigated by the police
• Nicola Padfield KC (Hon) – Criminal Law Barrister and academic at the University of Cambridge and Director of the Cambridge Centre for Criminal Justice
• Sir Peter Lewis – Former Chief Executive of Crown Prosecution Service (2007-2016), Former Registrar of the International Criminal Court (2023).
• Michael Spurr – Former Chief Executive of HMPPS (2010-2019)
• Andrea Simon – Executive Director at End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW)

The call for evidence will explore key themes including the structure of sentencing, use of technology as tough alternatives to custody, custodial and non-custodial sentences, as well as the individual needs of both victims and offenders.

Review Chair David Gauke said:

"This review will investigate how we can create a more effective criminal justice system, looking to jurisdictions who have faced similar challenges, and at how we can harness new technology to manage offenders in and out of prison.

I welcome responses to the call for evidence which challenge current thinking, are innovative, and which spotlight how best practice can be scaled, so we can build a justice system which works both now and in the future."

Alongside the call for evidence, international learnings will be a central focus for the panel. Sweden and the Netherlands have both used technology to manage offenders in and outside of prison and tackle rising prison populations. This has included an electronic monitoring system integrated between prisons and probation in the Netherlands, and using mobile apps in Sweden to support rehabilitation outside of prison, such as improving attendance at probation meetings.

Texas faced similar capacity challenges to England and Wales in the early 2000s. In 2007, prisons were at capacity and the population was predicted to rise, needing an additional 17,000 cells over the next five years. Under a system implemented by a Republican governor, prisoners can now reduce the time they spend in custody by participating in courses aimed at tackling the root causes of crime, and for good behaviour. The Texan prison population has now decreased by over 20,000 and crime in the area has fallen.

In developing its recommendations, the Sentencing Review will follow 3 core principles to ensure a sustainable justice system:

• make sure prison sentences punish serious offenders and protect the public, and there is always the space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
• look at what more can be done to encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, and keep the public safe by reducing reoffending
• explore tougher punishments outside of prison to make sure these sentences cut crime while making the best use of taxpayers’ money

The review will submit its findings in full to the Lord Chancellor by Spring 2025.

Notes to editors

The seven key themes the call for evidence will explore are:

• History and Trends in sentencing
• The Structure of sentencing
• The use of technology within sentencing
• Community sentences
• Custodial sentences
• The progression of custodial sentences
• The individual needs of victims and offenders

Sentencing Review 5

I want to start this post by highlighting the following from a much-respected follower and supporter, because it puts into words much of what I have been feeling since Wednesday, but was having difficulty in adequately articulating:-  

Cri de Coeur

I feel like I have nothing more to say, and little to contribute. On the fear and loathing following the inevitable election of Trump: while the inequality that leaves millions living stressed and impoverished lives is not tackled head on, those millions will vote for change. I would.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If you aren’t housed, warm and fed, no chance of being engaged in high-flying arguments about the need for global stability, the defence of democracy, the rights of anybody outside your front door (if you have one). Throwing insults from middle class keyboards about their “stupidity” is just being part of the problem. Reform are lining up to tug the same strings here in UK. Hand-wringing is not an option, and here I am wringing my hands. 

On criminal justice in the UK, and Probation in particular, it's all been said. The academics have said it, the practitioners and the agitators have said it, the commentators have said it. I have run out of words to convey the importance of a Probation Service that understands the social context of crime, the need for a professional, respected and competent agency embedded in and nourished by the “establishment” to argue authoritatively for a humane and person centred approach to its clients. 

The government will build more prisons wont they? And there will be painstaking arguments about sentencing and the need to divert people away from custody, but while that dribbles on, and people I admire enormously work away at it, those damn prisons are going to be built, at huge profit to some, and cost to the nation, and they will fill. As surely as eggs is eggs and the M25 is queued up this Friday evening.

Pearly Gates

--oo00oo--

This from the Times and brought to my attention by another long term contributor 'Getafix:-

Sir John Major: Prisons are ‘an utter disgrace and unacceptable’

The former prime minister said the appalling state of the country’s jails was a moral issue for all political parties and there must be reform.

Sir John Major has said there are “far too many people in prison” and the appalling state of Britain’s jails is a moral issue for all political parties.

The former prime minister told The Times Crime and Justice Commission that judges should be given far greater discretion over sentencing to curb the “excessive zeal” of politicians attempting to prove they are tough on crime.

He said: “The prison population has to come down. We put lots of people in prison who should not be there. Once you put someone in prison, there is a scar that will affect them for the rest of their life. When they try to get a job, when they try to rent a property, when they try to do anything to lift them out of the slough of despond, the mark that they have been in prison affects them for ever.”

