Sentencing Review Responses

Napo press release:-

Napo welcomes Sentencing Review

Napo welcomes the Sentencing Review and in particular its focus on the critical role the probation service plays in the supervision and the rehabilitation of people in the criminal justice system. The review vindicates Napo’s long held view that radical action is needed to resolve the staffing and workload crisis probation has been struggling with for a number of years.

The review is right to look at the culture of the probation service and how it has shifted to far towards being a law enforcement agency and has lost sight of its core purpose of rehabilitation. We welcome the view that there needs to be greater balance between compliance and enforcement and that of advising and supporting people to turn their lives around.

We welcome the recommendation that Rehabilitation Requirements and Post Sentence Supervision are revoked and there is a return to greater flexibility in how an individual is supervised. A probation requirement would enable our members to tailor supervision to meet the needs of the person they supervise as opposed to the rigid approach probation has adopted over the years.

Whilst the measures outlined in the review will not give immediate relief to our members, it will offer some light at the end of the tunnel. However, Napo has reservations about HMPPS’s ability to make the necessary changes when they were the architects of many of the problems the service now faces. As we saw with the publication of the Rademaker report, our members will be sceptical as to whether or not senior leaders in HMPPS are capable of making any real change. Napo was clear in our submission that we do not believe that the probation service can survive while it is still part of the civil service.

General Secretary Ian Lawrence said: “This review offers some hope for the future, but Napo has been asking HMPPS to make many of these changes over the last 2 years to little avail. We need a commitment from the government that they will take immediate action not only to implement the recommendations, but also to put its hand in its pockets and reward our members with a decent pay rise.”

A key aspect of the review is the call for significant investment in the probation service. Napo firmly believes that after years of pay freezes, Napo members must see the benefit of this investment on the frontline. Ian Lawrence said: “Any previous investment in probation has been spent on the private sector for either IT or electronic monitoring. What we need to see now is a direct investment in staff. Without that we will see a continual rise in retention rates and continued staffing crisis. Our members cannot be expected to pick up the mess of the prisons crisis and see little in return for their efforts.”

--oo00oo--

This from Prison Reform Trust:-

PRT comment: Independent Sentencing Review

The Prison Reform Trust welcomes the Independent Sentencing Review and its clear commitment to evidence–based reform.

Commenting, Pia Sinha, chief executive of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

“This comprehensive and in-depth review represents a once in a generation opportunity to reset the sentence framework so that it is more focused on reducing reoffending and keeping the public safe. Proposals to expand the use of effective community alternatives and limit pointless short spells in custody will not only free up limited prison capacity but also lead to better outcomes for victims and wider society. We hope the government will accept and implement the majority of measures in this review and we look forward to its response."

Pia Sinha

The review rightly recognises that short prison sentences are less effective at reducing reoffending than robust community-based alternatives. Proposals to limit the use of short sentences to exceptional circumstances, and greater use of suspended and deferred sentencing, offer a practical route to reducing the number of people serving brief, ineffective custodial terms—sentences that do little to improve public safety or support rehabilitation.

The review’s focus on expanding the use of effective community alternatives is both positive and necessary. The review is right to recognise the need for this to be backed by sufficient funding and resources for probation to supervise more people in the community. We welcome proposals to provide sustainable and long-term funding for women’s centres, expand the use of intensive supervision courts and increase investment in community sentence treatment requirements and liaison and diversion services.

The review is also right to highlight the need to restructure standard determinate sentences and regularise release points. This represents a sensible, phased approach to rehabilitation—supporting people to begin their return to the community under supervision, while still serving their sentence. The introduction of an incentives model will need to be monitored carefully to ensure it does not lead to unfair or disproportionate outcomes.

The rapid rise in recall in the past few decades has been a major driver of the growth in the prison population, often trapping people in a revolving door of imprisonment and release. We welcome the review’s proposals to limit its use and to prevent people from being returned to prison for technical breaches of their licence. If implemented they would represent a more proportionate and constructive approach, helping to break the cycle and support long-term rehabilitation.

