Advice From an Insider

I notice that advice is already coming in for the new Justice Secretary. Here's part of a fascinating Spectator article written by the former speech writer to both Michael Gove and Liz Truss. It's worth reading in full.  

Butter up the judges, release some prisoners: how David Lidington can survive as Justice Secretary

After getting to know the judges, the next problem David Lidington will encounter is the utterly chaotic prisons system, where Truss had identified what was wrong and was beginning to attempt serious reform, largely along the lines set out by Michael Gove before her. In this area, I would argue, her all-guns-blazing style was better suited.

There’s a Ministry of Justice playbook that’s probably being followed at the moment. You take the new Justice Secretary to the high security Belmarsh prison, have them photographed with the Prison Governor during a whistle-stop visit, introduce them to some staff, and publish the picture on the MoJ website. Certainly you don’t want it to emerge that a Justice Secretary has never set foot inside a prison.

But if Lidington really wants to get an idea of the state of the prison system, the ‘Category A’ high security estate is not the best place to start: it’s pretty well resourced – because the inmates are very dangerous – and well run. Instead he should visit a prison that has received a terrible inspection report. Like, for instance, Wormwood Scrubs, which was said to be ‘infested with rats and overcrowded’ last year. Or Wandsworth prison, one of the largest in Europe, where in 2016 BBC cameras filmed inmates openly smoking cannabis.

It’s this part of the prison system that will take up most of the Justice Secretary’s time.

Politically, it’s worth noting that Cabinet ministers at the moment are virtually unsackable. ‘Hang ’em and flog ’em’ commentators in the right-wing press will stay on side because the one thing they fear most is Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. So Lidington should use this freedom to speak frankly about the prisons crisis.

First, he should admit that the prison population has grown too large. There are around 85,000 inmates now (about double the 1990 population – see graph above), who spend most of their days not being rehabilitated or educated – but locked inside their cells, often taking drugs such as spice and ‘black mamba’. As the chief prisons inspector put it in 2015: ‘It is hard to imagine anything less likely to rehabilitate prisoners than days spent mostly lying on their bunks in squalid cells watching daytime TV.’

Yes, prisons exists to keep the public safe, and part of their purpose is to punish crime. But what is the point of regimes like the above, where 59% of those who receive prison sentences of less than 12 months go out and reoffend again? It would help if the staff-to-prisoner ratio was improved for a start, so that prisoners can be taught basic skills like how to read, write and add up. One question: why are there still so many prisoners held indefinitely under ‘Indeterminate Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection’, even though some, according to the Parole Board Chairman, present a very low level of risk to the public? Given that the cost of keeping someone locked up is more than the fees at Eton – and there remain serious cash pressures at the Ministry of Justice – these inmates might be a good place to start.

A source flags up a more urgent problem coming down the tracks – a smoking ban that has to be implemented in all long-term and high security prisons by the end of August. ‘You couldn’t have come up with a more stupid date,’ I’m told. Officials are always wary of riots in the hot summer, when prison officer numbers are depleted due to holidays, yet somehow this is the date that has been agreed. Is Lidington going to go ahead with it? Is the timing clever?

He will have plenty of other red lights flashing on the department’s warning systems. Murders, suicides and assaults – both prison-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff – remain off the scale. Two people who know the system well have separately mentioned the words ‘corporate manslaughter’ to me, which illustrates the depth of the problem facing the government. The fact that so many older, more experienced prison staff are leaving, outstripping the rate of recruitment, also urgently needs addressing. Can Lidington persuade recently departed staff with experience to return? And if the Prison Officers’ Association are still up in arms about assaults on staff, understandably, why not introduce a new offence that immediately increases time in custody for attacks on prison officers? This would serve as a deterrent for attacks like ‘potting’, which, in the words of Urban dictionary, involves ‘dumping a steaming bucket of urine and excrement over the head of a much-loved prison service employee’.

Another question that needs asking: if NOMS (the National Offender Management Service) was such a disaster that it had to be closed down and rebranded, why is Michael Spurr, its former head, in charge of the shiny new HMPPS (Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service)? A review of the capability of the top team, I’m told by someone with experience of them, is overdue.

Perhaps the top priority, however, should be rehabilitation. It badly needs improvement, given the appallingly high level of reoffending among offenders mentioned above. Lidington should review which reforms in this area are working and which are not. Has Chris Grayling’s ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ white paper had the desired effects, four years on? Worryingly, I’m told of a ‘collapse in morale and effectiveness in probation, particularly in the Community Rehabilitation Companies’ that were set up during his time in the department. If these aren’t working, then rehabilitation will be non-existent.