Major described the state of Britain’s jails as “a total and utter disgrace”, adding: “There are prisons that were built in Victorian times with cells for one occupant but which are now accommodating two or three prisoners. That is unconscionable. It is completely unacceptable.

“This is a moral issue. If people misbehave, society has a right to punish them but the punishment should be suitable for the crime and you should not make it worse by incarcerating people in circumstances in which no civilised person should live.”

This week the government appointed David Gauke, a former lord chancellor, to chair a review of sentencing policy. Major described the choice as “inspired” and urged Gauke to be bold in making the case for radical reform. “We overuse prisons. We undervalue alternative sentences,” he said.

Major pointed out that the jail population had more than doubled since he was a minister in the 1980s. He said: “I was there on the day Willie Whitelaw [Margaret Thatcher’s home secretary] discovered that the prison population had hit 40,000. He was apoplectic about that number. Today there are 87,000 people in prison and yet crime is falling, including violent crime.

“There are far too many people in prison. What’s happened is that the sentences have become longer and home secretary after home secretary has decided he or she must be tough on crime. Whenever there is a scandal or a public outcry, the home secretary of the day says ‘we will toughen the law and make the sentence longer’ and it is wrong on almost every count.”

Major said the “ratcheting up” of the prison population was no longer sustainable and the politicisation of sentencing must end. He added: “If parliament wants to set a tariff, let it set a very wide tariff. It mustn’t keep setting ever-higher tariffs just so that the minister can say they are tough.

“Our judicial system is intended to be independent. I think we should trust the judges. I would go back to a system in which we give the judges much wider discretion.”

Major argued that there should be a greater use of non-custodial sentences for low-level crimes. “Too many vulnerable people are imprisoned,” he added. “I’m not speaking as some woolly liberal who thinks you should accept everything, but people who are mentally ill or addicted to drugs need treatment without the curse of a prison sentence hanging over them.”

He pointed out that many inmates had suffered trauma or adversity. Major said: “A very large percentage of the people in prison can neither read nor write, that’s a total educational failing. A large number of them were in care as children. A large number of them were abused as children. In most cases, these are not adults who have had the same life chances as the public at large. This does not excuse their crime but explains the circumstances behind it and that should be taken into account.”

Many of the women in prison could be given community sentences, he argued. “Very few are violent, many of them have done very minor things. When you send a mother to prison it raises a whole series of additional problems about who looks after the children.”

He added that short sentences were “very ineffective” and “in many cases pointless.”

Major argued that prison overcrowding meant the amount of education and rehabilitation available for offenders was “a tiny fraction of what it ought to be”.

He said: “You have to have compassion and it is about fairness as well. It is fair to send people to prison if they have committed a bad enough offence. That is fair to society and it’s fair to the prisoner but it’s not fair to then have them in their cells for 23 hours a day. It’s not fair to deny them the right to improve themselves if they wish to. It’s not fair to not train them. It’s not fair to not educate them.”

Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Conservative home secretary, famously said that prison works — but Major insisted that the mantra was too simplistic. He said: “Michael was right about serious and violent crime. If you have been attacked by someone and injured, from your point of view prison works because the person who attacked you is locked away. But I do not think it works for everybody.

“If nothing is done to change the attitudes of someone who has committed a crime, and they are poorly treated and made to feel even more alienated, you are actually making the problem worse when they are released. Prison can be a university of crime.”

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, told the commission that Britain’s jails were producing “better criminals” and “we have to find a way to incentivise prisoners to try to become better citizens.”

The former prime minister said one of his greatest regrets was not reforming prisons. “The failure to update and modernise the prison estate is a failure that can be laid at the feet of every government, including the one I led,” he said.

With strong political leadership, he thought the public could be persuaded to support a different approach that would lead to a reduction in the prison population. He said: “If we say only that we’re going to be tough on crime, without actually talking about the social implications of that policy, then we risk both hardened and alienated prisoners being released at the end of their tariff. That is not acceptable, nor in the public interest.

“But, if senior politicians are prepared to have a grown up conversation and point out the reality that we need reform and rehabilitation in the justice system, then I believe many people will understand and support that.”

The Times Crime and Justice Commission is a year-long project which will draw up recommendations for reform of policing, the courts and prisons. The final report will be published in April.

Sentencing Review 4

This from Frances Crook:-

Response to crime doesn’t have to be punishment

Labour has got itself trapped in the punishment vortex 

A justice minister, Heidi Alexander, gave a long and discursive interview on Sky News that only talked about how to punish people, by imposing longer prison sentences or placing people in the community on highly restrictive terms. The word she kept using was punishment. Whilst she mentioned victims, it was always in the context of increasing and imposing punishment. She is an experienced politician, a returning MP, so it was not a mistake but a deliberate and considered policy of government.

