Petitions Decide Government Policy

Well, it hasn't taken long for a new PM that knows nothing about criminal justice to decide the best way to proceed is to let the media, victims and public petitions decide policy rather than Parliament:-

Prime Minister blocks hundreds more criminals from sentencing changes  

Unlawful killing and historic child sex offences will be blocked from upcoming changes to prison sentences after the Prime Minister ordered more serious offenders to be kept behind bars for longer.  

•  Prime Minister blocks manslaughter, death by drunk or dangerous driving and historic child sex offences from sentencing changes  
• Builds on action to keep those in prison for rape, child sex or grooming offences behind bars
• Victims of domestic violence will be better protected from perpetrators, with record numbers of offenders set to leave prison tagged and the new restriction zones put in place, some as little as a few miles wide, for some sexual and violent offenders
• The government will deport thousands of foreign criminals and bring the injustice of IPP sentences to an end during this Parliament 

Unlawful killing and historic child sex offences will be blocked from upcoming changes to prison sentences after the Prime Minister ordered more serious offenders to be kept behind bars for longer. 

The Prime Minister’s intervention will mean offenders in prison for killing an emergency worker in the line of duty will not be released any earlier. Historic grooming offences, all forms of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving and causing or allowing the death of a child will also be barred from the changes to the prison sentences.

This builds on the action already taken by the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor to stop anyone in prison for rape, serious child sexual offences and grooming from being released earlier. Murderers or anyone deemed the most dangerous by a court and handed a life or extended sentence were already blocked from seeing any reduction to their sentence and will stay locked up until they go before a Parole Board.

As a result of these changes today, hundreds more victims will no longer face the anxiety of seeing their offender coming out sooner than they were expecting.

Since coming into office, the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor have made significant changes to the plans they inherited. They want to go even further, but cannot do so without risking the entire justice system collapsing. This would mean the police would be unable to make arrests, the courts would stop sending criminals to jail and criminals would be left unchecked on our streets.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said:  

I know how strongly people feel about this issue. I understand the concern and anger because I share it. That’s why I took action during my first weeks as Prime Minister to block some of the very worst in society being released before they should. We moved quickly to block vile criminals who commit rape, sexually abuse children and groom vulnerable young people.

But I always said I wanted to do more. We will now not only be keeping offenders serving time for indecent assault locked up, but also those in prison for manslaughter and death by dangerous driving. This means that the awful criminals responsible for the killing of PC Andrew Harper will not have their sentence shortened.

The truth is I wanted to go even further. But I’ve pushed the system to the very limits of what’s possible without risking the prison system collapsing within months, putting the public at enormous risk. To protect victims, we will be introducing the toughest ever supervision measures for offenders, which effectively mean that someone’s sentence will not end when they leave prison. This includes tagging offenders and, for the very first time ever, putting restriction zones in place to stop offenders getting anywhere near their victims.

The Prime Minister has also announced that he will end the injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences this Parliament, meaning people will no longer be trapped indefinitely under a sentence abolished more than a decade ago.

This decision recognises how deeply unjust it is that some offenders who have been locked up for nearly twenty years remain in prison, despite serving their sentence many times over, whereas many serious criminals convicted in recent years could have their jail time cut. While work on this will begin immediately, and on a cross-party basis, it will take time to get this right and balance fairness with public safety.

This is just one part of the government’s plan for a fairer justice system, looking at how some people can be punished more effectively outside prison – freeing up cells for those who pose the greatest risk to the public.  

This will include considering how to safely reduce the number of and young offenders and women in custody, in particular those who are pregnant or have young children.

Powers will also be implemented early next year to deport some foreign criminals immediately after sentencing, blocking them from ever returning to the country, while keeping those in prison for the most serious crimes locked up for a substantial period before they are removed.

Justice Secretary Alex Norris said:  

The Prime Minister and I have rightly looked again at these reforms and we are clear that people responsible for taking a life, or for appalling crimes against children, should be kept behind bars for longer.    

But protecting the public also means fixing the prison system for good. We will build the cells we need, put offenders under much tougher controls when they leave prison and end the historic injustice of IPP sentences.   

This is a government running towards problems and not shying away from the tough decisions needed to build a justice system that is firm, fair and protects the public.

The Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor have also insisted that victims must remain at the centre of the justice system, with survivors of domestic abuse seeing offenders put under some of the toughest restrictions to date.

This includes a presumption that all prison leavers will be tagged and imposing possible bans on pubs and public events.

Perpetrators could also be confined to a specific area – some just a few miles wide – giving victims greater freedom to live their lives. In a world first, new ‘restriction zones’, which have been directly shaped by the experiences and campaigning of victims, will limit the movement of some sexual and violent offenders, with victims having a say in how zones are drawn up.

Victims advocates Hetti Barkworth-Nanton CBE, chair of Refuge, Frank Mullane MBE, CEO of Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, and Jo Early, chief executive of Support after Murder and Manslaughter, said:

We welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to exclude all manslaughter cases from the early release scheme.

The original sentence lengths for these offences were, in part, intended to protect the public. The problem of prison capacity does not alter that underlying need for public protection. Therefore, making manslaughter offenders eligible for early release would risk undermining a key purpose of their sentences and could represent a significant compromise to public protection. This also re-assures families bereaved by homicide that they are not being asked to trade justice so prison overcrowding can be resolved.

The government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse with fewer than 100 spaces left in the summer of 2024. 

A lack of investment in the prison estate with just 500 net places added for over a decade has led to a situation where adult male prisons are now at 98% capacity. That is why this government is taking decisive action to fix the broken prison system for good.  

Under this government, more than 3,200 prison places have already been built, with 14,000 expected by 2031 under the largest prison build expansion since the Victorian era.

The Sentencing Act will restore order to the prison system and make sure we have cells available for dangerous criminals. Alongside record prison building, the reforms will put prisons on a sustainable footing and end the cycle of emergency release measures used before July 2024 when prisons repeatedly came close to running out of space.  

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.

Radical Rethinking Required

I notice the latest Probation Journal has a forthright editorial:-   

Probation is not a panacea for the prison crisis

The crisis in prisons in England and Wales has been brought sharply into focus. On 16 October 2023, the Justice Secretary announced measures aimed at reducing pressure on the prisons, caused in part by a record high of 88,225 people in custody (Chalk, 2023). As if this is not cause enough for concern, forecasts indicate that the population is due to rise even higher in the coming years with predictions that by March 2027 the population may rise to anywhere between 93,100 and 106,300 people (MoJ, 2023). It is clear from the Ministry's explanation of its forecasts the government's own policies (as well as the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) backlog of cases in the courts) are a central driver of prison population growth. In recent decades, almost every government policy relating to crime and justice has ratcheted up systemic pressure resulting in more people spending longer in prison. This includes longer sentences for certain offences and changes to mechanisms for prisoner release. Not to mention of course the people who remain imprisoned under the egregious Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentence, which although abolished in 2012, has still left approximately 3000 people languishing in prison. While the Conservative party has been in power for over 12 years, this punitive policy direction has a longer lineage, IPPs were introduced in 2003 by a Labour Home Secretary, who has since regretted the injustice.

The government's announcement of measures to reduce pressures on prison is an exemplar of confused logic. The statement to parliament by the Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk begins by emphasising a record of increased punitiveness: Longer sentences for certain offences, proposals to expand the circumstances in which whole life sentences can be applied, and proposals that people convicted of rape and equivalent sexual offences will serve their entire sentences in custody (i.e., they will not be eligible for discretionary release). More prisons are to be built in the medium to longer term, but to address the imminent crisis in capacity more “lower level offenders” are to be released from prison early and placed under the supervision of the Probation Service. In the longer term, the government proposes to legislate to end the use of short-term prison sentences (of 12 months or less), by imposing suspended sentences that will involve community supervision (Chalk,2023). Some of the other headline-grabbing proposals include commissioning prison places overseas to reduce the imminent pressure on the prison system. While it is surely right to seek to curb the use of short prison sentences, placing further emphasis on the ‘toughness’ and enforceability of community sentences is part of the same circular logic that has led to this punitive-sum position in the first place. Moreover, this rhetoric fails to recognise the current parlous state of Probation Services in England and Wales, which are facing high levels of staff vacancies and unmanageable workloads (HMIP, 2023).