Judging by recent atrocities, yet another challenge that David Lidington will face is the treatment of Islamist extremists in custody. Some, as I pointed in my article for this week’s Spectator, are considered so dangerous that they are locked up alongside the most dangerous murderers in Britain today. But unlike the killers, some are on course to be released. Anjem Choudary, for instance, was only locked up for five and a half years last year. Why not longer? And how much will be done not just to safeguard the public from the most subversive Islamist proselytisers, but to persuade them that they are wrong? Separation units for extremists, introduced by Liz Truss, are a very sensible measure; but they must actively reduce risk, not just isolate it.

It’s a strange thing, given its size and its importance in keeping the public safe, that the Ministry of Justice doesn’t have a particularly high status in Whitehall. The Home Office, and certainly the Foreign Office, are considered more prestigious to work for. But, as Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, David Lidington is about to discover what sort of hospital pass he has just caught. He is said to be brilliant by those who know him: I just hope he’s given longer in the job than his predecessors.

Will Heaven was speechwriter to Michael Gove and Liz Truss at the ministry of justice

--oo00oo--

Footnote:- not being the slightest bit knowledgeable about football, I had to resort to wikipedia for the following:-

"David Lidington is about to discover what sort of hospital pass he has just caught."

"Hospital pass" is a term originally used in football codes to describe a pass that subjects the recipient to heavy contact, usually unavoidable, from an opposing player — the expression implying that the recipient of the pass could end up in hospital.

Yet Another Justice Minister

The MoJ press statement:-

The Rt Hon David Lidington MP has been appointed as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

David Lidington, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, said:

"I am pleased and honoured to have been appointed as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

Together with my ministerial team, I look forward to working with the hardworking and dedicated staff in our prisons and probation services, in our courts and tribunals and with people right across the justice system.

Democracy and freedom are built on the rule of law, and are protected by a strong and independent judiciary. I look forward to taking my Oath as Lord Chancellor, and to working with the Lord Chief Justice and his fellow judges in the months ahead, to ensure that justice is fairly administered and robustly defended."

--oo00oo--

Whilst we rejoice at waving goodbye to Liz Truss who was unceremoniously demoted from her disastrous post of Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, there are serious concerns regarding the newly-appointed incumbent according to this in PinkNews:- 

Theresa May appoints anti-LGBT justice secretary with appalling gay rights voting record during DUP talks

Theresa May has appointed a justice secretary who has consistently voted against LGBT rights. This Prime Minister reshuffled her Cabinet over the weekend after her Conservative Party lost its majority in parliament in the election. While negotiating a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party – a Northern Irish party which opposes a raft of LGBT rights – May made David Lidington justice secretary and lord chancellor.

Lidington has an appalling record when it comes to LGBT issues, having voted against same-sex marriage on both occasions in 2013. Speaking to his local newspaper The Bucks Herald, he claimed the purpose of marriage was “not only to provide mutual love and commitment but also for the procreation and care of children.”

In 2004, he was one of just 47 MPs who voted against the Civil Partnerships Bill. As the minister of state for Europe in 2015, he rejected proposals to follow the United States in appointing a specialised LGBT rights envoy to lobby for equal rights around the world.

Lidington voted to maintain a ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools – that is, teaching children that homosexuality exists – in 2003. And from 1998 to 1999, he voted against reducing the age of consent from 18 to 16 for homosexual sex – not once, not twice, but three times. The move is particularly worrying as it comes as a deal with the DUP is being formed.

May needs help from the Northern Irish party and its 10 MPs to avoid the perils of ruling with a minority government – but the DUP’s approach to LGBT rights is troubling. Arlene Foster’s ultra-conservative party has previously supported the introduction of a ‘conscience clause’ to protect religious people who want to discriminate against anyone who is LGBT. This means LGBT people could be refused service or turned down for jobs simply because of their sexuality or gender.

The DUP has stalled all progress on equal marriage in Northern Ireland, attempted to retain a lifetime ban on gay men giving blood, and opposed same-sex couples adopting children. But when it comes to a 155-year-old law which can punish a woman with life imprisonment for terminating a pregnancy, the DUP is fully in favour.