What was missing was any reference to the evidence of what works to prevent future offending or help for victims. There is a substantial body of academic and practice evidence showing that indiscriminate and increasingly nasty punishments do not work to reduce individual offending, nor do they deter others from crime and they certainly do nothing to assuage the misery that crime can inflict on victims. Yet this is being ignored. The government seems to be an evidence-free zone.

Meanwhile the government is squandering billions on building more and more prisons when all the evidence is that new prisons simply replicate the infestation of criminality within their walls and feed the problem when people are released.

Take a step back. Two thousand years ago laws were introduced based on proportionate revenge: you hurt me so I will impose a penalty of pain that equals it. We have a criminal justice system based broadly on this principle ever since, except that in many cases the penalty is more extreme than the offence. It is time to do things differently as this system is not working.

Restorative justice, or transformative justice, whatever terms are preferred, are based on different principles aimed at trying to make things better for everyone - society, the victims(s) , the taxpayer, justice workers and of course, the person who has wronged. It is probably the most researched part of the justice system and this shows that, when carried out properly, is effective and popular.

We know also that olden days probation based on helping an individual to find a stable life, a home, something to do all day and people to care, is the most effective at preventing future anti-social behaviour and crimes.

All the evidence and experience is there. Yet it is being ignored. The conversation being led by politicians is profoundly wrong-headed, based on leading a lynch-mob and will not lead to good outcomes for anyone. Labour has history of doing this, having presided over an explosion in the use of prison and community punishments for the vulnerable, the poor and children during its last administration. I had hoped that this time it would be different and it would use evidence to turn things round. My hope, ironically, lies with a former Conservative justice secretary, David Gauke, who is leading the sentencing review. Things can get better, but they need to be done differently.

Frances Crook

--oo00oo--

This from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies:-

Earlier this week, I attended the latest debate in parliament on the awful Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence

During and following the debate, some of those present expressed understandable frustration that so little appeared to have changed since an earlier parliamentary debate they had attended in April 2023.

The Labour minister, Nic Dakin, for instance, continued the previous Conservative government’s rejection of a resentencing exercise for those serving the IPP sentence, while, as the previous government also did, talking up the ‘action plan’ and other widely-discredited policies. A slightly changed cast, apparently, reading from much the same script.

The stubbornness of ministers in the face of strong evidence for, and powerful arguments in favour of, urgent action to resolve the IPP scandal is incredibly frustrating. It is also deeply distressing for IPP prisoners and their families.

One way of managing these frustrations is to remind ourselves, however difficult this can be, of what has changed over the past eighteen months.

To take a specific example, during the debate last year, the then government Minister, Damien Hinds, rejected the Justice Committee proposal to reduce the post-release licence period, for those serving the IPP, from ten to five years. Eighteen months on, the now government Minister, Nic Dakin, reminded those at this week’s debate that the post-release licence period will be reduced, from today, to three years; lower even than the Justice Committee had proposed.

The argument for further reform – particularly around the question of resentencing – also has a higher profile in parliament than it did in early 2023. The government continues to wrestle with the prisons capacity crisis. Reports suggest prisons could again run out of space by the summer of 2025. Lord Woodley is taking a Private Members’ Bill on IPP resentencing through the House of Lords. These and other developments could continue to focus ministerial minds in ways that might be helpful.

Governments often oppose innovations right up to the moment they agree to support them. While a full resentencing exercised still appears, at best, some way off, we should remind ourselves that effective campaigning on IPP has delivered results and that some of the government’s current red lines will not necessarily remain red lines in the future.

We should retain hope in the possibility of further change – and act accordingly – while savouring this hope with a robust realism about the obstacles ahead.

Further reform is possible. It will, though, require organisation, determination and relentlessness.

Richard Garside
Director

--oo00oo--

This from InsideTime:-

Judge John Samuels makes his case

His Honour John Samuels was a barrister for 33 years, a judge both part-time and full-time for 32 years (part-time role overlapping with his time as a barrister) and a Parole Board member for 10 years, the maximum allowed, after his age disbarred him sitting in the Crown Court. He was also a member of the appeal court and on the advisory panel of Inside Justice. Perhaps this combination of interests gives the clue as to why John Samuels differs from most other members of the bar. Whereas many barristers consider their role ends after a case, Samuels felt a growing responsibility and, just as importantly, a real interest in how the life of the convicted man or woman and their rehabilitation continued once they had been sentenced. This gives the title to his book.