The relationship between the use of community sentences and prison is not straightforward. Various analyses including those based on data published by the Council of Europe in their SPACE statistics, which provides information on the numbers of people imprisoned and subject to community sanctions and measures (including probation) in member states, show that increasing the use of community sentences does not necessarily lead to a commensurate decline in prison populations (Aebi et al., 2022). In fact, in many contexts we see that expanding the use of community sentences can have an overall net-widening effect (Aebi et al., 2015), with more people brought under the ambit the criminal justice system. Some of the reasons for this phenomenon include the fact that expanding the use of community sentences may displace other sanctions (such as fines or discharges), or toughening enforcement policies and practices may lead to “backdoor” entry into prison even where prison was not the initial sanction imposed by a court. In England and Wales, the introduction of the post-sentence supervision requirement under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 is a prominent recent example of net-widening (Cracknell, 2018). When this measure was introduced, it was intended to address the issue of re-offending of people sentenced to short-term prison sentences (i.e., prison sentences of less than 12 months), but as various analyses have shown the overall effects have led to a treadmill effect, propelling people further through a broken system (Cracknell, 2021).

The government's modelling predicts that one of the drivers of the potential future growth of the prison population will be an increase in the numbers of people on both determinate and indeterminate sentences being recalled to prison, precisely because of the growth of the numbers of people in prison (MoJ, 2023: 6):

The recall population is projected to increase for the duration of the projection period. The increase is partly due to the expected growth of the determinate population – this will result in a larger pool of offenders on licence after serving the custodial part of their sentence, and a proportion of this group will be recalled to custody. About 20% of the offenders currently in the recall population have been recalled to prison following an indeterminate sentence. This cohort of the recall population is also projected to increase over the projection period because more offenders will leave prison following an indeterminate sentence and therefore more people will be eligible to be recalled to custody.

Or put more simply – unless something radically changes the system will continue to perpetuate itself. What the government proposes is not radical change. As some commentators have noted shifting pressure onto a creaking probation system, which has been buffeted by years of structural reforms and with significant staffing shortfalls will not be a panacea and will place further pressures on a probation system that is in crisis (Probation Institute, 2023). All of this points to the need for more radical rethinking and reform of criminal justice, one in which the emphasis on punitiveness is decentred.

Finally, I want to conclude this editorial with a tribute to Nigel Stone. Remarkably this is the 40th year of Nigel's work on behalf of the journal in various capacities. Nigel served as the Editor of the journal from March 1983 to September 1997, before handing over the reins to Hindpal Singh Bhui. Over the years he has contributed numerous pieces to the journal and most recently he has been the ‘In Court’ stalwart, writing pithy analyses of court and sentencing matters of particular relevance to probation. This issue of the journal contains a typical example, spanning cases including the impact of delays in criminal proceedings, and cases involving sexual harm and relationship and family violence. We thank Nigel for all of his contributions.

Nicola Carr

The Wrong That Needs Righting

I notice Sir Bob Neill writing on the Comment Central website has again sought to highlight the appalling plight of IPP prisoners and the seeming inability or disinterest on the part of government to do anything about it. This urgently needs sorting:-  

Shake up needed on long-term sentences

In a remarkable intervention earlier this month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr Alice Edwards, urged the Government to conduct an urgent review on imprisonment for public protection (IPP), labelling the sentences “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” Dr Edwards is neither alone nor the first in making this criticism, however.

Lord Blunkett, the Home Secretary who introduced IPP, has called them a disaster, while the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a former Supreme Court judge, described them as “the greatest stain on our criminal justice system.” Long before them, campaign groups had been banging the drum for reform for years.

Although all of the above agree that IPP sentences are an anathema to justice, IPP continues to be a relative unknown to the vast majority of the wider public. It is, no doubt, one of the primary reasons why this problem has found itself firmly and perennially tacked on to successive governments’ too difficult pile. First, then, a bit of background.

The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was introduced in the midst of the Blair years as a new form of custodial sentence. Designed to appear tough on crime, they were indeterminate sentences which could be given to offenders who had committed violent or sexual offences and were deemed to pose a significant risk of causing harm to the public. Unlike a normal sentence, those given an IPP sentence would have to serve a minimum tariff in prison before being detained for an unlimited period until they were able to prove to the Parole Board that they were no longer a risk. Even when released, the individual would be done so under a life license whereby they could be returned to prison at any time if they breached the conditions of their parole, however minor the infringement (this element of in perpetuity could be cancelled ten years after their initial release, but that was never guaranteed).

The sentences caused both confusion and discrepancies and, inevitably, were reformed in 2008 before being scrapped in 2012. Their abolishment was not, though, applied retrospectively, meaning to date there remain just under 3,000 IPP prisoners within the prison estate, 97 per cent of whom have already served their tariff. Shockingly, 621 prisoners in this cohort have been detained at least ten years over their tariff, with 222 of those having received a tariff of less than two years.

Before reading any further, it's worth letting those figures sink in. These particular individuals have been in prison five times longer than the judge who sentenced them thought appropriate for their offence, and for which someone who committed the same crime at the same time might have been sentenced. That is not justice.

The problems caused by this shambolic scheme have been multifaceted but clear to see. For one, the Sisyphean state of hopelessness created has led to appallingly high rates of self-harm and suicide, with IPP prisoners two-and-a-half times more likely to self-harm than the rest of the prison population. In fact, over 80 IPP prisoners have taken their lives since 2005 – 9 in 2022 alone. The sentences also create a complete lack of clarity and certainty for everyone involved, be it the offender, their families, or, for that matter, the victims of their crimes. From a more philosophical perspective, the sentences undermine some of the fundamental principles of the rule of law. The IPP sentences handed down were neither clear nor consistent, and they did not provide equality, at times leaning on the exercise of discretion over the application of the law.

It is why the Justice Committee, which I chair, launched a comprehensive inquiry in 2021 on IPP sentences, to which we received the largest number of submissions we have ever received for any work we’ve undertaken. We published a series of recommendations last year ranging from mental health support to parole and resentencing, ultimately concluding that an irredeemably flawed system could only be addressed through a resentencing exercise enacted by primary legislation. To my disappointment, the Ministry of Justice roundly rejected the vast majority of what we had proposed.

While I understand that this task may prove both politically and administratively difficult, that does not make it any less right or pressing. For that reason, I have tabled an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, currently before the House of Commons, which would oblige the Government to conduct this resentencing exercise, making use of a time-limited small expert committee to advise on its practical implementation. It’s worth stressing that although this would preclude a court handing down a heavier sentence than was originally imposed, it would not mean the automatic or quick release of every IPP prisoner. Far from it. Importantly, it would, though, ensure a determinate sentence is given, providing finality and certainty, a basic fairness that is afforded to everybody else, offender and victim, in the criminal justice system.

It’s long overdue that the three branches of the State – the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary – grasp the nettle on this. If the Government will not move, Parliament must move for it. I sincerely hope ministers will see sense and that fairness and justice will prevail.

Sir Bob Neill is the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst and Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

--oo00oo--

News is reaching me of worrying issues at Gravesend PDU and I wondered if any reader would like to get in touch on a confidential basis if they have concerns or information. Contact can be made via jimbrown51@virginmedia.com

A Great Wrong

Here's an extraordinary thing. There's been reports, petitions, debates and calls from all quarters including the architects. Everyone agrees the situation with IPP prisoners is a disgrace which needs righting, and yet the politicians refuse to act. What a country we live in where our elected representatives prefer to put their own electoral interests ahead of doing the right thing. This from the Guardian yesterday:-    

The law is gone but they are still in jail: who will free Britain’s most wronged prisoners?

