Off Piste 3

What with it being 'Black Friday' season, the weekend, thoughts turning to Christmas preparations and decreasing numbers of people watching TV in 'linear' form or reading print newspapers, I wonder how many readers noticed yesterday's news regarding the TV licence? It will rise by £5 from April in line with inflation and there was this:-

"Meanwhile, the DCMS said it was scrapping a review of the BBC's funding model that was set up by the previous government, and is disbanding its expert panel. Instead, the government will examine the issue of BBC funding as part of the charter review process, before the BBC's current royal charter expires in 2027."

Of course it's long been apparent that technological changes having dramatically changed the broadcasting and hence consuming landscape, the legally-enforced TV licence method of funding Public Service Broadcasting in the form of the BBC was fast becoming unsustainable. However, I think many can breathe a sigh of relief that it doesn't fall to a Conservative government to be making the key decisions. 

Interestingly, the BBC Chair, Samir Shah CBE, made a wide-ranging and significant speech recently 'A Very British Success Story: The PSBs at the heart of UK creativity' that not only covered the whole PSB landscape, but also crucially Charter Review and the funding model. He made the point that not only had the BBC been forced to make painful cuts due to the licence fee being frozen, but had also been required to take on increased responsibilities such as the funding of the World Service and free licences for the over 75's. He might also have mentioned the funding of the Local Democracy Reporting Service and broadband roll out to rural areas.

Not surprisingly the effect on the BBC has been dramatic with massive cuts to the local radio network last year, together with the World TV Service and more recently the reduction of journalists affecting Newsnight and now Hardtalk and news provision generally. Interestingly, this recent article 'Elite Paywalls or Social Media Misinformation: The Alarming Future of ‘Two Tier’ Journalism' by Bylinetimes highlights the dangers:- 

The UK is facing a “grim” world of “two tier” journalism, in which access to high-quality information is reserved for the few, with increasing numbers relying solely on dangerously unreliable online sources for their news, according to a new Parliamentary report.

The Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee, in a report on “the future of news” suggest that current trends in the industry such as the worsening economics of mass market journalism, low trust among the public and a growing number of people actively avoiding mainstream reporting is contributing to this malaise.

It states starkly that “There is a realistic possibility of the UK’s news environment fracturing irreparably along social, regional and economic lines within the next 5–10 years. The implications for our society and democracy would be grim.”

It adds, having taken evidence from a wide range of people, including national newspapers and group owners, national broadcasters, academics, think tanks and tech giants on a visit to San Francisco, “The period of having informed citizens with a shared understanding of facts is not inevitable and may not endure.”

It warns that use of AI tools is about to make matters even worse since it will give more power to the tech giants to create “engaging news summaries giving them unprecedented influence over the type of news we see”.

The article spells out many of the behavioural changes going on:- 

Statistics in the report on where people get their news backed up the change in the last five years. BBC's flagship BBC1 channel saw a decline from 58% to 43% between 2019 and this year, ITV were down from 40% to 30% and Channel Four was down from 17% to 14%. The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday was down from 18% to 13%, the Guardian and Observer was stable at about 10%. Increasingly people were getting their news from the internet with YouTube going from six per cent to 19%, TikTok from 0% to 11% and Instagram from 13% to 18%. Only Twitter, now X under Elon Musk, showed a slight fall having previously risen from 16% to 17%, it has now fallen back to 15%, lower than in 2019.

Returning to Samir Shah's speech, it will be noted that he has effectively started Charter Renewal discussions by suggesting that it's time to ditch the routine of having the BBC's very existence under continuous review (there are midterm reviews) and instead enshrine its status in law. I suppose the subtext is trying to remove political interference, but that of course fundamentally means sorting out funding.

At this point I should declare that I thought I had got the answer. Seeing that technological change means that it's only a matter of time before terrestrial broadcasting will cease, along with the Public Telephone Service, all to be replaced with broadband distribution, you simply ask the Internet Service Provider to collect a tax. There, sorted! Why had nobody thought of this? Well it turns out they had of course and the idea was casually floated by the BBC four years ago, not surprisingly to be met with right-wing fury from the likes of the Taxpayers Alliance and Daily Mail. 

It is the answer though for a number of reasons:-

• Cheap to collect
• Difficult to avoid
• De-criminalisation
• Individual not property based
• Easy to apply age, disability or income discounts
• Could help fund all PSB's eg Ch4
• Maintains concept of 'universality'

Sentencing Review 8

I've only just caught up with BBC Radio 4's the Briefing Room 'Why do we have such overcrowded prisons?' and it's well worth 30 minutes of your time, BUT the astonishing thing is, probation hardly got a mention at all! I'm pretty sure John Podmore will have dwelt on our key role, but I have a strong suspicion much was edited out. 