Gradually, he formed the belief, which he tried to turn into a practical reality, that there should be courts which reviewed the progress of the already sentenced. This would be called Judicial Monitoring. The idea crystallized when he discovered the International Association of Drug Treatment Court Professionals. Sitting in on a drug court, which included Probation and defence lawyers, he saw how far it accelerated improvement in those appearing before it. His own work was towards a Greater London Community Court.

Despite much support for the principle, issues, primarily financial, constantly stopped any progress. The nearest he came to success was in 2016 when Michael Gove, then Lord Chancellor, announced that five pilot Crown Courts would be established to put into practice the proposals of a working group. This plan lasted for one day, before Gove lost office in a reshuffle.

Despite this disappointment, the long career of John Samuels has been an example of the judiciary bridging the gap between themselves and the people who appear before them in their courts. He has been chair of the Prisoners’ Education Trust and of the Criminal Justice Alliance, and has held roles in many other organisations. At all times, he has continued to put forward the need for the judiciary to follow up their sentencing.

From 2016, he was mentoring prisoners for Cambridge University’s Learning Together programme. It is no surprise, perhaps, that it was one of his mentees, Steve Gallant, who played such an important role in saving lives on that tragic day in November 2019.

John Samuels is a man of high principles who formed a view that ran contrary to the opinions of many of his colleagues at the criminal bar. This memoir tells much more than that; detailing his growing up, some of his cases, and includes a severe setback in his career. This did not deter him, and his passionate advocacy for change or at least development in the way the judiciary deals with those they convict, is a legacy that may yet lead to a positive outcome.

Mentor and Monitor: A Role for the Judge, by His Honour John Samuels KC, will be published by Whitefox Publishing Ltd on November 7. It can be ordered for £20 from WH Smith.

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.

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.

Dear Mr Jones

I thought this was good, so deserves a post on its own:-

Dear Mr Jones,

"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

The inspection results have been dire for years, but no-one has ever taken the management structure to task over any of those dire results, i.e. most of the culprits are still in post/have been promoted.

Why do I take such a view? Because my experiences of inspections have always been:

1. there is plenty of advance notice (usually months) of the imminent inspection, the cases to be inspected and the purpose of the inspection
2. local management order the toilets to be painted
3. case records are audited, adjusted and staff groomed
4. local management have cosy chats with the inspectors

And despite all of these 'advantages' and prep time, probation areas achieve shit scores... the failures are levelled at frontline staff... and not much changes at any level.

You say: "My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings."

I ask:

1. Why are there unlikely to be significant improvements? We've had decades of strategies & policies and consultations and political directives, yet nothing has changed for the better. Everything has just "gotten shitter".

2. Potential damage to frontline morale? Potential? The potential has been reached; and exceeded. I'm not sure frontline morale could be any more damaged than it already is. How about sacking some of the "excellent leaders" who have carelessly and callously led the service into this death spiral while being labelled "excellent" and "strong" by... the inspectors!

3. Public confidence? Most of the general public have no idea who or what probation is, except when some poor bastard on the frontline is being hung out to dry following a dreadful incident beyond their control, while the piss poor management make tutting noises and chunter about "lessons to be learned" or "a sad lack of professional inquisitiveness".

Have ***any*** lessons been learned?

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2022/09/sfo-2022/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/2021/06/09-june-2021/

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/3582/transforming-rehabilitation-inquiry/news/99492/new-probation-system-must-learn-lessons-from-botched-current-model/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/02/probation-service-monitoring-inquiry-sonnex

https://news.sky.com/story/re-offending-fears-as-probation-service-fails-to-learn-from-past-mistakes-11987919

https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jun/04/sonnex-probation-service

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/02/28/probation-staff-suspended-following-critical-report/

No!

So, seeing as repeating the same format with no improvement is proving unhelpful, maybe HMI Probation could stop using the same tactics and start doing unannounced inspections where inspectors turn up at an office and look at random case records with the case managers, listening to them as they discuss the cases together, getting to grips with the local difficulties and impossibilities, reading the bullying emails, experiencing the true gravity of the situation.

Then, maybe, there might be some real progress in short order.

Yours,

Anon

Have Your Say

A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so.

Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation has commented “We are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on front line services and in public confidence if we merely continue to report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters, including the recent SDS40 changes and Probation Reset, to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection, and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.”

Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and hope you will take the opportunity to respond.