There are those of us who exist in a more or less free society. And there are those who, while also living within the borders of the United Kingdom, exist in a police state. If the rest of us knew these people existed and what was being done to them in our name, we would scarcely believe it.

No one, including Victoria Carter (an assumed name), would deny that her crimes warranted a significant prison sentence. She had come from a terrible place: a father who beat her up, an alcoholic mother whose friends sexually abused her, extreme poverty as all the money was spent on drink. As a young teenager, she ran away from home, after which she had more than 10 placements in foster care and care homes. She responded with anger, violence and self-destruction.

As a teenager, she was convicted of criminal damage and burglary. She tried to kidnap a man she believed had abused her younger sister. She then went through a phase of alcoholism, during which she had sex with two underage teenagers, leading to a conviction for sexual offences. In an alcoholic rage, she set light to photos of her mother, scorching the carpet of her lodgings and earning herself an arson conviction.

In 2007, in her early twenties, she was prosecuted for actual bodily harm, among other offences. Her lawyer told her to expect a sentence of up to four years. This, the judge remarked, was roughly what she would have got under different circumstances: three and a half years. But instead he handed down a sentence of “imprisonment for public protection” (IPP).

IPP sentences were introduced in England and Wales by the New Labour government as it sought to prove it was tough on law and order in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If an offender had previously been convicted of one of 153 offences deemed to present a danger to the public, and had then committed another such crime, the courts had no choice but to impose either an IPP sentence or life imprisonment. IPP means indefinite detention.

The crimes that qualified were wide-ranging. One defendant received an IPP sentence with a minimum term of just 28 days, but extended indefinitely. Another was imprisoned with a tariff of two years for stealing a bicycle. He served 12 and is now in a mental health institution.

These sentences included a “tariff”: the period after which the prisoner could be assessed for release. Victoria’s was 21 months. But IPP sentences carry a presumption against parole. Rather than the Parole Board having to prove that a prisoner presents a danger to the public, the prisoner has to prove that they don’t. As the then justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said in 2011: “It is almost impossible for the prisoner to prove that, so … hardly any are released.”

Those who do manage to get out face a “life licence”, which cannot be reviewed for at least 10 years. The licence conditions are extremely strict. Released IPP prisoners can be sent back for infractions as petty as a missed probation appointment because their bus did not arrive, or even because the support service they were instructed to use no longer exists

In 2012, after widespread condemnation and a ruling by the European court of human rights that such sentences were “arbitrary and therefore unlawful”, IPP terms were abolished by the Conservative government. But the measure was not retrospective. As of the end of last year, 2,892 IPP prisoners remained behind bars. Almost 97% were more than two years beyond their tariff date; nearly half were 10 years beyond. Victoria was released at the beginning of this year, after serving more than 15 yearsof a 21-month tariff.

The former supreme court justice Lord Brown has called IPP sentences “the greatest single stain on the justice system”. When Michael Gove was justice secretary, he recommended “executive clemency” for IPP prisoners who had served terms much longer than their tariffs. But he didn’t act on it. David Blunkett, the Labour home secretary who introduced the sentences, regrets them, stating: “I got it wrong. The government now have the chance to get it right.”

But the government, always glancing at the media, refuses to take it. In February, it rejected the recommendation of the House of Commons justice committee that remaining IPP prisoners should be resentenced. Successive justice secretaries have failed to use the power they acquired in 2012 to introduce a presumption of release. So while people who committed far worse crimes come and go, IPP prisoners are forgotten, cast into a judicial oubliette from which some might never emerge.

The effects on their mental health of never knowing when or whether they might be released can be devastating. Rates of self-harm among these prisoners are more than twice as high as among prisoners serving life sentences.

In March 2008, when she began to understand what her sentence really meant, Victoria tried to kill herself, and very nearly succeeded. But then she became determined to sort herself out. She took every available course of psychotherapy and counselling, sat GCSE exams and started an Open University degree. She knew she wasn’t ready for parole when her tariff ended. Two years later, she didn’t qualify on the grounds that, through her own choice, she was still taking a psychotherapeutic course. But after a further two years, when she came up for parole again, she had turned her life around. Unfortunately, the standards of proof required for parole were impossible to meet.

Her application was refused and she spiralled into despair. She lost three and a half stone, started self-harming and taking drugs. She attempted suicide again. She became trapped in a vicious cycle. Being refused parole causes severe mental health problems for IPP prisoners, but mental illness is one of the criteria for the refusal of parole. So down they spiral. Instead of seeking help, some try to hide their problems from staff so as not to jeopardise their chances. Severe cuts have restricted the courses these prisoners can take, without which they have no hope of release.

Victoria is a remarkable woman: honest about what she was and what she did, acutely aware of the pain she caused, determined to lead a useful and purposeful life. But, close to 40, she is constantly confronted by the missing years. “I deserved to be punished,” she told me. “But did I deserve more than 15 years? No. I have days when I just sob in my bed. Just to get out some of the sadness of what I have lost.”

A great wrong has been done. Almost everyone in power accepts it is wrong. But none are prepared to address it.

George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

What About Probation John?

It looks like the Prison Reform Trust is on a roll at the moment and recently managed to bag a former prime minister to publicly admit their part in the parlous state we now find the Criminal Justice System in:- 

The former Prime Minister, Sir John Major delivered a speech at the Old Bailey on 9 May 2023, in which he set out his case for penal reform. Sir John acknowledged that the problems now being faced within the penal system have intensified over many governments, and that he, his predecessors and his successors should all share responsibility for this.

“We over-use prison and under value alternative sentences”

It’s a great privilege to be here this evening – and in such historic surroundings.

I’d like to thank Alistair King for making it possible – and Edward Garnier for encouraging me to enlarge publicly upon what I have said privately. Edward – apart from his legal and political career – is a Trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, now Chaired by James Timpson, whose actions match his family’s long concern for prisoner welfare. The Trust itself, until recently under the guidance of Peter Dawson and now, Pia Sinha has worked for reform with the same persistence as those early campaigners – John Howard and Elizabeth Fry.

I would like this evening, to add a few thoughts of my own. One of the virtues of age is having the time to reflect on what you have left undone with – no doubt – some regrets along the way. It is such reflections that have brought us together this evening. I am conscious that, where I criticise, many of the problems are long standing and I, together with predecessors and successors, must each take our share of the blame.

Let me begin with some reassuring news. Violent crime has been falling for nearly 30 years – although the extent of public interest when some horrific crime occurs makes this a deeply held secret for many people. Despite this long downward trend, legislators have been far more active in framing policy to punish crime than in action to minimise the cause of it.

Many citizens who have faced ‒ or fear facing ‒ serious or violent crime strongly approve. They are clear that they ‒ and their families ‒ are safer if criminals are taken out of society. And, in one sense, they are entirely right. And yet this instinctive ‒ very human ‒ response ignores the obverse of punishment, which must be rehabilitation.

Stern sentences for violent crimes are necessary, and the instinct to protect the public is laudable ‒ but we should beware that excessive zeal to be tough on crime does not lead us into unwise policy.

We are told “prison works” and – to the extent it holds the worst of criminals in custody, it does – but I do not believe our justice system is well served if it also imprisons those who could better be punished by non-custodial sentences. Even to use the word “rehabilitation” is taken by many as code for being “soft” on crime; for being gullible; a “do-gooder” who cares more for the villain than the victim. I certainly do not intend it in that sense. Indeed – as I shall argue shortly – I believe such an interpretation ignores the public interest.

When society sends people to prison we are, in reality, “shutting the door after the horse has bolted”: the crime has been committed. Retribution follows: but, upon release, it is surely in the wider interest of everyone that the crime is never repeated. That is the purpose of rehabilitation ‒ together with turning around the life of the released prisoner.

