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.

Probation's Journey Continues

Extracts from the first part of the latest Academic Insights paper 'Professionalism in Probation' has produced some very interesting responses, so here is the second and final extract. 

2.3 Towards a relational future for professionalism: opportunities and challenges 

In 2018, just four years after Transforming Rehabilitation was implemented, the Government announced yet more probation restructuring. Initial plans for the next iteration of services retained a commitment to a ‘mixed market approach’ (MoJ, 2018, p.3), with the Government pledging to work with CRCs to renegotiate contracts. However, after a consultation (MoJ, 2018), a subsequent response (MoJ, 2019), and several (draft) target operating models (HMPPS, 2020a, 2020b, 2021), it was announced that offender management would return to the public sector – a decision influenced in part by the Covid19 pandemic. Probation was unified in June 2021: CRCs were terminated, with services divided between 12 regions and housed within the Civil Service. The Chief Inspector of Probation has warned that while unification ‘is not a magic bullet for improving performance’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a, p.8), structural reform can provide the stability from which to rebuild. In this sense, it offers opportunities for the future of professionalism, but also challenges. 

Among the challenges for probation as services are unified is the recent uptick in punitive rhetoric. For example, in September 2020, a white paper entitled A Smarter Approach to Sentencing (MoJ, 2020a) mostly contained ‘tough’ measures, including longer sentences for a variety of offences. As a result, changes to sentencing, alongside plans to increase police numbers and a prison building programme, have led the Ministry of Justice (2020b) to predict that the prison population could rise to 98,700 over the next six years. The likely impact of such punitive discourses on probation caseloads poses both organisational and individual challenges. At the level of the organisation, appeals to ‘tough on crime’ initiatives undermine public confidence in community sentences, for pro-punitive sentiments mean that probation services can struggle to gain credibility (Robinson et al., 2012). Probation staff, meanwhile, may experience difficulty in (re)articulating and realising a distinct ideology of service if individual caseloads increase – especially from within the Civil Service, if these values conflict with Government policy (Carr, 2020). 

Caseload pressures can also be exacerbated by the challenges of recruitment and retention. A survey of 1,534 probation staff conducted by HM Inspectorate of Probation (2022, p.15) as part of their most recent annual inspection of services revealed that about half (51 per cent) thought their workloads were ‘not so manageable’. Additional funding was allocated to recruiting 1,000 staff onto the Professional Qualification in Probation in 2021, the training pathway to become a probation officer, with another 1,500 in 2022 (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2022). However, lengthy vetting procedures, the time taken to train new staff, and increasing resignations (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2022) suggests that the benefits of recruitment and (re)professionalisation strategies will take time to realise. The role of the staff-client relationship in supporting desistance is salient within the probation literature (McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2011); hence, it is crucial that staff, as the service’s most valuable asset, are the subject of ongoing investment. If, as argued above, professionalism in probation refers to a way of organising work according to knowledge, discretion, and the opportunity to realise distinctive, people-centred identities, then reduced caseloads and the greater provision of training can enhance professional skills and afford the space to deploy and reflect on such expertise. 

Key to the plans to develop professionalism in probation is the creation of ‘an independent statutory register for probation professionals’ (MoJ, 2019, p.4), with the intention of (re)forging a common identity among all staff. This seeks to better recognise probation work as a profession, building upon similar proposals by HM Inspectorate of Probation (2019a) to bring the service into line with other certified professions, such as medicine. The register will mandate professional training, ensure that clients and the public are protected from gross negligence via debarment (MoJ, 2019), and provide ‘access to high-quality, practical learning resources that… support day-to-day tasks’ (HMPPS, 2020c, p.9). While, at the time of writing, there has been little progress on the professional register, it provides an ideal resource through which to (re)establish a clear ideology of service. Here, Canton’s (Academic Insights paper 2019/02) analysis of the European Probation Rules (EPR) provides a framework within which to develop the professional register. Articulating values grounded in human rights and the minimisation of harms, he contends, is at the core of the EPR. Making such values explicit through the professional register can serve to instil a common identity among probation staff that was fractured by Transforming Rehabilitation. 