May pledged to PinkNews that the Gender Recognition Act would be reformed in the next parliament, saying that “the legal process to change their gender can be distressing, so changes do need to be made.” It remains to be seen how a partnership with the extremely conservative DUP would affect this promise.

On the plus side, the general election saw a record 45 LGBTQ people voted into Parliament, with a net gain of six. The 45 represent seven percent of the new House of Commons, and is the highest level of representation ever in Britain and the world.

Latest From Napo 151

Edited highlights from the latest blog by Napo General Secretary, Ian Lawrence:-

Napo's future

While we await what is likely to be a lively summer for national politics, I hope that all of our members across Probation, Cafcass, the CRC estate and Probation Board Northern Ireland can involve themselves in what I believe will be the most important consultative process that Napo has ever held with our membership at any time in our proud history.

This week’s reconvened meeting of your National Executive Committee received a presentation on a potential recovery strategy which is designed to reestablish engagement with our members and open up involvement opportunities for new members and activists that will bring the union closer to your workplace and allow us to be more visible in demonstrating the tremendous amount of work that your reps and national officers and Napo staff put in to help protect and promote your interests. The initial debate on the draft strategy was full and frank and it reinforced the point that Napo's options for survival and regeneration are still very much in our hands, but that ultimately our members will decide the future of their union.

The NEC meet again on the 22nd of this month to undertake a fuller debate about Napo's future direction of travel, and whatever the outcomes are from that gathering it’s pretty certain that there will be important recommendations for our members to consider right through to what will undoubtedly be a critical Annual General Meeting in Nottingham 13/14 October.

Essentially, and as nearly every trade union in Britain (except perhaps RMT and ASLEF who are in perpetual struggle with a despicable employer) is also finding, we have lost more members than is comfortable over the last three years. That is a huge debating point in itself and might be seen as grist to the mill for our detractors, but the plain fact (because facts are always pretty important) is that it’s largely as a result of two major factors, the first being the massive CRC job cuts following Transforming Rehabilitation, and the second being the negative impact following the cynical removal of Napo subs being paid direct from pay roll ( 'Check off').

As I have said before, both situations were predicated on the basis that weakening Napo was very much in the employers’ interest, yet we are still here, still trying to do what we have always done and still getting results for individual members at local level and through our excellent panel of National Representatives, and wherever we can collectively; such as the no redundancy agreement in the NPS and the recent result on Maternity Pay and Harmonisation. You will by now have hopefully had a look at our PAY STRATEGY and we are entering a critical period of negotiation on this.

Let me also say that there is no complacency about the task we face to offer you direct support in the face of issues such as workload pressures (across all of the 24 employers we engage with), Health & Safety, E3, and Assistive Technology to name a few things, but in order to be more effective we need to take a look at what we do and how we do it as the demands on our time and resources are much greater than before TR was implemented.

The NEC will be receiving further material from the Officers and myself next week which will further inform their next discussions and I expect that they will need to meet again as an Executive before the final date for the submission of motions and constitutional amendments which is Friday 18th August. Please look out for more news in the coming weeks.

United Britain

One thing that Theresa May spoke of earlier today was her (or is that the) government’s intention to do everything necessary to combat the threat from Islamic terrorism. Aside from the fact that terrorism has the same result irrespective of the perpetrator, it seems pretty likely that we will see some proposals emerge that will themselves test the relationships in and between communities in the wake of the recent atrocities in Westminster, Manchester and last week in South London.

Our members involved with the 'Prevent' strategy had plenty to say about it at the Napo Black Members gathering a few months back and little did we know then how this and other initiatives would soon be the subject of a new political focus.

As always, our members will carry out their duties to the letter in response to new instructions affecting practice but I hope that before we see the emergence of knee jerk populist solutions designed to protect us from harm, some serious discussions are held with our practitioner experts about the feasibility of any new policies. Needless to say, I am sure the Police Federation would welcome some dialogue about reductions in Officers (armed and unarmed) and their capacity to act upon vital intelligence in the face of the claim that there are potentially 23,000 people out there in the UK who have been recognised as having the potential to do us harm.

The Analysis

What an amazing result. The young finally learn that voting is the way to change things, not posting on Facebook. We have a 'coalition of chaos' after all, with 10 Northern Ireland MP's pretty much deciding things. The Tory manifesto is torn up; Theresa's days are numbered; we can ignore Nicola for a while; the 'unelectable' Jeremy is fireproof, but we'll have to do it all over again, and pretty soon.