You can read the full consultation document here – A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service (PDF, 357 kB)

Foreword 

The national arrangements for the delivery of probation services have a crucial role in enabling effective frontline delivery. We see some of the impact of this national activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but these do not give us a full picture of the impact of national arrangements. We need this information so that we can target recommendations where they will best drive improvement. This is why we are preparing to carry out an inspection of the Probation Service, focusing on the arrangements and activity in place at a national level. This will give us a comprehensive picture of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services by regions and PDUs. 

We have published fifteen reports and two regional inspection reports during 2024. Whilst we have found some positive practice and leadership in some areas, all of those reports have rated PDUs and regions as either Inadequate or Requires improvement. The themes underpinning our scores are consistent. Areas are still hamstrung by staffing deficits (including retention difficulties), consistent shortfalls in our standards on public protection, and the workload pressures. 

My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters including the recent SDS40 changes and probation reset to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection. 

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings. 

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement. 

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so. Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and I hope you will take the opportunity to respond. 

Martin Jones CBE 

Chief Inspector of Probation

Sentencing Review 1

Well, here it is then. We can only hope the new government has the bottle to get a grip on this issue and 'lean into' the problem and not go by what focus groups say. We also hope it presages a sensible review into the Probation Service that was promised in the Labour manifesto.

Landmark Sentencing Review launched to end prison crisis

Public safety will be at the heart of an independent review into sentencing, as the government pledges to end the crisis in our prisons.

• review into sentencing launched to end prison crisis and ensure no government forced into emergency release of prisoners again
• the first principle of the Review will be to protect the public and make sure prisons punish serious offenders
• this forms part of the government’s pledge to always have the prison places needed to lock up the most dangerous offenders, alongside its commitment to build 14,000 prison spaces
• review will also look at tough alternatives to custody

Chaired by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, the review will make sure the most serious offenders can be sent to prison to protect the public, and that the country always has the space needed to keep dangerous criminals locked up.

Launched on the day more prisoners will be leaving jail under an emergency release scheme due to chronic overcrowding, the review will make sure no government is ever placed in this position again.

The prison population has roughly doubled in the last 30 years - but in the last 14 of those years, just 500 places were added to the country’s stock of jail cells.

The government has committed to creating 14,000 extra prison places and outlining a 10-year capacity strategy later this year. Alongside this, the Sentencing Review will follow 3 core principles to ensure a sustainable justice system:

• make sure prison sentences punish serious offenders and protect the public, and there is always the space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
• look at what more can be done to encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, and keep the public safe by reducing reoffending
• explore tougher punishments outside of prison to make sure these sentences cut crime while making the best use of taxpayers’ money

The review will also specifically consider whether current sentencing for crimes committed against women and girls fits the severity of the act, and ask whether there is more can be done to tackle prolific offending.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, said:

"This government inherited prisons in crisis, within days of collapse. This review, along with our prison building programme, will ensure we never again have more prisoners than prison spaces. I believe in punishment. I believe in prison, but I also believe that we must increase the range of punishments we use. And that those prisoners who earn the right to turn their lives around should be encouraged to do so. The Sentencing Review will make sure prison and punishment work - and that there is always a cell waiting for dangerous offenders."

The review will examine the tough alternatives to custody, such as using technology to place criminals in a ‘prison outside prison’ and forcing offenders to do hard work in the community that gives back to society. In developing their recommendations, the independent chair and panel will look at evidence in this country and also from overseas jurisdictions, such as the US, to explore alternative approaches to criminal justice.

Independent Reviewer David Gauke said:

"Clearly, our prisons are not working. The prison population is increasing by around 4,500 every year, and nearly 90% of those sentenced to custody are reoffenders. This review will explore what punishment and rehabilitation should look like in the 21st century, and how we can move our justice system out of crisis and towards a long-term, sustainable future."

--oo00oo--

Terms of reference:-

Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025 – Terms of Reference:

In Summer 2024, the capacity pressures on the prison system brought it dangerously close to total collapse. On taking office, the new government was forced to announce emergency measures that reduced the custodial term of some standard determinate sentences from 50 percent to 40 percent of a sentence.

This review of sentencing is tasked with a comprehensive re-evaluation of our sentencing framework. Its goal is to ensure we are never again in a position where the country has more prisoners than prison places, and the government is forced to rely on the emergency release of prisoners.

To do so, the review will be guided by 3 principles: 

• firstly, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public - there must always be space in prison for the most dangerous offenders
• secondly, sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, cutting crime by reducing reoffending
• thirdly, we must expand and make greater use of punishment outside of prison

In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel are encouraged to draw not only on national data but also on international comparisons. This sentencing framework must follow the evidence of what reduces offending.

Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and the review will therefore not look at sentencing in individual cases or the role of the judiciary.