If we wish to live under a penal code of which we can be proud, then we must not only punish, but act to reform and re-educate offenders. I don’t claim that is easy. But I do say that it is sound policy to reduce the risk of re-offending upon release.

We send people to prison ‒ most of them, deservedly, but some not. Either which way, to prison they go. And, to many, that is the end of the matter. Justice is done and the victim has closure. But ‒ future victims do not have closure if the prisoner re-offends. Prison is at its best when it rehabilitates, and, at its worst if – instead of providing a route out of crime, it provides an education into it.

PRISONERS/EDUCATION

It is instructive to consider the overwhelming characteristics of adults committed to prison:

• nearly two-thirds of them have used Class A drugs;
• many are illiterate, or innumerate, or both;
• almost half have no educational or vocational qualifications whatsoever;
• the intellectual assessment of many prisoners equates to that of a primary school pupil.

Two-fifths of those in prison were either expelled or excluded from school; three fifths were frequent truants; many were taken into care as a child; or observed violence in the home; or suffered abuse; sometimes even all of the above. All of this is a truly wretched preparation for adult life. We cannot be ignorant of the fact that failures in the early years of life are a serious driver towards crime, and anti-social behaviour.

There is education and training in prison, but its availability ‒ and value ‒ is mixed. After the (Sally) Coates review in 2016 improvements were expected. Yet, seven years on they have not materialised. There are reasons. Poor education contracts; lack of funding; unsavoury prison conditions; and – of course – the impact of Covid, have all stood in the way. As has over-crowding, and the resultant churn of prisoners being moved from prison to prison. If we wish to attack the causes of crime, better education – in and out of prison – is an essential component.

PRISON POPULATION

Forty years ago, when Willie Whitelaw was Home Secretary, I was a humble Parliament Private Secretary to the two Ministers of State, Tim Renton and Patrick Mayhew. They were shocked ‒ Willie was apoplectic actually ‒ when the prison population reached 40,000. Today, it is more than double that.

A range of reasons contribute:

• our national population has grown;
• indeterminate sentences boosted prisoner numbers;
• as has legislation increasing terms of imprisonment for many crimes; and
• a greater range of misdemeanours may lead to prison.

Comparisons with overseas do not reflect well on our penal policy. The UK has the highest imprisonment rates in Western Europe ‒ and yet I find it hard to believe we British are uniquely criminal. So ‒ were our predecessors unduly lenient in sentencing ‒ or are we unduly harsh?

And why ‒ since our prisons are heavily over-crowded ‒ have suspended sentences been declining? In the year to June 2022, 43,000 people were sentenced to a term in prison. Of these, less than two in every five had committed a violent offence. Was prison the correct (or fair) sentence for all the 26,000 non-violent offenders? Some, perhaps … but all? I am not sure that it was.

The punishment of prison is to lose liberty, but the prisoner may lose much else besides: their job, their home, their relationships. That is a high cost ‒ not only for the prisoner, but for society as a whole. The full costs may not be justified. We might be wise to be more selective.

When prisoners have served their punishment we don’t wish them to be so alienated that ‒ through spleen or necessity ‒ they return to crime. That is in no one’s interest ‒ and especially not the public at large. Many prisoners ‒ far too many, I believe ‒ are sentenced to short-term imprisonment when other sentences would be preferable. In some cases, care and medical attention are called for rather than prison.

Should the mentally ill be imprisoned, or should they be treated in secure wings of mental hospitals? Surely the latter. More radically, should non-violent mentally ill prisoners even be the responsibility of the justice department: would not the Department of Health be more appropriate? I appreciate such a move would not be welcomed by the Health Department, but the Government’s responsibility is to provide the most effective and humane punishment.

Imprisoning people who may be incapable of self-control is simply wrong. They require care, not incarceration. Of course, mentally ill prisoners who are dangerous or violent must be held securely to protect the public, but they, too, require care as well as custody.

Moreover, should low-level drug offenders ‒ street dealers for example ‒ who are highly likely to be of limited intelligence as well as being addicts themselves – be sentenced to prison, or given an appropriate community sentence? To be blunt ‒ my suspicion is that many short sentences are pointless and that a non-custodial sentence would be more effective and, perhaps, more fair.

WOMEN

There are over 3,300 women in prison in England and Wales. More than half will serve less than six months. No doubt some are irredeemable, but I suspect most are not. Over two-thirds of women sent to prison have committed a non-violent crime: at present more are imprisoned for theft alone than for criminal damage, arson, drug offences, possession of weapons, robbery or sexual offences.

I do question whether prison for many of these women does not cause more problems than it solves. Some have mental problems, or histories of trauma or abuse. Some 50 babies a year are born to women in prison, and reports suggest women in prison are seven times more likely to suffer still birth. That statistic alone should make us question present policy: whatever the mother may have done, the baby is innocent.

I accept – male or female – we are all equal under the Law, but common sense and practicality suggests we should look very carefully at community sentence alternatives, before sending vulnerable women offenders to prison.

THE PRISON ESTATE

Reports by HM Inspectors on the state of our prisons do not make for happy reading. Time after time, the conditions of prisons are found to be unsatisfactory. In some they are intolerable. Many of the old Victorian prisons ‒ Wandsworth, Pentonville, Norwich, among others ‒ were built to hold one prisoner per cell. 150 years later, these cells may hold two – or even three – prisoners, sleeping on bunk beds and essentially ‒ forgive my putting it this way – living in a lavatory. To have inmates held in worse conditions than in Victorian times is an indictment of policy that is hard to ignore.

Last year, 301 prisoners died in custody ‒ 74 of them by their own hand. This rate of suicide is six times higher than among the general population. Many suicides are within the early days of custody. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the sheer shock of imprisonment ‒ which, I reiterate, may be for a non-violent crime ‒ is a principal cause of the desperation that leads to self-destruction.

Self-harm in prison has risen by two and a half times over the last decade ‒ most notably by women, but there is also a significant rise in the incidence of male self-harming. I would like to know ‒ why? I would suggest that prisoners who kill or maim themselves are people in despair – not hardened villains.

Of course, the Government knows all this. In 2015, the Government announced a new prison reform programme to build nine new prisons – and committed £1.3 billion to create 10,000 new prison places by 2020. This well-meaning plan ‒ let me put it kindly ‒ faltered. The Public Accounts Committee reported that, despite these pledges, only 206 new places were delivered with 3,500 places still underway.

Meanwhile, prisoners continued to be held in unsafe and over-crowded conditions. A revised plan followed in 2019 ‒ also to create a further 10,000 places. This was updated in 2020 when £4 billion was allocated to deliver a total of not 10,000 but 18,000 places ‒ in England and Wales – by the middle of this decade. 

The plans included the expansion of four prisons; the completion of building at two more; and refurbishment of the Prison Estate. Last month, a Parliamentary Question revealed that only 3,100 of that 18,000 target had yet been provided, and only one new prison had been opened in Wellingborough – although I believe a second, Fosse Way, is due to open this year. Progress? Yes. But 2025 is only two years away, and there is still a very long way to go to turn what was promised into reality.

Prison staffing is an allied and deep-rooted problem. The turnover of staff is a ruinous 15% a year – which delivers its own message about the job’s lack of appeal, and the toll it must take. Despite efforts to attract people to become prison officers, there are over 700 fewer officers than there were 12 months ago, and front line staff are 11% below the staffing level of 2010. This does not suggest a modern prison service is anywhere near delivery.

REMAND

It is said that “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. And yet, the congestion in our Courts does delay justice. Consider the remand system. Remand may be used for accused people before their trial, or those convicted and awaiting a formal sentence for their offence. Within that bland reality lie many complexities, and some injustices.

At present ‒ partly as a result of Covid delays ‒ the number of people on remand is at its highest level for decades: around 14,500. Typically, two-thirds are awaiting trial, while the remainder are awaiting sentence after conviction. Of those awaiting trial, one in two are subsequently imprisoned – even though accused of non-violent offences. Although individual circumstances will differ, I do not believe the case can be made that they should all be jailed.