Just One More Day 2

Ok, just one more piece of clever political analysis, by cassetteboy this time:-

Just One More Day

Some more political analysis to help with Thursday's big decision:- 

Another One Bites the Dust

According to this article in the Guardian, it rather looks like the 'reform prison' idea, along with prison governor autonomy, has quietly bitten the dust:- 

HMP Wandsworth loses reform prison status

The future of the government’s reform prisons has been thrown into doubt after Wandsworth prison, seen as the flagship of the scheme, lost its status and reverted back to a normal prison.

The transition follows the unexpected departure of the Wandsworth governor in March and may signal the end of the trial which saw governors given sweeping new powers.

In his last email to Wandsworth staff, seen by the Guardian, former governor Ian Bickers said it had been an honour to have been asked to lead such an experienced group of staff and partners, but went on to say that Wandsworth’s reform team would now become part of the the normal work of the prison.

Reform prisons were initiated by former justice secretary Michael Gove, and six were introduced in the prisons and courts reform bill in May last year after being outlined in a major speech by David Cameron earlier that year. The other five reform prisons were Holme House in Durham, Ranby in Nottinghamshire, Kirklevington Grange in Cleveland, and Coldingley and Highdown, both in Surrey.

Under the bill, the six prisons’ governors were given control of their budgets, were able to generate contracts and retain their income. They could decide which education and rehabilitation services to use and could devise new regimes to suit their prisons. It was also announced that governors would be held accountable by a “new regime of transparency”.

The Prison Officers’ Association confirmed that Wandsworth had lost its reform status. Glyn Travis, who sits on the POA’s national executive committee, said Wandsworth staff were informed of the change in the e-mail sent to all staff on 22 March and that the changes were confirmed at a later meeting with union officials.

Travis said: “Wandsworth staff had bought into the reform process and worked well with the governor to implement the reforms. Now, the prison has lost its reform status and once again, staff and prisoners have been left high and dry as this government’s agenda seems to change at the drop of a hat.”

Bickers was the Wandsworth governor when it gained reform status. He was seen by prison reformers as a forward-thinking, innovative practitioner. However, in March a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesperson confirmed the departure of Bickers from the prison but said he was being appointed to a “more senior position” within HM Prison and Probation Service.

Bickers has since become director of immigration removal centres and foreign national prisons, and deputy director for public-sector prisons.

Andrew Neilson, the director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said that the loss of reform prison status for Wandsworth did not bode well for the initiative in general.

He said selecting Wandsworth as a reform jail was a brave decision because it was a large overcrowded London local prison with a host of complex issues. There had been accusations that prisons were being cherry-picked and that only easy jails would benefit from the new reform status.

“Given Michael Gove was then moved to the backbenches, and there is every chance we may see further ministerial changes after the election, it is hard not to conclude that the reform prisons have withered on the vine. Ultimately, we are only going to see positive change if the government gets serious about easing population pressures on the system as a whole,” Neilson said.

The MoJ declined to comment, citing the purdah rules around the coming general election.

--oo00oo--

Another article from March gives the background:-

HMP Wandsworth governor leaves after failure of idea to give duties to prisoners

The governor of Britain’s biggest prison has left his job after the failure of radical plans to allocate some officers’ duties to prisoners, the Guardian has learned.

Ian Bickers had been the governor of Wandsworth prison, one of six to be selected by then justice secretary Michael Gove last summer for “reform prison” status. Three months ago Bickers told MPs about his plans to allow prisoners to be trained to deal with low-level administration work, leaving officers free for more important functions.

However, prison sources say that most of the “peer advisors” have been kept locked in their cells, and trainers from the charity St Giles Trust have been left sitting in empty classrooms as a result.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson confirmed Bickers’s departure from the prison but said he was being appointed to a “more senior position” within HM Prison and Probation Service and congratulated him on his new role. The spokesperson denied that his departure was to do with the fate of the planned changes.

Of the 50 prisoners recruited to be peer advisors – nicknamed “the purple army” after their purple tops – just 15 have been partially trained since September. Wandsworth staff say the problem is due to staff shortages in an overcrowded jail.

St Giles Trust acknowledged that so far it had encountered difficulties in gaining access to trainees. Chief executive Malcolm Walker described the situation as “challenging, with the focus on those prisoners we can access”.