The review will provide long term solutions for our justice system by:

• examining the use and composition of non-custodial sentences, including robust community alternatives to prison and the use of fines
• looking at the role of incentives in sentence management and the powers of the probation service in the administration of sentences in the community
• looking at the use and impact of short custodial sentences
• reviewing the framework around longer custodial sentences, including the use of minimum sentences, and the range of sentences and maximum penalties available for different offences
• looking at the administration of sentences, including the point at which offenders are released from prison, how long they are supervised in the community on licence, recall to prison, and how technology can support this
• considering whether the sentencing framework should be amended to take into account the specific needs or vulnerabilities of specific cohorts, such as young adult offenders, older offenders, and women
• considering the approach to sentencing in cases of prolific offenders
• considering specifically sentencing for offences primarily committed against women and girls

There are some important areas which we consider are best-placed to be progressed outside of the review. The review will not consider: 

• the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence or the administration of it
• the use of remand
• the youth sentencing framework
• wholesale reform of the murder sentencing framework: Whilst the review may consider the impact of sentencing for murder on the wider sentencing framework, the department is considering wholesale reform of homicide law and sentencing separately
• out of court resolutions

The review should submit its findings in full to the Lord Chancellor by Spring 2025.

--oo00oo--

David Gauke writing in the New Statesman:-

How to fix the prisons crisis

The political bidding war over tougher sentences must end.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Perhaps a Godfather quotation is not entirely appropriate for the subject matter but, more than five years after leaving the Ministry of Justice I am back – rather to my surprise – chairing an independent review of sentencing policy.

It is a privilege to serve, not least because such a review is timely and necessary. It is timely because we face an immediate crisis in prison capacity. The current government inherited a situation in which we were very close to running out of places and had no choice but to take emergency measures and release prisoners early. Anyone in office over the summer would have done the same. But these emergency measures, including further releases today, only provided a brief respite. Demand for prison places is currently growing at 4,500 a year, much faster than the supply of places. This means that unless strategic measures are taken, we will repeatedly risk running out of places.

This capacity issue highlights why it is necessary to look more fundamentally at sentencing policy. We now incarcerate more people per head than any other western European country. Since 1993, the prison population of England and Wales has doubled, even as crime has consistently fallen (a fall, by the way, that can be seen in countries that have not increased their prison population). The reason for the increase in the prison population is clear. We sentence more people to prison and we sentence them for longer than we used to do.

Prison, of course, should continue to be a vital part of our criminal justice system. There are many circumstances in which it is the right form of punishment and the best way of protecting the public. But the large majority of prisoners will be released at some point and our very high reoffending rates suggest that our overcrowded prisons are not successful in rehabilitating offenders. We need to look at ways in which sentencing policy can better contribute to reducing reoffending and, as a consequence, crime.

There are some who will argue that we should build our way out of our prison capacity issues. But we cannot simply dismiss the reality that we will run out of capacity long before any new prisons can be built. And even if we do, there is a question of cost. On current projections, just to keep up with the growth in prison numbers, we would have to build three large prisons a year at a total cost of £2.3bn. Then there are the staffing, maintenance and other ongoing costs, which mean that it costs the taxpayer £52,000 per prisoner. Maintaining the current approach is, in effect, a significant and unfunded spending commitment at a time when tough decisions must be made about the public finances.

We really ought to be able to do better than an expensive system that fails to rehabilitate offenders. But how to do so?

The Sentencing Review Panel is, of course, only at the beginning of its process and there are many aspects of sentencing policy we will want to review but let me highlight three aspects here.

The first is short sentences. As justice secretary, I argued that short prison sentences did more harm than good. The evidence at the time supported this contention but I want to revisit it and, in particular, look at how we can more effectively deal with the most prolific offenders.

Whatever we do with short sentences, however, will not solve the capacity issue when the prison population is increasingly made up of those serving four years or more, very often considerably more. Prisoners, like everyone else, respond to incentives and other jurisdictions have done more than us to reward good behaviour. Texas, for example, introduced a new approach which results in prisoners who complete their programmes, behave well and show evidence of rehabilitation spending less time in jail. The (admittedly very high) Texan prison population has fallen, as has its crime rate. So a second area of interest is whether we could develop an incentives policy appropriate for our system.

The third area is technology. Specifically, does it provide an opportunity to punish, protect society and rehabilitate offenders outside of prison in a way that is much more effective than has previously been possible? Electronic tagging, for example, is increasingly used but we need to understand whether more could be done. The same can be said of drink and drug monitoring. We need to understand the potential for current and future technologies to keep offenders out of prison in the first place, or to safely release some prisoners at an earlier stage than is currently the case. There may well be lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions to ensure that sentencing policy is properly able to exploit these technologies.