My belief is reinforced when I learn that – at their trials – one in ten remand prisoners are judged to be innocent of any crime, and a yet higher number are convicted – but sentenced only to a non-custodial sentence. The need for reform seems evident.

Other factors reinforce that judgement. Nearly one-third of remand prisoners are held longer than six months before trial, and an unlucky 5% for over two years. That is over 700 remand prisoners held for over two years, before quite possibly being found to be innocent. They not only lose their liberty but their reputation and their income too, which may well also punish their families. This cannot be acceptable. Nor is it the fact that, last year over one-third of suicides in custody were by people on remand. I do not think we can be proud of that.

PAROLE BOARD

Parole for prisoners found guilty of serious and violent crimes is inevitably contentious. In practice, the Parole Board deals only with a minority of prisoners ‒ less than 10% ‒ and decisions “for” or “against” their release or transfer to an “open” prison can be complex and controversial.

Thirty years ago, a House of Commons Select Committee advised that “release should be an entirely judicial decision ‒ independent of the Executive”. Although this was initially resisted, Parliament did subsequently accept that principle and ‒ in my view ‒ rightly so.

Prisoners also gained the right to present their case for parole to the Board. This ended years of parole decisions taken in secret as a result of evidence that was never challenged. That was an approach which honoured neither democracy nor equity, and was a blot on our system. The present more open system does ensure that decisions are taken after a proper presentation of arguments. This seems to have been effective.

One quarter of those considered for release by the Parole Board were successful. Of those, only 1 in every 200 prisoners released re-offended within the next three years. This would suggest that the Parole Board is not a bunch of gullible “softies”.

Over the years, the Parole Board has evolved from its modest beginnings in the 1960s: with only a handful of Board members, no hearings to consider evidence, and with the final decision being taken by the Home Secretary. Today, the Board ‒ nominally at least ‒ is independent of Government, and has amassed years of experience and expertise, enabling a level playing field for decisions upon release, without the hype and pressure that would be bound to accompany political involvement.

In the thousands of decisions to be made each year, there is no way that Ministers could possibly match the experience and knowledge of the 350 Parole Board Members. It is therefore surprising ‒ and worrying ‒ that, over the last year, recommendations by the Parole Board to transfer prisoners to an “open” prison have suddenly, and sharply, been rejected by the Justice Secretary.

In 2021-22 – 94% of the Parole Board recommendations were accepted but, thereafter, that fell to 11%. It is hard to believe that does not result from an unannounced change of policy that is instituting a harsher regime.

VICTIMS AND PRISONERS’ BILL

The victims of crime have long needed more support than they receive, and there are elements of the proposed Victims and Prisoners’ Bill that are eminently sensible – and long overdue. As I understand it, the Bill was originally intended to cover the interest of victims only, and the prisoners’ element is a late addition. I believe this addition is a political misjudgement that may put much needed reforms at risk, and will come to that in a moment.

I welcome the proposal to enshrine the Victims’ Code in Law, which should ensure that greater support is delivered. But, if theory is to become reality, funding will be needed for specialist support and, thus far, there is no evidence that this will be provided. I can only hope the Justice Secretary has secured agreement for funding from the Treasury, or the Bill will fail to meet its purpose.

I understand that the former Justice Secretary sought the power to veto decisions made by what is allegedly the independent Parole Board, to release prisoners convicted of serious crimes. The problem with this is that I do not see how (or why) the Justice Secretary would be able to reach a more just decision than the Parole Board.

Any single Government Minister – however able or well-meaning – would be far more vulnerable to public campaigns and, under pressure, to make a harsher decision to appease them. This is a very slippery slope. I do not think that any politician should have that power, and I hope the new Justice Secretary will reconsider or – if he does not – that Parliament will deny it.

IPPs

There is one area of the penal code that is over-ripe for action to correct legitimate grievance. Until 2003, the only indeterminate sentence available to Judges was a life sentence, which was only for the gravest of offences. But, that year, the Government introduced a new concept: that of indeterminate imprisonment for public protection – so-called IPPs. It was intended for people considered “dangerous”, but whose offence did not justify a life sentence.

It passes a minimum tariff but offers no stated maximum. Release could only be authorised by the Parole Board. It seems that this scheme went wrong from the outset. It was applied far more widely than expected (or intended), with lower level offenders receiving this harsh sentence.

The number of IPP cases far outstripped expectations, and amendments to the legislation were approved by Parliament in 2008. But shortcomings remained, and the power to issue IPP sentences was abolished in 2012. But – and it is a BIG “but”: when it was abolished, no action was taken to determine a just ‒ and definitive ‒ sentence for the prisoners already serving for an indeterminate time. This was an extraordinary omission, which remains the case eleven years after abolition.

Nearly 3,000 offenders, still imprisoned – including those who have never been released and those recalled back to custody – were sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment, but not a maximum. They are all serving sentences that have extended years beyond their minimum tariff and – without Ministerial action – may never end. This is soul destroying for prisoners and their families, and is emphatically not justice.

I believe that, without any further delay, justice should be served by Government agreement to the Justice Committee’s recommendation of a re-sentencing exercise – backed by the establishment of an expert committee to guide on the practicalities – for everyone still serving an IPP sentence.

* * * * *
I was brought up to believe that we, in Britain had one of – if not the – most just and civilised penal codes in the world. Some of what I have learned in preparing this speech has truly shaken that belief. People who commit crimes have deservedly forfeited much but ‒ in our country ‒ not, I hope, the right to be treated fairly.

There are many good causes that attract support, and hundreds of thousands of activists plead the case they most care about. But it is not so easy, or attractive, to plead for people who have committed crimes, and are responsible for their own misfortune. They do not so easily attract sympathy.

Nor, very often, is it politically comfortable for “active” politicians to plead for convicted criminals. In the rough and tumble of politics, compassion and consideration can too easily be derided as “soft” or “weak” – terms which can define as well as defame. It has ever been thus.

In many ways, it is odd to plead for a more empathetic penal code on the site of Newgate – one of the most notorious prisons in our long national history. But views evolve. In pre-Christian days, prisons were not a place of lengthy incarceration but merely of safe custody until a more savage sentence than loss of liberty could be carried out. Those days, thankfully, have gone.

In Saxon times, prison was occasionally used as a means of punishment and – by the 13th Century – to facilitate a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Church, which was unable to pass a harsher punishment. It was when offenders defaulted in payment of a forfeit to the Crown that prison became a convenient inducement to pay ‒ and then became of wider use as a punishment.

I have argued that its use needs to evolve further if it is to become a better instrument to deliver justice and reduce crime. So, let me summarise my concerns:

• We over-use prison and under value alternative sentences;
• too many vulnerable people ‒ including the mentally-ill – are jailed;
• education and rehabilitation in prison is inadequate;
• much of the Prison Estate is out of date and unsuitable;
• too many accused are remanded in prison pre-trial;
• the Justice Secretary should not remove powers from the Parole Board;
• IPP prisoners should be re-sentenced.

These practices, these problems have grown up over many governments. In my layman’s view, it is time they were addressed – and put right.

Sir John Major KG CH

Some Sound Advice

I notice the Quakers are offering the Labour Party some sound advice as we head towards a general election:- 

Quakers in Britain submission to Labour Policy Forum ‘Safe and secure communities’ consultation

Introduction 

Quakers in Britain is a national church of Quakers across England, Scotland and Wales. We are also a charity, working for positive change in areas such as peace and democracy. 

Affiliated to Quakers in Britain are Quakers in Criminal Justice, an informal network of Quakers with experience (including lived experience) and professional knowledge of many aspects of the criminal justice system. 