Whatever, whether it's crap or non-existent PSR's; poor supervision; or massive numbers of recalls, there's no solution to the prison crisis without sorting the one in probation. During the election campaign, Labour promised a Probation Review, so where is it? 

John did however manage to highlight cultural issues within HM Prison Service, and we all know that insidious culture has permeated the probation service. As he infers, probation must be split off and return to local control.

Our prisons are overcrowded, the Government recently released a group of prisoners early to ease the pressure. Britain seems to incarcerate more people per head of population compared to any other Western European country. Now the Government has announced there is going to be a Review of Sentencing to see what we can do to reduce the number of people in prison. Recently an eight week consultation period began, during which members of the public can send in their thoughts on how to tackle these issues. Why have prisons have become so over-crowded, and what we can do about it? 

John Podmore, former prison governor and prison inspector and author of Out of Sight Out of Mind: Why Britain's Prisons Are Failing 

Nicola Padfield, Emeritus Professor of Criminal and Penal Justice, at the University of Cambridge 

Catherine Heard, Director of the World Prison Research Programme, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of London

At this point it's probably worth highlighting that there is a short window of opportunity to supply evidence to the Review and here are the details:- .  

Foreword – The Rt Hon David Gauke

The prison population in England and Wales has doubled over the last 30 years. We now have the highest incarceration rate of any Western European country and the prison population is projected to continue to rise by four and a half thousand offenders a year. Supply of new prison places has not kept up with the increase in demand and for the eighteen months after February 2023, the male estate was routinely operating at above 99% capacity.

In Summer 2024, these capacity pressures brought this prison system within days of collapse, forcing the Government to introduce measures to release some prisoners early. This acted as a pressure valve, freeing up capacity in the short-term enabling the criminal justice system to continue to function, but it has not provided a long-term solution to the challenges of a rising prison population and high rates of reoffending.

There are many factors that have contributed to this, but the fact that the average custodial sentence length stands at nearly 21 months, up from about 13 months 20 years ago, has undoubtedly had a profound impact.

Building prisons costs vast amounts of taxpayer money, and we cannot build at a fast enough rate to keep up with current levels of demand. We need to fundamentally look again at sentencing policy if we want to get control of the prison population. Prison will always play a key role in our justice system, and for many offences it will always be the only answer, but we must face reality that the vast majority of offenders will be released. We need to make sure that when that happens, we have a probation system fully equipped to manage them, and that they are less likely to reoffend and create more victims of crime. We also need to look at the areas where the current system is failing, like tackling the issue of hyper-prolific offenders.

This review provides an opportunity to look at how we can make the system better and more effective, looking to other jurisdictions who have faced similar challenges, and at how we can harness new technology to manage offenders outside of prison.

The scale of this challenge should not be underestimated, but the review will not shy away from the difficult questions. I encourage all those responding to the call for evidence to be ambitious, and I welcome any ideas which challenge current thinking, are innovative, or which spotlight best practice and how it can be extended, so we can build a justice system which is sustainable now and in the future.

Guidance

This Call for Evidence exercise is intended to gather evidence as part of the Independent Sentencing Review. This Call for Evidence is open for eight weeks, from 14 November 2024 until 9 January 2025. 

Views are welcomed from all who have an interest in this area. Respondents are asked to consider the issues raised in this document and to provide responses to some or all of the questions asked, providing any documentary or other evidence available to support their position.  

All submissions and evidence provided will be considered and used as part of the Independent Sentencing Review to assist the Chair and Panel in developing recommendations. The Review is working to tight timeframes, so respondents are encouraged to submit evidence as soon as convenient. The Chair and Panel will issue the outcome of the review to the Ministry of Justice and this evidence may be referenced in a final report. Given the immediacy of the problems the review addresses, this call encourages evidence that extends existing ideas, or that may be ambitious, innovative, or new.

An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this paper, as its purpose is to gather evidence, rather than to put forward policy proposals for consultation. 

If respondents are unable to submit evidence through the online portal, evidence can also be shared with the Independent Review via email SentencingReview2024-25@justice.gov.uk or via letter to the Independent Sentencing Review Secretariat, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ.  

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.