Prison sources say the prisoners could not be brought for training because they were mostly located on the five main wings at Wandsworth, which are on virtual lockdown for most of the day.

Dave Todd, a member of the Prison Officers’ Association national executive committee for London and Kent, said staff were sometimes forced to curtail prisoner activities but only do so for safety reasons. He said Wandsworth was particularly affected by staff shortages and unavailability of existing staff through sickness.

“We need increased recruitment and retention of staff before we can properly deliver the service the prison system and the public deserve,” he said.

The staffing situation at Wandsworth has wider consequences for prisoners there. Documents seen by the Guardian show that the numbers of new prisoners at Wandsworth completing basic induction processes – including tests for basic maths and English – are falling dramatically, with the proportion completing the process dropping from 49% to 21% between last June and November, and further falls expected.

The prisoner-on-prisoner listener scheme, facilitated by Samaritans, is also affected, with many of the trained listeners located on the main wings where movement is strictly curtailed.

--oo00oo--

Update - this blog from Frances Crook of the Howard League:-

Reform prisons – just a title

There were reports in the media that Wandsworth prison has officially lost ‘reform’ status. Actually it never really had it. Neither did any of the other prisons that were given the title. For, title was all it really was.

Of course, there were also the highly paid additional governors who were imposed on top of the existing governors, thus downgrading experienced local people and diluting their powers. There was irony in the puff that governors would be given new powers, but in fact the reform prisons had super-governors imposed, which meant that, far from giving greater autonomy to real governors, it reduced their power.

In fact, the whole idea of ‘reform prisons’ was a bit of a publicity stunt as nothing much changed on the ground. When I visited the prisons I was shown a lot of things that were going to happen, but nothing much that had happened. The prisons never got a stand-alone budget and the power to buy in their services.

The Prisons and Courts Bill published in March this year indicated that all prisons would be places of reform but the main avenue to achieve that would be the creation of league tables. Despite some confusion about what this meant, it appeared that there would be no additional resources apart from the futile attempts to replace staff posts that had only recently been cut.

This is a pity, because giving back to governing governors their own budget and some autonomy to make choices according to local conditions and needs was a good idea. It still is a good idea. The problem was that trying to impose a system based on school management structures in a half-hearted way was just a mess.

Prisons are not like schools. Clustering prisons under super-governors who helicopter in occasionally makes the day to day staff feel under-valued and delays decision making. There have been lots of attempts to do this over the years, mostly just to save money, but they have never worked.

A prison needs a governor. Prisons work best when there is a clear line of accountability with someone who is known to staff and inmates. A prison is a living community that has to be fine-tuned daily to be safe and purposeful.

Since the election was called, little has happened in prisons and they continue to be crime-ridden, filthy, violent, drug-addled places of extreme misery and purposelessness. The incoming Secretary of State, whether the old one continues or a new person takes over, will have a gargantuan task on their hands.

Power devolution can inject some energy into the system, but it is not going to solve the intractable problems faced daily by staff and prisoners. The long-term solution must be to cut the population. But that will take a brave politician. I have my fingers crossed.

Frances Crook

Virtual Justice

We haven't discussed the subject of 'virtual' justice before, but it would seem that the MoJ have been quietly beavering away behind the scenes on an ambitious but secretive plan to move all court process online, radically changing our whole judicial system, but without adequate consultation or research. This from the Law Society Gazette in March:-

News focus: 'Virtual justice' and the IT panacea

Just over six years ago, a taxpayer funded independent study of a pilot ‘virtual court’ concluded that: ‘A rollout based on the pilot’s performance and parameters is likely to cost more money than it saves. A break-even scenario may be achieved, but this is still likely to be a challenge.’

While the pilot, involving two courts where defendants were encouraged to appear by closed circuit TV link from the police station, succeeded in cutting the average time from charge to first hearing, the evaluation raised concerns about the knock-on consequences: ‘The impact of the pilot on judicial processes and outcomes is complex. The evidence points to a series of factors that may be regarded as giving cause for concern, but the frequency with which they occur is very difficult to judge.’

A government committed to evidence-based policymaking might be expected to take that evaluation on board when considering virtual courts, no doubt commissioning further research and achieving a consensus on the impacts before extending such processes nationally.

Instead, the Ministry of Justice will today propose to parliament that virtual hearings become the norm in swathes of court procedures. This is one of the IT-based courts reforms proposed in the Prisons and Courts Bill, published last month. Under the proposed law, almost any party to any criminal court hearing will be allowed to take part by telephone or video link. In an even more controversial proposal to replace physical justice with online justice, the bill proposes introducing ‘automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty’ for certain summary-only criminal offences.