For the last 30 years, there has been a sentencing bidding war between the political parties seeking to compete to be seen as the toughest on crime by promising ever-longer prison sentences. Rightly, the public expects criminality to be punished and prison is often viewed as the only effective means of punishment. But the capacity crisis in our prisons has meant that – at the very least – we have no choice but to pause the increase in the prison population. It is also sensible that we now look more broadly at the evidence and ask whether sentencing policy should be more fundamentally reformed. By next spring, we should have the answer.

David Gauke

Sound Advice Was Ignored

As rumours grow about possible funding cuts to be announced in the Budget, it turns out that the sentiment expressed in Friday's Guardian Editorial has a very long pedigree:- 

The Guardian view on prison reform: Labour must champion alternatives

Jails are squalid and the number of incarcerated people keeps rising. Investing in probation is part of the answer.

Last month’s report on sentencing from a group of former heads of the judiciary ended with a stark warning that the country faces a future of “US-style mass incarceration” – overcrowded prisons, mounting costs and deepening social inequalities – “without urgent remedial action to address sentence inflation”.

The gap between the two countries remains large. The UK has the highest per-capita prison population in western Europe. But the 0.1% of the population that is incarcerated in England, Wales and Scotland is still only a seventh of the 0.7% imprisoned in the US (Northern Ireland’s rate is far lower). Still, with the prison population of England and Wales predicted to rise from 88,000 (in August) to 106,000 by 2028, the judges are right to sound the alarm.

Ministers know they have a problem. So did their Conservative predecessors. Spending by the prison and probation service has ballooned to £4.6bn – around three-quarters of which goes on prisons, including £100m spent on keeping more than 2,000 men over 70 locked up. Conditions in many jails are appalling. The latest urgent notification from the prisons inspector, Charlie Taylor, regarding Manchester, described drones delivering drugs through windows that have been broken to enable this.

While Labour’s early release scheme was a sensible opening move, it has not been enough to curb rising prisoner numbers. In fact, the decision to let magistrates hand down longer sentences of up to 12 months is expected to further inflate the prison population. More radical changes will depend on the independent sentencing review promised in the manifesto.

The former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke is the favourite to lead this, and should command cross-party support. This matters because both parties bear responsibility for the sentence inflation of the past 30 years. The lack of alternatives to custody and low public confidence in existing ones have fuelled a widespread belief that voters – along with the rightwing press – prefer harsh sentencing. As a result, successive prime ministers have refused to commit to the penal reform programme that is urgently needed. Under Boris Johnson, sentences were increased, and rules changed so that some violent offenders must now serve two-thirds of their sentence behind bars, rather than half, before being considered for release.

The destructive consequences of the partial privatisation of the probation service were recognised when this was reversed. But further reform has been ducked. Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities. Investment in the workforce would be part of this process. Effective use of technology could also make community supervision work better. Given the problems with short sentences, including high reoffending rates, robust alternatives including tags, curfews and harm prevention orders should be prioritised.

Victims’ needs must also be considered. Campaigns against perceived leniency are one reason for sentence inflation. If the public is to be persuaded that alternatives to custody are meaningful, the service offered to victims must be improved. Unacceptable delays in the trial process contribute to a general sense of grievance at a broken system. While the last word on sentences belongs to judges, the public’s views on crime and punishment must be taken seriously if confidence in the system is to be renewed. Good communication is crucial. As a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer has relevant expertise and should be bold in pushing through change.

--oo00oo--

"Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities."

There is absolutely nothing new in this widely-held sentiment and indeed I have been recently reminded just how far back the probation profession has been saying this. Only yesterday a trawl through mountains of paperwork here at blog HQ threw up a response by the West Yorkshire CPO Anne Mace to the Labour government's consultation document 'Joining Forces to Protect the Public' of 1998. I quote from it:-   

There is now a broad consensus and acceptance that solutions to the problem of crime and the harm it causes must be a priority for many local and regional agencies as well as Government, and equally that no one agency has the capacity to afford full protection to the public against crime. West Yorkshire Probation Service places great emphasis on the need for departments and agencies to work together to agreed objectives in order to reduce crime and increase community safety. We believe this requires both good strategic co-ordination from the centre, and robust inter-agency attention to planning, objective setting and service delivery partnerships at local level to address the issues that affect local communities. 