Theme 1: History and trends in sentencing

Background:

• There are five statutory purposes of sentencing: the punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence), the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public, and the making of reparation by offender to persons affected by their offences.
• There have been significant legislative changes to sentencing in recent years, for example the introduction of Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the sentencing of murder, increases in maximum penalties, and the expansion of mandatory sentences. There has also been an increase in the average time spent in custody from 12.7 months in 2003 to 20.9 months in 2023.
• This review will examine to what extent these changes have met the statutory purposes of sentencing and what the impacts have been, including on levels of crime and the views on sentencing of those who have been impacted by crime.
• The review will also examine how these changes have contributed to prison population growth and high probation caseloads.
• It will look to learn from countries who have successfully reversed inflationary trends. For example, the Netherlands has seen its prison population steadily decrease by over 40% between 2006 and 2023, from one of the highest incarceration rates in Western Europe.

What have been the key drivers in changes in sentencing, and how have these changes met the statutory purposes of sentencing?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• Key drivers behind rising sentence lengths, including external factors or pressures.
• The impact on sentence lengths of specific legislative changes, such as the impact of the introduction of schedule 21 on wider sentencing, increases in maximum penalties, and the expansion of mandatory sentences.
• The specific crime types or sentence types that have experienced large or rapid inflation, and why this has happened.
• To what extent current sentencing practice meets the statutory purposes of sentencing.
• The impact of changing sentencing practices, including on levels of crime and reoffending.
• International jurisdictions that have experienced similar trends, as well as those which have experienced the opposite, and what we can learn from them.

Theme 2: Structures

Background:

• Parliament sets the sentencing framework, including maximum, and in some cases minimum, sentences, and legislates on aspects of sentence delivery.
• The Sentencing Council provides guidelines on the application of the law to promote transparency and consistency.
• The judiciary independently applies the law and passes a sentence that considers the specifics of each individual case. Discounts are available for early guilty pleas.
• The Attorney General may refer sentences passed in the Crown Court for specified offences (all indictable only offences and certain triable-either-way offences), which appear to be unduly lenient, to the Court of Appeal for review. Any reference must be made within 28 days of the sentence being passed. Anyone can ask the Attorney General to consider referring a sentence.
• This review will consider whether changes to structures around how new sentencing legislation is introduced and implemented may be needed to ensure sustainable sentencing into the future. This could, for example, include processes that would ensure supply and demand in the system are balanced.
• This review will also consider the hierarchy of available sentence types, including whether our current understanding of the punitive nature of different sentence types is correct.

How might we reform structures and processes to better meet the purposes of sentencing whilst ensuring a sustainable system?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• The role of the Government and Parliament, and how external campaigns influence policy.
• The role of the Sentencing Council.
• The statutory purposes of sentencing.
• The overall hierarchy of sentencing options available, including our understanding of the punitive nature of different sentence types.
• Judicial confidence in available sentencing options.
• How legislative changes can have intended and unintended consequences on sentencing practice.
• The impact of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme on sentencing.
• International examples of bodies responsible for sentencing, and what we can learn from other approaches.

Theme 3: Technology

Background:

• We already use technology to support the management of offenders in some instances, including monitoring location, imposing enforcing curfews and monitoring alcohol consumption.
• Technological advancement might offer new and innovative options for sentencing. This could, for example, mean new ways of tracking offender behaviour to protect the public, curtailing use of technology as a form of punishment, or influencing behaviour to support rehabilitation.
• For example, mobile biometric authentication in Arkansas (USA) enables offenders to confirm their location and to check in with parole/probation officers online from a smartphone.
• This review will consider how we might make new or different sentencing options available to judges by using existing and emerging technology to transform how we deliver justice, rehabilitate offenders, and protect the public.

How can we use technology to be innovative in our sentencing options, including considering how we administer sentences and manage offenders in the community?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• Current technology to deliver sentencing options, for example through electronic monitoring to track location, alcohol use, and other aspects of behaviour.
• New solutions or emerging technology, including the use of artificial intelligence; mobile biometric authentication; and using nudge theory to alter behaviour.
• The use of technology to manage offenders in the community, either post-custody or on community or suspended sentences.
• The sentencing options that new or existing technology may make available.
• International examples of how technology is used innovatively to manage offenders and evidence of its effectiveness.

Theme 4: Community sentences

Background:

• Current community sentences consist of probation supervision alongside a menu of requirements such as: tagged curfew; unpaid work; treatment for addiction or mental health; and programmes including counselling, drug testing, or support with reading, writing and job applications. For example, over 1 million hours of unpaid work were sentenced in the quarter to June 2024.
• This review will be ambitious in looking at how we can manage offenders in the community in a way that ensures the public can have confidence that community sentences are robust, combining effective punishment with rehabilitation to prevent further offending. This could include a different approach to requirements or ancillary orders.
• We also recognise the significant pressures on the probation service, which will be increased by further use of community alternatives to custody. We are therefore seeking evidence on the probation service’s powers to manage offenders, and how community sentences and requirements can be best targeted so that they will be most effective.
• Out of court resolutions are out of scope of this review and we are therefore not seeking evidence on their use. However, we recognise their importance in the overall system and would welcome views on whether more offenders should be diverted away from the court system.