In a powerful critique of the bill’s criminal courts proposals, the charity Transform Justice accuses the government of embracing a technological panacea. A briefing paper published last week states that: ‘The criminal court proposals seem to have been introduced in haste, in many cases without research, evidence or informal or formal consultation with experts and stakeholders.’

While the object is to save money through the court reform programme, most of the proposed changes ‘have not been costed, and the impact on remand and sentences has not been modelled’.

Meanwhile, the move to online and virtual justice ‘threatens to significantly increase the number of unrepresented defendants, to further discriminate against vulnerable defendants, to inhibit the relationship between defence lawyers and their clients, and to make justice less open’.

Overall, it observes that the criminal justice system is complex and its fairness rests on parties understanding and participating in the process: ‘This is difficult to achieve even when everyone is in a courtroom. Fundamental principles of justice and human rights are risked if we take justice wholly or partially out of the courtroom.’

Transform Justice, set up in 2012 by former magistrate Penelope Gibbs, is only the latest critical friend of justice reform to suggest that the proposals are ill thought-through. The briefing stresses that the charity is not opposed to new technology as such. ‘No one would disagree that the courts need to be brought into the digital age,’ the briefing states. This would require files and information to be available in digital form, with innovations such as defendants and witnesses being sent emails and texts reminding them to come to court. ‘Many of these changes are already under way and the challenge is simply to get the IT to work properly and systems to talk,’ it states.

However, the new processes in the bill are far more radical – and based on what appears a deliberate policy of ignoring inconvenient facts. Transform Justice notes that several of the ideas in the bill were adopted from the Leveson review of efficiency in criminal proceedings, which two years ago reported a dearth of evidence to support the impact of the changes. ‘No major research or evidence gathering has been conducted since,’ Transform Justice notes, ‘and many of the proposals in the legislation go further than Lord Leveson’s recommendations’.

Virtual hearings are a good example. ‘There is very little evidence of the impact of virtual hearings on juries, judges, on defendants’ participation in hearings, nor on the outcomes of those hearings,’ the briefing states. ‘What evidence we have, whether from business or criminal justice, suggests the impact can be negative.’

The briefing questions the need for virtual hearings in the first place: ‘There is not and still won’t be (even after closures) a shortage of courtrooms. Many defendants and witnesses would prefer to appear in person than remotely.’

As for the government’s argument that virtual hearings are kinder on witnesses: ‘If the needs of witnesses were better met in court, they would be less stressed. Equally, we question the necessity of the police detaining so many low-level offenders, thus necessitating either a virtual hearing from police custody or an expensive trip in a secure van to the court.’

On the proposed system to allow people charged with non-imprisonable offences to plead guilty and accept a penalty online, the charity says: ‘Every conviction carries a criminal record. The risk of an online system is that those charged will not understand the full implications of pleading guilty.’

Other concerns include the cost of the system, which the briefing says has not been assessed; and its effect on open justice, where it says the proposals are ‘somewhat vague’.

‘The new proposals are an attempt to graft existing open justice principles on to new structures, but there has been no research and no consultation on them, so we have no means of gauging their impact,’ the briefing states.

The biggest concern is the apparent reluctance to throw the new ideas out for consultation – in defiance of best practice guidance for policymaking.

Transform Justice states that ‘no reason has been given for the lack of open policymaking in regard to many of these proposals’ and says that the government could have put the bill forward for pre-legislative scrutiny. ‘It has chosen not to do so.’

We have been here before. In the early 2000s, the Labour government increasingly turned to big IT projects to get it out of policy holes. The resulting failures ranged from lorry road pricing (abandoned) to identity cards (abolished by the incoming coalition government) to joined up electronic medical records (still a distant prospect).

The fear is that the Ministry of Justice is now embarking down a similar road.

The Prisons and Courts Bill – which also covers highly controversial measures relating to the penal system and personal injury compensation – begins its second reading in the House of Commons today. Critical friends of reform will be hoping that ministers are receptive to scrutiny.