And yet, while attempts ‘to improve… professionalisation’ (MoJ, 2020a, p.63) through appeals to its ideal-typical tenets have thus far been presented as vital to the future of the profession, McNeill (2019, p.145) states that an exclusive focus on staff betrays a ‘tunnel vision in the supervisory imaginary’. He argues that the development of new ways of working ‘begin in the wrong place’ (McNeill, 2006, p.45) if the focus is on practice rather than how individual change occurs. As probation scholars have argued, professionals do not ‘own’ the process of desistance (Albertson et al., 2020); rather, its ‘rightful owners [are] victims, offenders and communities’ (Maruna, 2006, p.24). Relevant persons other than professionals can thus play a meaningful role in decision-making. This is supported by recent research which indicates that services can be improved if we enable meaningful citizen participation. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2019b) argue that service user involvement in service provision benefits staff by providing insights into how clients experience probation. Greater involvement in, and co-production of, services is a way to ‘democratise engagement with service users’ (Weaver, 2011, p.1045): learning about clients as individuals rather than cases, as one member of staff put it, enabled him to ‘see the person behind the risk’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019b, p.15; emphasis in original). This suggests that probation professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing a sense of belonging in clients through a focus on collaborative relationships. 

Restorative practice could represent a framework through which probation can better embed partnerships ‘between the state and individuals, victims, families and communities as co-producers of justice’ (Weaver, 2011, p.1048). Indeed, restorative theories around conflict ownership and the notion of justice as identifying and meeting stakeholders’ needs (Christie, 1977) correspond closely with the literature on the desistance process (Maruna, 2006; McNeill, 2006). Marder (Academic Insights paper 2020/04) notes that restorative practice comprises:

 • values – including stakeholder participation, the goals of addressing and repairing harm, and a focus on cultivating positive relationships 

• language – open, non-judgemental questions, encouraging emotional expression and reflection 

• processes – including circles, family conferencing and mediation, through which the values are enacted. 

Marder argues that better integrating a restorative culture within probation would ‘actively build positive relationships with and among colleagues, clients and the community [and] enable those who hold a stake in a given issue to participate voluntarily in dialogue and decision-making around that issue’ (Marder, 2020a, p.4). As the 2018 Council of Europe framework on restorative justice states, restorative practice has a wide range of applications across probation (Marder, 2020b). In this way, it holds significant potential for building relationships with victims and communities, promoting multi-agency work, and healing internal divisions (Tidmarsh and Marder, 2021). 

That probation ‘services are part of an ecosystem which is… suffering from declining investment’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a, p.6) heightens the need for ‘co-productive’ approaches – defined by Bovaird (2007, p.847) as: 

‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community’. 

Such an approach is supported by Rule 12 of the EPR, which states that probation services ‘shall work in partnership with other public or private organisations and local communities to promote the social inclusion of offenders’ (c.f. Canton, 2019, p.7). Relational approaches that involve people on probation, such as restorative practice and co-production, have the potential to expedite the acquisition of pro-social and non-criminal identities (Weaver, 2011). Unification provides an opportunity not only to re-centre probation as a public sector profession underpinned by knowledge and expertise, but also to build professional networks in the community. Here, the provision of time and training can enable staff to develop the links which can help them to realise a client-centred ideology of service. 

Perhaps the most promising initiative which emphasises the benefits of involving external stakeholders in service design and delivery is that of ‘community hubs’, introduced by some CRCs as a way to support multi-agency working with local health and welfare organisations. They are an innovation that staff and service users have generally received positively (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020b). Community hubs thus illustrate probation’s potential for co-production, as the connective tissue that binds together different social spheres and the communities they represent (Senior et al., 2016). Albertson et al. (2020, p.6) suggest that the range of actors involved makes hubs ‘well placed to affect structural impediments to desistance at the nexus of community, society and the individual’. Desistance literature emphasises not what is done to an offender in the course of a criminal justice sanction, but rather, the importance of acquiring positive internal narratives (Maruna, 2006). Remaking the temporal-spatial and relational boundaries of probation practice by promoting ‘enabling’ structures can thus hasten the ‘discovery’ of agency (Albertson et al., 2020). 

Unification, therefore, offers an opportunity to build on best practice. Investment in staff should be at its core: 

• providing the foundations for upskilling professional knowledge and expertise  

• improving autonomy to work with people on probation and build community links 

• helping to develop the ability to reflect critically on practice. 

A clear focus on enhancing the tenets of professionalism identified in this paper can thus help to rebuild an identity and culture within probation which is relational, collaborative, and, above all, person-centred.