How should we reform the use of community sentences and other alternatives to custody to deliver justice and improve outcomes for offenders, victims and communities?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• Who should be in prison and who could serve sentences in the community.
• The types of offences for which people should be dealt with outside of the court system.
• The use of fines in the hierarchy of sentences
• The use of ancillary orders.
• The use and efficacy of different requirements
• The resources and powers of the probation service.
• Tailored supervision for certain cohorts.
• Innovative approaches to support and supervision, including using technology.
• International examples of community sentences.

Theme 5: Custodial sentences

Background:

• Sentencing for more serious offences has become more severe and custodial sentence lengths have grown.
• Maximum (and some minimum) sentences are set by Parliament and guidelines on application of sentences are developed by the Sentencing Council.
• Parliament has introduced mandatory minimum sentences for a handful of serious crimes. These must be imposed unless there are exceptional circumstances and include: seven years imprisonment for a third Class A drug trafficking offence; three years for a third domestic burglary; five years for certain firearms offences; six months for a second offence of possession a weapon; and six months for threatening with a weapon.
• Judges and magistrates have discretion to sentence individuals within this legal framework and individual sentences are set taking account of the specifics of the case.
• This review will look at the sentencing framework and consider whether new types of custodial sentences are needed, which better meet the purposes of sentencing, are more flexible to meet the needs of an offender and are more transparent at the point of sentencing.
• This could involve, for example, innovative use of the open prison estate or home detention for those offenders where closed custodial conditions may not be the most appropriate place.

How should custodial sentences be reformed to deliver justice and improve outcomes for offenders, victims and communities?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• The use of minimum and maximum sentences set by Parliament.
• The use of short custodial sentences and suspended sentences.
• Available sentences for the most dangerous offenders.
• Whether a fundamentally new type of custodial sentence is needed, for example which builds in staged incentives for rehabilitation, and who should administer it.
• International examples of custodial sentencing.

Theme 6: Progression of custodial sentences

Background:

• The vast majority of prisoners will be released into the community, and the way prisoners can progress through their sentence varies.
• For eligible prisoners, open prisons can form a part of resettlement, and some prisoners are released on temporary licence to work in the community.
• Automatic release points for those on standard determinate sentences vary between 40% and 67% depending on the offence type/sentence-type.
• Home Detention Curfew allows certain eligible risk-assessed prisoners on standard determinate sentences to be released ahead of their automatic release date under an electronically monitored curfew.
• Following release, prisoners are managed on licence in the community by probation for the remainder of their sentence. For those on sentences of less than 2 years, there is also a period of post-sentence supervision.
• Many prisoners are recalled to custody if their risk escalates following release into the community.
• This review will look at new ways of progressing offenders through their custodial sentence and how incentivisation might play a role in sentence progression. For example, in Texas (USA) prisoners can earn a reduction in the length of time before they are eligible for release from prison or their licence period by engaging in rehabilitative activities.
• This review also recognises significant pressures on probation so will gather evidence on the effectiveness of licence periods and post-sentence supervision and how to prioritise probation resource.

How should we reform the way offenders progress through their custodial sentences to ensure we are delivering justice and improving outcomes for offenders, victims, and communities?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• Progression through a sentence from custody to community, including use of open conditions, Home Detention Curfew and automatic release points.
• The role of incentivisation in sentence progression.
• The approach to licence periods and the purpose of recall to custody
• The system for recalling offenders to custody, including the circumstances under which recall occurs and whether there are robust alternatives.
• The use of post-sentence supervision and licence periods, and how probation resource can be most effectively targeted.
• International examples of progression through custodial sentences.

Theme 7: Individual needs of victims and offenders

Background:

• The experience of the criminal justice system varies for those with different backgrounds and characteristics, and we must recognise this within our system.
• This review seeks to understand the views of victims on sentencing, and how this may vary for different offence types, including how transparency in sentencing practice (e.g. when an offender will be released) impacts the victim experience. This review is particularly interested in sentencing for offences which are primarily committed against women and girls.
• In order to drive down reoffending and to prevent future victims, it is important that the system properly recognises the needs and vulnerabilities of certain offender cohorts.
• For example, whilst women comprise 4% of the prison population and 9% of those under community supervision we know female offenders often have complex needs, with at least 60% of women supervised in the community or in custody reporting experiencing domestic abuse.
• We also know that many prolific offenders have complex needs. Between 2000 and 2021, prolific offenders made up roughly one tenth (0.5 million) of the overall offender cohort (5.89 million). . Despite making up a minority of all offenders, prolific offenders were responsible for nearly half of all sentencing occasions (10.5 million) in the same period.