Quakers have worked for positive change in criminal justice since our emergence in the seventeenth century. Our testimonies to peace and equality lead to an emphasis on prevention, rehabilitation and restorative justice. We are passionate advocates of democracy, human rights and community peacebuilding. 

This consultation response reflects our faith perspective and our experience and expertise in building safe and secure communities. We recognise that both structural and personal changes are needed. 

1. How should Labour tackle anti-social behaviour and ensure people feel safe in their homes, workplaces and local communities? 

We welcome the Labour Policy Forum’s intention to address these complex and important issues. Our response focuses on local communities. “Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime” was a promising slogan but was not honoured in an even-handed way under the last Labour government: the response to crime was given more emphasis. Any new strategy must address causes. Many of the coercive and divisive “anti-social behaviour” strategies, pursued in isolation, proved counterproductive. In the austerity regimes that have prevailed since 2010, valuable preventive measures such as SureStart were undone, and the task of addressing causes has become harder. 

Most of the interventions that improve the feeling of security and reduce fear of crime, or build community cohesion, are to be found in non-criminal justice areas such as health (and especially mental health), housing, education and employment. 

Investment in programmes for young people, such as mentoring, especially in groups at a disproportionate risk of becoming involved in crime – such as young men not in education or employment – would be worthwhile. Of course, these approaches will only reduce crime, not eliminate it, and criminal justice agencies such as police, youth justice and probation will need to be involved. Where they are, close working with local partners is key, based on the smallest reasonable geography: local authority or police command unit, or smaller. Locally inspired solutions are the most effective and sustainable but this requires a commitment to devolving money and decision making, again, to the lowest decision making level or smallest geography. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published a report on Crime and Justice after Devolution in 2010. It spoke in favour of greater local identification of priorities and design of services and interventions. Labour could pursue and update the agenda developed here. 

Labour’s key message on anti-social behaviour must be that communities will not tolerate or harbour hate crime or discrimination of any sort. All public services and their staff must be encouraged to show this commitment through their work and engagement with the community. Successes should be publicised in a range of media: this is one small way of countering the punitive media rhetoric which denigrates and often undermines serious efforts at reform and improvement. 

Some community problems can only be addressed by nationally-initiated efforts. We think Labour should work for a humane and compassionate response to drug users and look at the experience of other jurisdictions in this regard. 

We welcome Labour’s emphasis on the safety of women and girls. On this too there needs to be a strong sense of national direction and prioritisation. Misogyny needs to be tackled in all institutions and agencies, including in the police itself, both in terms of restraints on its expression and education to challenge and undermine it. 

2. What resources and tools do the police and enforcement agencies need to keep our streets safe and to deal with neighbourhood crime? 

There is a clear need for immediate police responses to harmful anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood crime, but in the medium and longer term this is not an issue for police forces alone. Neighbourhood policing, in which officers on the ground have a chance to build up trusting relationships with residents and spot “signs of trouble” early have social value, even where they may not seem cost-efficient. Additional sensitivities are required in policing communities of colour, and to the appropriateness of placing police officers in schools. 

We encourage Labour to question how militarised British policing should become, and how transparently accountable armed officers should be after controversial shootings, which can rouse whole communities against the police. 

Most of the significant developments in effective practice in the last two or three decades have come from the advances in frontline, multidisciplinary working. Examples include the original 1997 youth offending team legislation, drugs work and the management of high-risk offenders through multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). 

Without suggesting specific tools or resources, we feel it sensible that any policy should be assessed as to whether it can and should be delivered through a multiagency or multi-disciplinary approach, and where possible with some sort of pooled budget to ensure alignment and “buy-in”. 

For instance, despite some notable efforts on working with families, there has been an absence of any strategic priority to improve wrap-around service to families identified as having high needs or with children at risk of offending or dropping out of education. This priority should be restored. Support (not just classes) for parents or families experiencing separation could and should make a difference to the trajectory of young people, away from criminal justice. 

Much of police work involves dealing with people who show signs of mental distress. It therefore makes sense for mental health specialists to work closely alongside all police forces. Where homelessness is an issue, there needs to be close working with housing officials. The more efficiently people in need can be handed over to those trained and able to assist them, the less these burdens fall on the police. 

3. How can prevention and diversion schemes be improved to reduce crime and reoffending?

Prevention, at its best, is about far more than liaison and diversion schemes. It involves applying the research which shows us why and how people fall into crime in the first place. The following all play their part: adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), poverty, school exclusion, failure to provide for the needs of looked-after children, lack of drug and alcohol treatment centres, insufficient mental health services, closing of youth centres which has been linked to the growth of gang culture, and intergenerational limited opportunities. 

Given the massive costs of reoffending in England and Wales (estimated by the Ministry of Justice to be around £18 billion) together with the cost of housing a growing number of prisoners across the prison estate at £48,000 per person per year, a radical approach to prevention is called for. This would not only bring huge savings down the line but contribute to the well-being of society overall. 

Local, community-based responses to alcohol abuse and the crime associated with it can be made, but this really needs a national strategy which reaches all parts of the UK at local level. There are many aspects of local social policy that require overarching national or regional strategies before they can ever make a difference at neighbourhood level. There is always a danger of demanding or hoping that local communities solve their own problems when they no longer have the resources or morale to do so. 

4. What approach should the Labour Party take to improving justice? 

Court back-log 

It is clear that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. But this has been happening for a long time. When the heads of the four criminal justice inspectorates in England and Wales came before the Justice Committee (June 2020) to answer the question ‘what is the most serious issue we face?’ the answer was ‘the court back-log’, given as 40,000 in the crown court and 483,678 in the magistrates court. For the sake of victims, witnesses and defendants this must be tackled. Court services could be provided in accessible community settings with appointment times that are convenient for working people. 

Prison, probation and rehabilitation 

The longstanding crisis in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has its roots in the long-term underfunding of both prison and probation services. Furthermore, staffing levels, recruitment, retention and morale in both areas have been deeply affected by poor policy choices in the recent past: the ‘Fair and Sustainable’ cull of prison staff and the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ exercise which part-privatised and effectively dismantled probation from 2014, leading, among other things, to a collapse of sentence confidence in community penalties. The newly unified statutory National Probation Service has not recovered from the damage that has been inflicted on it. The stresses under which often inexperienced officers with impossibly large caseloads (because of staff shortages) struggle cannot be underestimated. We support the ideal of trauma-informed practice for all service users who need, but recognise that it is a long way from being realised. 

There is a counterproductive trend towards ever-longer sentences, despite no evidence that this works as a deterrent. It is our experience, through the work of prison chaplains and visitors across the prison estate, that the system is unable to recognise when a prisoner has accepted guilt, started to turn their life around and is keen for the rehabilitation and resettlement work that over-crowded prisons are unable to provide. Parole hearings have long waiting times and are frequently postponed. Lord Ramsbotham, former Chief Prison Inspector, stated that ‘enforced idleness is not good for mental health’. In a retrograde step, the Secretary of State for Justice has recently limited recommendations that can be made to the Parole Board, strengthening the role of the department over those voices of professionals who have knowledge of the person under consideration. 

The current Justice Secretary has not accepted the main recommendations from the House of Commons Justice Committee on dealing with the legacy of the abolished sentence of Imprisonment of Public Protection (IPP) in England and Wales, created in 2003. The call for evidence produced the highest number of submissions that the committee had ever received, most of which were hugely critical of IPP, which was technically abolished in 2012. The findings must not be dismissed in this way. We call on any future Labour government to take forward the recommendations at the first opportunity, and to press for them while still in opposition. This includes developing a new IPP action plan with clear performance measures.

Evidence-based approaches 

Longstanding empirically-based answers are available to all of the questions on justice in this consultation document, in academic research and the reports of think tanks, working parties and committees of enquiry. We appreciate that such questions should be asked anew with new generations of voters, but we sincerely hope that Labour will respect established and unfolding truths about creating safe and secure communities. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We advocate the full implementation of a number of ground-breaking expert reports and reviews that have addressed a wide range of areas relevant to this consultation. These are: 2007 Corston (women offenders); 2009 Bradley (mental health); 2015 Taylor (under-18s); 2016 Coates (education and more); 2017 Lammy (BAME); 2017 Farmer (improving family ties); and the Neurodiversity Action Plan currently under consideration. 