3. Conclusion 

After years of instability within probation, the potential for some stability as a result of unification is welcome. Transforming Rehabilitation has brought many of probation’s underlying issues to the surface; its essence (Senior et al., 2016), if not lost altogether, has been further tainted by the logic of competition and profit. The ‘national service of second chances’ (House of Commons Hansard, 2020), as the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice recently described probation, itself requires a second chance. Most staff within the new probation body will likely welcome the changes, while remaining anxious about the future (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a) – especially, as Carr (2020) has observed, from within the unfamiliar institutional environment of the Civil Service. 

The next iteration of probation should be reconstructed around the professionalism of its staff, its most valuable asset, with the goal of building and maintaining a wide ‘network of relationships’ (Dominey, 2019, p.284) at its core. A renewed focus on ‘professionalism’ is rooted in a recognition of the need to re-professionalise staff through knowledge, education, and training, and to engage them in an evidence-base. The benefits of this strategy will take time to realise, particularly because it takes place against an all too familiar backdrop of punitive criminal justice rhetoric and projections that prison populations will continue to increase (MoJ, 2020a, 2020b). A likely increase in people on the probation caseload could further hinder professional autonomy and an ideology of service. It is thus vital that further recruitment enables staff to spend more time with people on probation and to reflect critically on their practice. This, alongside resources like the professional register, can help to re-emphasise shared values and create a positive service identity into which new staff can be socialised. 

Greater co-production with external stakeholders, too, can underpin a relational basis for a new ‘professionalism’ – one that respects the service’s unique history and culture while emphasising its contemporary relevance as a social, legal and moral arbiter between people on probation, the state, victims and communities. This collaborative, bottom-up focus on relationships, between and among people on probation, communities and professionals, clearly overlaps with restorative practice (Marder, 2020a). Indeed, the new probation body could explore dialogic and restorative models to negotiate a new culture to which all staff buy-in. With sufficient institutional support and investment in the wider social infrastructure in which the service operates, probation staff can pursue a professionalism which is grounded in ‘thick’ (Dominey, 2019) relationships that help the new service to recapture its legitimacy.

--oo00oo--

Mention of 'relationships' here takes me right back to the beginning of this blog and something I published in 2010 'It's the Relationship Stupid' and re-visited in 2017 'Nothing New'. I understand recently-departed Chief Probation Officer Sonia Flynn will be undertaking work on setting up the Professional Register as part of the Probation Workforce Programme.

Less is More

Last week saw Transform Justice publish a report by Rob Allen into the whole business of out of court disposals:-  

Foreword

In the old days people would talk of the neighbourhood bobby giving a boy a clip round the ear when they got into trouble. Those days are thankfully over, but have we moved from action which was too informal and unregulated to a world where police no longer have the confidence to make the best use of their powers to use out of court disposals or to take no formal action at all. Sometimes less is more – a quiet word of warning may be all that is needed to prevent a teenager committing another crime. In more serious cases, police should be able to use cautions, warnings and penalties to both mark wrongdoing, and avoid unnecessary court hearings. 

In recent years, the use of these out of court remedies has declined, much more so than have offences prosecuted in court. And this decline has been met with deafening silence, including from the police. It is hard to pin down quite why out of court disposals have declined, but Rob Allen has made some suggestions in this report. 

One of the key reasons for the decline is a mostly “behind closed doors” campaign by judges and magistrates against out of court disposals. They warned of a “cautions culture” in which out of court disposals were being misused by gung-ho, unregulated police. They contrasted these nontransparent deals between police and offender with the open court where justice was both done and seen to be done. Lawyers were also critical of out of court disposals suspecting that, in the absence of legal advice, people too often admitted to offences they may not have committed, and in so doing acquired a criminal record. 

Out of court disposals were left with few champions and the police reacted to the political signals. The confusion surrounding government policy on out of court disposals (which has been in flux for three years) undoubtedly encouraged police to think twice about imposing them, as did a lack of funding for them.

One of most stinging criticisms of out of court disposals is that they do not command public confidence and, by implication, do not satisfy victims. In fact, the public seem no less confident in out of court disposals than in court processes, and victims are often more satisfied. All the evidence points to well targeted out of court disposals being more effective than sentences in reducing reoffending, and they are a good deal cheaper. With local courts closing altogether, and with resources limited, it makes sense for us to champion out of court disposals, and to reverse their decline. 