This review comes at a time of acute pressure on prison capacity—driven by years of sentence inflation and the failure of politicians to plan for the consequences of their penal populism. We welcome proposals to introduce an external advisory body on sentencing and a requirement for ministers to make an annual report to parliament on prison capacity. These measures would encourage evidence-based policy and provide an important check on kneejerk responses to crime by politicians. However, the review does not address the significant impact of longer sentences for serious offences, which have been a key driver of the rising prison population. There will be an opportunity to return to this pressing issue with the report of the Law Commission on homicide law in the coming years.

--oo00oo--

This from Rob Allen:-

A Good Try- but can it be Converted?

I met David Gauke a few years back when our sons were on opposite sides in a rugby match. I was impressed that he recalled our touchline conversation when we talked briefly again this January at a Sentencing Council seminar. He told the seminar that whatever else it might do, there was an arithmetical imperative his Sentencing Review’s recommendations should effect a sustained reduction in demand for prison places to prevent continuing recourse to the emergency measures we’ve seen over the last couple of years.

His wide ranging and largely welcome report is more a review of the execution of sentences than it is of sentencing. It says little about addressing the rampant sentence inflation which the first part of the review identified as the cause of the capacity crisis.

But it does contain important proposals which are estimated to result in a fall in the prison population of 9,800 places. Unfortunately, the report lacks the kind of detailed cost benefit analysis that generally accompanies legislation in the form of an Impact Assessment signed off by ministers. That’s a shame, particularly as the Lord Chancellor’s rejection of some of Gauke’s proposals will undoubtedly bring the 9,800 figure down. But by how much it’s hard to say.

Take the proposal that short custodial sentences are used only in exceptional circumstances. Gauke reckons this will save 2,000 places. But a similar measure proposed by the last government in 2023 was estimated to save between only 200 and 1,000 places. The Lord Chancellor has described the Gauke scheme as “a presumption against custodial sentences of less than a year – in favour of tough community sentences.” The 2023 version involved a duty to suspend a prison sentence- a subtle but important distinction which may account for the difference in the assessments. But without the detailed workings it’s impossible to say.

A larger reduction in prison places is expected from Gauke’s early release proposals. Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor hasn’t accepted them in their entirety. For those serving Standard Determinate Sentences (SDS), Government plans to ditch an upper limit to the proportion of the sentence they serve in prison will eat into the 4,100 places that would be saved. Gauke wanted the more dangerous prisoners serving Extended Sentences to be able to earn a Parole hearing at the halfway point of their sentence. MoJ says no and they’ll have to continue to wait until two thirds has passed. So the 600 places that would have been saved presumably won’t be.

The government say they’ll “introduce a tougher adjudication regime so that bad behaviour in prisons is properly punished”. Under the earned release scheme, offences against discipline, such as engaging in any threatening, abusive or violent behaviour, or possessing unauthorised articles would result in the offender’s release point being pushed back. It’s not clear that the Review team took a tougher disciplinary regime into account when assessing the numbers of SDS prisoners who’ll qualify for release at the earliest point.

The Lord Chancellor told Parliament today that as things stand, they’ll be short of 9,500 places by 2028. Gauke’s certainly had a try at bridging the gap. But can it be converted?

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

This from the Howard League:-

The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the final report of the Independent Sentencing Review, published today (Thursday 22 May).

The review, led by David Gauke, a former Secretary of State for Justice, calls for a series of measures to address the prison capacity crisis through reducing reoffending and ending an overreliance on custody.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

 “This is a vital review that makes the case for change by focusing on the evidence on what will reduce reoffending and prevent more people becoming victims of crime.

“The ball is now in the government’s court. Solving the prison capacity crisis will require major intervention and, as the review recognises, this will only succeed if reform and investment deliver an effective and responsive probation service that works to cut crime in the community.

“And more must be done. The proposals unveiled today are a good start, and if enacted they will buy ministers more time and some headroom in an overstretched system. Ultimately, however, they are insufficient because the terms of reference for the review excluded consideration of more serious offences.

“If the government really wants to ensure that the country never runs out of prison places again, it must be bolder and address the longest and indeterminate sentences that have driven the criminal justice system to the brink of collapse.”

The Howard League submitted evidence to the review in January 2025, calling on the government to abolish sentences of 12 months or less and expand the use of suspended sentences, and emphasising the need for a well-resourced and effective probation service.

The charity’s submission, which drew on feedback received from members in prison, also called for custodial sentences to be reconceived, with focus on rehabilitation and incentivising progression.