The strategy of ‘justice reinvestment’ is relevant here. It usually means saving money on criminal justice interventions and investing it back into the poorest communities where crime and victimisation rates are highest, and that have the largest rates of resettling offenders returning to them from prison. It is undeniably a good idea, but no political party has taken it seriously since it first emerged in the 1990s. We encourage Labour to consider it. 

Labour must also give more strategic attention to restorative justice (RJ), and the variety of practical forms and legal and administrative contexts in which it can be applied. Much lip-service has been paid to it over the past 30 years, some progress has been made in its use with young offenders, but its potential as a means of addressing crime and anti-social behaviour, and its utility as a means of reducing conflict in communities, remains unrealised. There is a postcode lottery in availability. While RJ services should be victim-led, with victims having a right to information on it (as well as other relevant services), the proven value of its positive impact on offenders should be recognised. 

5. In what ways can devolution and constitutional reform empower people and bring our communities closer together? 

Cleaning up Westminster 

Quakers have engaged with political power since our earliest days. We are committed to democracy as the embodiment of our testimonies to equality, peace, truth and integrity. In recent years we have become concerned about the increasing amount of policy, legislation, rhetoric and behaviour that threaten both the structures and the culture of democracy. 

We are keen to ensure that if elected, Labour does not accept our weakened democracy as the status quo, and instead takes steps to strengthen it. We agree with the finding of the Commission on the UK’s Future that significant reform is needed to restore ethical standards and their safeguards, and therefore help improve trust in politicians and our political system. We would like Labour to prioritise truth and integrity as fundamental values underpinning our democracy. 

We ask the Labour Policy Forum to consider how the Commission on the UK’s Future’s proposals can be improved to ensure that the system does not still rely on the governing party to regulate itself. For example, the Commission report suggested that the Prime Minister or Parliament should decide whether to accept the proposed Integrity and Ethics Commission’s recommendation on how to deal with rule breaches by members of parliament. If the governing party has a strong majority in parliament, this leaves the power with that party. Similarly, the Commission on the UK’s Future report does not specify who will make sure the recommendations of the citizens’ jury are implemented, and whether this body will be independent or party-political. This risks leaving the system open to abuse by a governing party with a strong majority. 

Promoting human rights 

Quakers believe there is ‘that of God’ in everyone and that every human being should have the chance to flourish. Labour must do everything it can to ensure the Human Rights Act is protected. We welcome the Commission on the UK’s Future’s recommendations to entrench and expand some human rights in UK law. We would like environmental rights to be included in that list. 

The rights to freedom of assembly and expression have been undermined by recent changes in policy and legislation. These rights are key to a thriving democracy, ensuring that people can raise concerns when their voices aren’t being heard through other democratic channels such as voting. Protest has helped bring about many positive political changes in history, such as votes for women and the end of apartheid. We welcome the Labour leadership team’s emphasis on policing by consent. We ask Labour to ensure that peaceful protest is enabled, and the policing of protests is limited, proportionate, consistent, predictable and accountable. This includes repealing Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC Act) and scrapping the Public Order Bill. These could be replaced with legislation that enables peaceful protest. 

Nurturing civil society 

We believe civil society is fundamental to democracy and social change. Charities and other civil society organisations can bring a huge amount of knowledge, expertise and ideas to benefit policymaking at a national and local level. Civil society engagement results in better-designed policies, and ensures that essential services have a greater positive impact. It also helps the collective experiences and views of ordinary people to influence political and policy decisions, and enables people to participate in efforts to bring about social change. 

Yet civil society in the UK has had to contend with a challenging political and operating environment for years, including: 

• Legislation such as the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and Elections Act 2022 

• The politicisation of regulatory bodies such as the Electoral Commission 

• A dominant narrative that seeks to de-legitimise campaigning and other work on injustice and discrimination e.g. criticism of the National Trust for exploring its colonial history. 

We ask the Labour to take steps to improve the relationship between government and civil society. A cross-departmental engagement strategy is needed to set out how a Labour government would involve civil society organisations, and the people they work with, in all strategy and decision-making processes. This includes full consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny and equality impact assessments ahead of all planned new legislation, and meaningful engagement ahead of emergency legislation. The strategy must ensure that all engagement between civil society and government is meaningful, inclusive, and deliberative.

We think it would be helpful to appoint a standalone Minister for Civil Society who acts as a champion for civil society within government and beyond. They would be most effective if placed at heart of government in the Cabinet Office. The Civil Society Directorate should also be moved back to the Cabinet Office and given responsibility for setting strategy and targets on civil society across government. There must be clear accountability mechanisms so that it can hold other departments to account. 

Regulators exist to provide accountability. It is therefore crucial that they are independent from both government and party politics. This enables them to be effective, and credible in the eyes of the public. We ask Labour to protect the regulatory independence of the Electoral Commission, Charity Commission, Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, and Equality and Human Rights Commission. Restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission will require amending or repealing Part 3 of the Elections Act 2022. 

Reform of the public appointments process is needed to increase the power of parliament, increase fair competition, and prevent the appointment of unqualified candidates. We ask Labour to give the House of Commons formal control of appointment processes, provide Select Committees with an effective power of veto at pre-appointment hearings, and ensure terms for the Chairs of regulatory bodies are non-renewable and fixed. 

6. What are the specific implications of policy proposals in this area for (a) women, (b) Black, Asian and minority ethnic people; (c) LGBT+ people, (d) disabled people and (e) all those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010? 

People with protected characteristics have been disproportionately negatively affected by recent changes in policy and legislation around democracy and human rights. For example, Black people are disproportionately affected by stop and search, which has been expanded in England and Wales via the PCSC Act and Public Order Bill. The PCSC Act also put many Gypsies and Travellers at risk of criminalisation through creating new police powers and sentences around trespass. The introduction of voter ID in the Elections Act will disenfranchise many people from minoritised groups. We ask Labour to repeal parts 3 and 4 of the PCSC Act, scrap the Public Order Bill and reform electoral law so that everyone who is eligible to vote can participate fully in elections and can engage in public debate.

Parole Changes Criticised

I see David Gauke has spoken out regarding Raab's parole meddling in this article from the latest edition of InsideTime. Interestingly he does not mention removing the right of probation offering a view regarding progression or release:-  

'Parole reforms are a mistake'

Former Justice Secretary tells Ben Leapman he disagrees with Dominic Raab’s rule-changes

When David Gauke last spoke to Inside Time he was the Justice Secretary in Theresa May’s government, responsible for prisons. Just days after that interview, Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister and Gauke was out of a job – first quitting the Cabinet, then banished from the Conservative Party. Today he works for a law firm, and is a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. He spoke exclusively to Ben Leapman.

Since the Tories came to power in 2010 there have been nine Justice Secretaries. It is hard to keep track. David Gauke was in the job for 18 months in 2018 and 2019, with Rory Stewart working under him as Prisons Minister. The pair were on the moderate, One Nation wing of their party, promoting policies which Gauke now describes as “liberalising”; both have since left Parliament.

‘Need to focus on rehabilitation’

Stewart recently called prisons “horrifying and shameful”, “filthy” and “very violent”. That’s quite an admission from a man who was recently in charge of them. Does Gauke agree with his former colleague? He chooses his words carefully. “Conditions are too often below acceptable standards,” he says. “There are immense challenges in terms of drugs, for example. There are prisoners who are locked up for much longer than they should be, and there is a need to focus on rehabilitation. We face significant challenges to a large extent because our prison population is as high as it is, so therefore we have issues of overcrowding. The staff are stretched, even though there are more prison officers than there were, and staff retention is difficult at the moment.”