We are struck by the extent to which the consultation document which has emerged from a major Prisons Probation review focuses heavily on structural change for the probation service. It is our view that any revised structure for the Probation Service for the new millennium must have demonstrable links to capacity for improved local performance across the full range of Service responsibilities, and that this must be held in balance with the drive for national consistency. A new structure must also be a clear aid to greater public safety and confidence, future adaptability and innovation, clear and regular accountability to key stakeholders, and efficient use of public money. It must offer a model that fosters sound and responsive working relationships, both internally and externally, and that builds a platform for local and regional partnership developments that will increasingly feature in policies for tackling social malaise and economic decline, particularly in crime-ridden communities. The effectiveness of a locally delivered service does not require uniformity of provision. The critical issue for public protection and public confidence is achievement of effective outcomes.

The recently implemented provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically promote the need for local agencies to work co-operatively together on Community Safety strategies and arrangements to tackle youth crime, which is consistent with the Home Office Aim for reduction in crime, particularly youth crime, the fear of crime, and maintenance of good order. West Yorkshire Probation Service welcomes these developments, but has found some of the proposals in the consultation document in conflict with them. The Best Value approach to public service provision requires that more relevant and effective local services are planned and negotiated by local managers who can make commitments in relation to both policy and resources. It is our view that a centralised command structure could not deliver such a service operationally with the requisite community focus. Successful resettlement and public protection grows from regular co-operation between key services locally ie police, probation, health services and the housing education and social services departments of Local Authorities. We would argue that this suggests the need for a strong local and regional touch within the framework of nationally determined policy and clearer lines of accountability for policy implementation than those that exist in the present governance arrangements.

We have also noted that the fifth annual report of the Chief Inspector of Probation (published June 1998) states that:-

The strength of the probation service is the unique place it occupies in the criminal justice world because it is involved at every stage in the process from crime prevention, through to pre-trial and to post-release work. One of its fundamental skills is its ability to liaise with all the players. Whatever changes may be made to the service in the future, that unique position must not be weakened. 

--oo00oo-- 

Well, sadly we know all these wise words were largely ignored by successive governments and hence we now face both a prison and probation service largely unfit for purpose.    

Postscript 21/10/24     

Astonishingly, a further search in the archives has revealed the fact that I submitted my own response to the consultation on 26/11/98. Here's what I said:-

This response is being made in a personal capacity as a current serving Probation Officer. I joined the West Yorkshire Probation Service in 1985 having successfully completed the four year combined BA and CQSW course at Bradford University. I have chosen to remain working for the last 13 years in a generic capacity within a field team based in Pontefract. As a consequence, I believe I have developed a broad experience of core probation practice and familiar with current issues of debate and concern. For the purpose of making this response I have had sight of the response from both the West Yorkshire Probation Service, together with the National Association of Probation Officers.

Organisationally, the Probation Service is clearly an anachronism and therefore I can appreciate a bureaucratic imperative to 'tidy' thins up a bit. But it must always be borne in mind that one of the Service's strengths has been a high degree of local 'ownership' together with accountability. There may be a clear case for some service amalgamations, but in my view some strong degree of local involvement must remain. Tackling crime and offending is increasingly viewed as best achieved through a partnership approach and the Probation Service has a proven track record in being able to deliver such initiatives, both by its local management and by being able to be flexible and responsive. My major concern is that this ability will be considerably hampered by making the service directly accountable centrally as envisaged by turning it into a Next Steps Agency. In my view this goes counter to accepted orthodoxy and may add yet further to our existing high levels of non-productive form filling and bureaucracy. 

There may be a case for making the service a stand alone QUANGO that could retain a high degree of local organisation, whilst at the same time benefitting from a coherent national image, together with some greater standardisation in service delivery. However, it must always be borne in mind that historically one of the main strengths of the Probation Service has been its ability to innovate and respond flexibly to changed needs and situations. Traditionally many significant developments in probation practice have been initiated by main grade officers on the ground identifying a problem and being allowed by a flexible management structure to experiment and develop an appropriate response. Should ant organisational changes result in over-centralised control, this vital and valuable ability will, in my view, be lost.

The Probation Service has always in my experience suffered from an image problem in that most people do not understand what we do, and in fairness the complexity and variation of tasks does not lend itself to easy explanation. In the absence of a popular TV drama series how does the public form a view of an important public service such as ours? Changing the name would, in my view, be counter-productive and only serve to increase confusion in the public's mind. The name is widely recognised, both nationally and internationally, has a proud history and is viewed with a high degree of professional integrity across many other disciplines in the legal, medical, social and academic fields. Of all the changes proposed, changing the name would in short be potentially the most damaging in terms of staff morale.

It is widely accepted that change can be a threatening and unsettling process, but it may also afford an opportunity by which a service can improve and develop. This is certainly my hope, but it should go without saying that change should only be considered if improvement can be demonstrated with conviction.

JRB 26/11/1998