--oo00oo--

This from the Transform Justice briefing document:-

History 

HMCTS first used virtual hearings in 1990s and the Ministry of Justice commissioned independent researchers to conduct an evaluation of a virtual court pilot8 . This pilot involved two courts where defendants were encouraged to appear virtually from the police station. The evaluation of the pilot was published in 2010, and concluded that virtual courts as piloted were more expensive, may lead to more guilty pleas and longer sentences, and impeded the communication between lawyer and client. The economists who did the research modelled a scenario whereby virtual courts could lead to a small saving over ten years, but this relied on hearing six cases per hour, and excluded any impact on sentences.

Despite the conclusions of this research, virtual hearings for defendants were extended, and Leveson advocated an even greater expansion – for pre-trial and case management hearings. “Such hearings are often essentially administrative in nature and it is unnecessary to gather the participants together in one room to deal with the matters that require resolution, save exceptionally when the interests of justice require it”. Leveson advocates virtual hearings on the basis of convenience for judges, advocates and other parties, and to “ease the pressure on courtrooms”. He suggests also that court proceedings are behind the time given “business meetings are conducted in this way and surgical operations are carried out remotely”. 

Leveson does not cite the Ministry of Justice evaluation on virtual courts, so does not address the challenges it poses. He does however footnote research on video conferencing which appears to undermine its credibility. The research cited by Leveson suggests that those involved in video conferencing need to concentrate much harder: “Faced with a higher cognitive load, users of video conferencing may economize when evaluating the information presented the speaker. They may economize by using heuristics, such as how likeable they perceive the speaker to be, rather than the quality of the arguments presented by the speaker when judging whether or not they will adopt or use the information presented by the speaker”. 

There is no equivalent UK research with defendants/offenders but Dr Carolyn McKay did research in Australia with prisoners who appeared remotely from prison into the courtroom10. She found that, despite the technology's efficiency benefits, it risked preventing meaningful contact with lawyers and judicial officers. “Prisoners reported not understanding what was going on in court, feeling disconnected and not being able to allow judges and accusers to see them in person."You're a bit withdrawn from the whole process really, it's all going on there without you and, umm, you're just a face on a screen really," a 24-year-old male prisoner said”. In the research done by MoJ on the online court pilot, very few defendants chose to appear virtually rather than go to court. Anecdotal evidence from prisoners in England suggests many are content to take part in hearings via video-link, but this is usually because the experience of going to court is involves packing up all your worldly goods, getting up in the middle of the night, missing out on meals, travelling in a sweat box and then, if unlucky, ending up at different prison late at night from the one they left in the morning. If going to court were not associated with such negative experiences, they would prefer to go in person. 

The only other research we have on virtual hearings is a process evaluation of pre-trial cross examination of vulnerable witnesses in England and Wales. This evaluated the process involved in a pilot allowing vulnerable witnesses to be cross examined in advance of their trial, sitting in a different location from the courtroom, appearing via video-link, with all the parties except the jury present. This pre-trial cross examination is designed to improve the experience for vulnerable witnesses, who frequently find giving evidence in front of a jury extremely stressful. 

The process evaluation found that witnesses appreciated the opportunity to give evidence in this way, but the research was not designed to evaluate outcomes. In the sample cases involved there appeared to be more guilty pleas after pre-trial cross examination had been completed (than might be expected), but the numbers were small and the author himself wrote: “findings from the monitoring data are based on a relatively small number of cases and findings may not be replicated under any roll-out”. So no firm conclusions can be drawn from it about the impact of pre-trial cross examination on outcomes, either guilty pleas or convictions, though the experience of the witnesses was positive. 

There is very little evidence on the impact of virtual hearings on juries, judges, on defendants’ participation in hearings, nor on the outcomes of those hearings. What evidence we have, whether from business or criminal justice, suggests the impact can be negative. 

While the best research we have on outcomes14 suggests virtual courts to be more expensive, and to result in more punitive sentences for defendants, we would suggest more research is urgently needed.

--oo00oo--

I notice that Transform Justice are conducting a survey and invite contributions from all users of the court process:- 

'Vulnerable' defendants and virtual justice

Transform Justice (www.transformjustice.org.uk) is a national charity working for a fair, humane, open and effective justice system. We are currently engaged in a project looking at the effect of 'virtual justice' on defendants who may be vulnerable. Hearings involving those who are in prison (both those on remand and subject to a sentence) are increasingly conducted via a video-link from the custodial facility to the court room/parole board hearing room. In many areas, there is also the facility to connect police custody suites to courts by video for hearings involving defendants detained by the police. The government has recently proposed a significant extension to such mechanisms. so that many hearings would be conducted entirely by video. It was similarly proposed that some hearings would be conducted in part, or entirely, by telephone. Currently it is not certain whether these proposals will be persued.