Struggling to recruit

It is a description which most prisoners would recognise – but it’s not as punchy as what Stewart said, is it? “Well, Rory has a great flair for language,” Gauke smiles. “Essentially, I share Rory’s concerns about where our prison system is, and to be fair, where it has been for some time.”

Most Covid restrictions in prisons were lifted last May, but normal regimes did not restart as hoped, and many prisoners still spend much of their day locked in their cells, rather than in work or education. In large part, this is due to a shortage of prison officers. Why are prisons struggling to recruit and retain staff? Gauke, who was a ‘Remainer’ during the 2016 Brexit referendum, points to that as “a significant contributory factor”. He says: “Clearly Brexit has contributed towards the reduction in the number of workers in this country, and we see that played out in all sorts of areas, in the public sector and the private sector. Prisons are certainly not immune from that.”

More severe sentences

The number of prisoners in England and Wales has climbed by 70 per cent since the 1990s, and the Government recently put police cells on standby because men’s jails are full. As Justice Secretary, Gauke tried to reduce the prison population by abolishing short prison sentences, so that people sentenced to less than six months would serve a community sentence instead of jail time. After he left office, the Government dropped the idea. Gauke still thinks his policy could have helped, but says there is a bigger reason why prisons are overflowing: “I think the unappreciated story here is that sentences have become much more severe in recent years, and that is what is driving the prison population to increase.”

Veto mistake

It is judges who hand down the longer terms – the average tariff on a life sentence rose from around 10 years in 2002, to around 20 years in 2021 – but Gauke believes it is politicians who have driven the tougher approach: “I think that the Sentencing Council, and judges to some extent, respond to the mood music that politicians set, and if Justice Secretaries in particular talk a great deal about tougher sentences, that will be reflected in sentencing behaviour.”

What does Gauke think of the current Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab? He avoids personal criticism, but disagrees with changes Raab has made to the parole system. Following rule-changes last year, far fewer lifers and Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners are moving to open prisons. Raab now wants to go further by giving himself a veto over Parole Board decisions to release prisoners. “I think moves to increase the role of the Justice Secretary in individual parole decisions are a mistake,” says Gauke. He gives three reasons: “I don’t think these decisions should, as a matter of principle, be politicised … I think that very often society is safer if prisoners, when they’re released, have had time in an open prison to help them reintegrate … And I am sceptical that a Justice Secretary will ever have the time to properly perform that scrutiny role of a large number of decisions.”

Reckless

A decade after the endless IPP sentence was scrapped there are still around 3,000 people in prison serving them. Many senior figures have called for them to be released but successive Justice Secretaries have ducked the issue, and Raab has signalled that he intends to do the same. On this issue, Gauke has sympathy for Raab’s position. “There is an understandable nervousness about radical reform that could put a significant number of people, who the authorities believe are potentially quite dangerous, back into the population at large,” he says. “To be very candid with you, as Justice Secretary I believed I could make more progress on other aspects of the justice system, in trying to liberalise it, than taking measures that I worried could be seen as being reckless.”

Concerning numbers

One reform Gauke did introduce whilst in office was the introduction of PAVA synthetic pepper spray in every male jail. The weapon was issued to prison officers, at the request of the Prison Officers’ Association, despite warnings that it was likely to be used disproportionately against Black prisoners. The first figures have just emerged – and they show that between 2019 and 2022, Black men were seven times more likely to be pepper-sprayed than their White counterparts. So, does Gauke regret his decision? “Clearly those numbers are concerning,” he says. “The view we took was that PAVA spray could be a useful tool in assisting prison officers to maintain order, and that without it either we would see less order in prisons or potentially more damaging methods used. So, I would want to look at this issue in the round, with all the evidence, before jumping to conclusions as to whether it was a mistake or not.”

Taking a broader view of the political scene, Gauke is glad Johnson is no longer in Downing Street. “There are plenty of areas where I would disagree with Rishi Sunak,” he says, “but it strikes me that he is a conscientious and responsible figure, who takes governing seriously – and I think he is the best PM we’ve had for a little while.”

--oo00oo--

But I notice there's more from the Parole Board and Martin Jones writing in the Times on Monday:- 

Dominic Raab’s prison reforms put public at risk, says Parole Board chief

Dominic Raab’s controversial reforms of the Parole Board could put the public at risk from dangerous offenders, the head of the service has warned.

Last year the justice secretary made it significantly harder for inmates to be transferred to open prisons by introducing tough new criteria and also giving himself a veto over each transfer. The changes have led to Raab blocking the transfer of nine in ten of all Parole Board recommendations for an inmate to be moved to an open prison. However, Martin Jones, chief executive of the Parole Board, has warned that the changes make offenders even more of a risk to the public.

Criticising the justice secretary in a rare public intervention, he said open prison conditions were essential because it enabled inmates to be tested under “the controlled conditions of an open prison”. His comments will raise fresh questions about the process of releasing the most dangerous prisoners and come after revelations this month about major failings in the probation service. These led to Jordan McSweeney murdering Zara Aleena nine days after his release from prison, and the quadruple murder carried out by Damien Bendall while also on parole.

Only prisoners serving life sentences or those deemed a danger to the public must be approved by the Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice before being moved to an open prison and they make up about 10 per cent of all prisoners.

In an article as part of a wider report into the state of prisons, Jones has set out evidence to highlight the benefits of moving offenders to open prisons before their release. He writes: “For many years, [the Parole Board] has advised the secretary of state on whether a person serving an indeterminate sentence should progress to an open prison. The published evidence is strong; when a prisoner is afforded a successful period in open conditions it makes the public safer, and increases the chance that the individual can succeed on release by their gradual reintegration back into society.

“So it is hard not to be concerned that the secretary of state since June 2022 has chosen not to accept the board’s advice in a much higher proportion of cases, and his officials have chosen not to take our advice in nearly nine out of every ten cases where we have recommended a progressive move to open conditions.”

In order to gain a transfer to an open prison under the new criteria introduced last year, a prisoner must be assessed as having a low risk of absconding, the period in an open prison must be considered essential for their progression to release and their transfer must not “undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system”. The justice secretary also has the power to block transfers to open prisons even if the individual meets the criteria.

The changes were made after Paul Robson, a sex offender, went on the run from an open prison in Lincolnshire, sparking a major manhunt. Between June and November last year, of 140 inmates the Parole Board recommended for transfer to an open prison, only 14 were accepted by the Ministry of Justice. This 90 per cent rejection rate compares to just 6 per cent of cases that were rejected in the previous 12 months, when only 34 of 549 recommendations by the Parole Board were rejected.

Jones’s article will be published as part of an annual report into the state of jails in England and Wales by the Prison Reform Trust, a charity that seeks to improve prisons.

The report also points to research carried out by the Ministry of Justice in 2018 that found offenders who are released on temporary licence (ROTL), who are overwhelmingly authorised from open prisons, have a positive impact on reducing reoffending rates. This was because the individual was able to build family ties, find stable accommodation and employment before they were released from prison.

Raab has supported a greater use of open prisons for lower-level criminals, who do not need to pass the criteria or gain Parole Board approval before being transferred.

He introduced changes that allowed prisoners serving in them to get access to apprenticeships for the first time to help plug labour shortages. He said the move would provide a “missing link” between the qualifications that prisoners can attain while serving time and getting the crucial experience that they do not currently have access to.

Separately, a governor who runs a category C prison has also criticised Raab’s changes, revealing that the justice secretary had blocked five of his inmates from being transferred to an open prison. He said the men need to be tested in a more open environment telling a private event this month: “They are not ready to be released straight from closed conditions. This is putting people in danger.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Public protection is our number one priority. We make no apology for ensuring dangerous offenders are kept behind bars and toughening up the test they must pass before moving into open prisons. Our reforms stand up for the rights of victims and place public safety at the heart of the parole process.”