What, if any, changes are needed in sentencing to meet the individual needs of different victims and offenders and to drive better outcomes?

In answering this question, you might want to consider:

• The views of victims on sentencing.
• Transparency in sentencing.
• Sentencing for offences that are primarily committed against women and girls.
• Whether sentencing should be tailored to specific groups, including women, older offenders, or young adults.
• Sentencing and management of prolific offenders.
• International examples related to this theme.

Contact details

Please use the online portal to provide your response. Alternatively, please send your response by email or mail by 9/01/2025 to:

Sentencing Review Secretariat Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

Email: SentencingReview2024-25@justice.gov.uk

Sentencing Review 7

The new Justice Select Committee met this week, but probation didn't feature much, something that I guess we're all going to have to accept, particularly as the new government has showed little interest in our plight. All the attention remains on the failing prison part of the forced marriage and how to build more places. I couldn't be bothered to watch proceedings, but happily Rob Allen's latest blog post provides an excellent update:- 

Confidence and Supply

Much of the focus on prison reform in recent months has been on managing burgeoning demand for places. The newly formed Justice Select Committee started their examination of Prisons Minister Lord Timpson this week by asking how long the space freed up by the SDS 40 early release scheme might last.

The answer it seems is next Autumn or maybe a bit longer. That’s hoped to be enough time to create longer term sustainability in the system by putting in place whatever legislative changes are recommended by the David Gauke Sentencing Review.

But is that realistic? Even if Gauke manages to report in the Spring, his proposals are likely to be controversial. Getting them on to the statute book and then implemented could easily take another year.

The MoJ handily has a couple of further demand reduction measures up its sleeve- a change to the process of recalling released prisoners to jail in April and extending to a year the period of release on a Home Detention Curfew for eligible prisoners, from June. So they may muddle through.

But what about the supply of new prison places?

MPs heard that the new all electric Millsike Prison in North Yorkshire is on track to open in April, (although like all new prisons will surely need time to reach its full capacity of 1500). A new houseblock at Rye Hill in Warwickshire will also be ready early next year which should add 450 additional places. Timpson also said that HMP Dartmoor - closed in the Summer because of high levels of Radon- will re-open when safe, making more than 600 places available.

Prison Service Chief Amy Rees told the Committee that planning permission had now been granted for 17,000 of the 20,000 proposed new prison places. (The outstanding decision on the one remaining new build prison near Wymott and Garth in Lancashire is due to be made by mid-December).

Planning delays have added between 18 months and 3 years to the original timelines according to Ms Rees. In future, planning for prisons will be treated as Crown development with urgent procedures for reaching decisions and more in the way of permitted development on existing sites.

On the downside, Timpson revealed that 100 projects in courts and prisons were affected when construction company ISG filed for administration in September. 79 will require re-procurement.

He also acknowledged the significant shortcomings in the physical condition of the existing estate although did not put a financial cost on the backlog of maintenance. It was £1 billion in 2021.

What we do know is that there are still 23,000 cells which require fire safety upgrades. According to my calculations, the necessary work has been progressing at the rate of about 3,000 cells a year- far too few to meet the commitment to complete the work by 2027. The latest HMPPS Annual report, published last week but curiously unmentioned in the Select Committee, says reaching the target is “finely balanced in terms of the future headroom position and we are likely to require additional places out of use in future years to achieve this aim.”

More broadly, inspection and monitoring reports have drawn repeated attention to often shocking failings in infrastructure. These aren’t limited to the 25 odd prisons dating from the Victorian era. The HMPPS Annual Report revealed that in May 2024, eight sites were confirmed as containing RAAC.

HMPPS have undertaken a comprehensive survey of conditions in the prisons. I was pleased to hear Ms Rees tell the committee that the report of the survey would be published shortly particularly as the MoJ had refused my FOI request to see it.

But then according to the HMPPS Annual Report, the Final Report of the Survey was published in June 2024. It wasn’t. I have asked the Justice Committee to try to clarify the position.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

Like many people, I'm rapidly getting fed up with Twitter and have therefore joined the millions migrating to bluesky.

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.