This survey forms part of Transform Justice's work in this area. It is aimed primarily at those who have direct experience of working with defendants and/or those convicted, and some experience of witnessing video hearings in action. Findings will inform the development of recommendations to improve policy and practice in relation to virtual justice (video and aural).

The survey is short and we would be very grateful if you could take 10-15 minutes to respond on the basis of your professional/user experience and expertise. The survey is anonymous, unless you choose to provide your name and contact details for the purpose of taking part in a short follow-up interview. If a question is not relevant to your experience, please feel free to skip it.

A Catchy Tune

My contribution to the election debate.

Latest From Napo 150

Here we have edited highlights from the latest blog post by Napo General Secretary:-  

ARE SOME CRCS TEETERING ON THE EDGE?

The current halt to Parliamentary proceedings means that we must await the installation of a new Government to discover when the recommendations from the Probation Service review will see the light of day.

One area that has clearly been acted upon already is that funding for CRCs to get through this current financial year has largely been put in place. There is still a huge issue over future funding against delivery of course, and talks on that continue. Meanwhile, and as far as Napo are concerned, this means that CRC employers should pay up now on the incremental progression that has already been received by NPS staff and start engaging with us on their plans for pay going forward.

What is increasingly clear is that some jittery CRC owners are now planning for further staffing cuts and/or changes to operational practice in desperate attempts to drive down their overheads. This is no surprise of course, and is one of those things that featured very high on our massive ‘we told you so’ list even before the ink had dried on the CRC share sale contracts.

Whilst we can happily say: more the fool you, to any number of CRC owners for buying into the whole shambolic TR experiment, the fact is that operational models are becoming more unsafe by the day and our members are at breaking point in a number of areas. It’s also significant that I am seeing signs that people are fast recognising that whatever we try to do by way of negotiation it may take industrial action to make something happen.

As always I will be directed by our members on this, but I have made it known not only in the 3 CRCs where I am working alongside Napo reps to try and bring the employer to account, that I will be more than happy to attend meetings to listen to our members views about their willingness to ballot for action.

Meanwhile, we know that a number of CRCs have been holding talks with outside agencies or individuals to discuss their ‘what if’ strategy. Only time will tell whether this is the precursor to some dramatic developments but the fact that it is happening indicates that jumping ship is looking like an option for some of them.

I will say what I have said to a number of CRC owners over the last three years: that if Probation is not really for you then why not hand in the keys and save everyone further grief?

NPS not doing that much better either

Tales of woe across the NPS continue to reach my inbox. Among the examples are telephones being down for 3 weeks in one location, meaning clients, victims and external agencies not being able to get in touch. I am told that there is reportedly just one mobile phone available for the team.

Elsewhere I also hear that some PQIP cohort 2 members are experiencing serious pay problems at the end of their first month in the job, with some not actually being paid. Nothing like feeling valued is there?

One Probation Officer has told their Napo rep that despite moving from a Market Forces Supplement Area some time ago, they have inexplicably received a whopping extra £*** backdated MFS in their pay. This has impacted on their tax, pension and NI position. The response via SOP is that it will now take 10-12 weeks to sort out.

Issues with Protected Pay

I should not have been surprised then to hear that this week a number of members have experienced huge problems having not received their expected protected pay entitlements. Of course we are alerting senior NPS management to this problem, one of a very long list concerning Shared Services (sic) (SSCL). Once we ascertain a better picture of the issues we hope to issue some guidance to members early next week.

It would be helpful also if Napo reps could keep their National Link Officers in the loop about what is happening here so that we can more effectively gather the necessary intelligence.

AGM 2017 - how to have your say

We have this week issued the registration material for this year’s Napo Annual General Meeting in Nottingham October 13/14

We have also issued guidance on how motions can be submitted and the rules for doing so, which say that notice in writing of any motions from a National Committee, Branch, the PSO Forum or two individual full or professional associate members of Napo must be received by the General Secretary at head office by 12 noon on Friday 18 August.

It’s also important to note that constitutional amendments may be submitted only by the NEC this year.

Motions (strictly limited to 200 words) should be sent to Napo head office on the appropriate form, BR23/2017 Motions should have a short descriptive title and please remember to complete the contact details for any queries that might arise.