Penelope Gibbs Director, Transform Justice

Executive Summary

England and Wales has a long-standing tradition of diverting first time and minor offenders from prosecution. While the practice is most fully developed for children who commit crime, a wide range of out of court disposals exists for adults too. A community resolution, simple or conditional caution, drug warning or penalty notice can be administered quickly, cheaply and locally, allowing the police to concentrate on more serious crime. Diversion can work better than prosecution at reducing reoffending, and is generally acceptable to victims as long as they are kept properly informed. 

Some judges, magistrates and lawyers think that offenders may accept a caution in circumstances when they are not guilty of an offence, or do not understand the implications for their criminal record. They are concerned that too many cases are diverted which should properly come to court. Yet many people who do go to court get low level penalties such as fines which could, in effect, be imposed out of court and which do nothing to help tackle any underlying problems an offender may have. So it seems there is scope for greater use of diversion. Recent years have however seen a large decline in the use of diversion. 

More than half of first time offenders now go to court rather than receive a caution, compared to 1 in 5 ten years ago. The decline partly results from a desire to end a “cautions culture” by restricting the availability and use of out of court disposals. Alongside measures to limit diversion for serious and repeat offenders, the government intends to replace the existing range of options with just two - a community resolution and conditional caution.

Three police forces have been piloting the two tier system and, while the evaluation is yet to be published, it seems clear that, if diversion is to fulfil its potential, a number of measures will need to be taken. These include : 

• Encouraging police to use their discretion and professional skills to resolve minor problems and disputes at the lowest level locally without the need to take formal action 

• Making sure that more first time offenders and cases which are likely to be dealt with by an absolute or conditional discharge or small fine are instead dealt with outside court – including many cases currently dealt with under the “single justice procedure”. 

• Extending the approach to diverting children away from the courts to young adults, so that they are given a greater opportunity to grow out of crime. 

• Identifying and promoting the best models for scrutinising diversion arrangements. 

• Funding a suitable range of treatment options (including restorative justice) to be attached to community resolutions and conditional cautions. 

• Developing a justice reinvestment approach which uses the savings which diversion brings to police, prosecutors and courts to fund local programmes designed to further reduce crime and prevent offending.

--oo00oo--

This on Rob Allen's 'Unlocking Potential' blog site:- 

Why Less is More - The Case for Dealing with Offences Out of Court

With mounting pressure on police and justice budgets across the country, it’s surprising that recent years have seen a large decline in the use of out of court disposals to deal with low level offending. Simple or Conditional Cautions, Penalty Notices, Community Resolutions and Drug Warnings can offer a quicker, simpler and more effective response than a prosecution. But more than half of first time offenders now go to court rather than receive a caution, compared to 1 in 5 ten years ago. A new report published by Transform Justice – Less is more - the case for dealing with offences out of court - says it’s high time to reverse that trend.

It’s true that not everyone’s a fan of diversion. Some judges, magistrates and lawyers think offenders may accept a caution when they are not guilty or do not understand they will get a criminal record. Others complain diversion’s got out of hand with too many serious offences or persistent offenders getting little more than a slap on the wrist instead of being taken to court. Today’s report, however, shows that almost half a million convictions last year resulted in low level penalties such as fines or discharges. Unlike some diversion measures, such sentences do nothing to rehabilitate offenders or compensate victims.

Politicians may think it plays well with the public to promise an end to the “cautions culture”- former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling did so back in 2014. But on grounds of efficiency, effectiveness and economy, as long as there are proper safeguards there’s a strong case for extending not shrinking the availability of options for dealing with crime outside court.

As well as legislating to limit the use of diversion for serious and repeat offenders, Governments since 2010 have developed a policy intention to replace the existing range of out of court disposals with just two - a community resolution or a conditional caution. Three police forces have been piloting this two tier system and, while an evaluation is yet to be published, change will be needed if diversion is to fulfil its potential.

The most important is the need to fund a suitable range of treatment options so that where necessary petty criminals can be helped to solve the underlying problems which so often drive their offending. Pilot programmes such as Operation Turning Point (OTP) in the West Midlands and Checkpoint in Durham have shown that rehabilitation can work at this stage in the criminal justice process. And it’s affordable. OTP achieved a saving of around £1,000 per case, including all of the costs of the intervention programmes. This suggests the potential for diversion arrangements can kick start a justice reinvestment approach which uses the savings diversion brings to police, prosecutors and courts to fund local programmes designed to further reduce crime and prevent offending.

There’s a case too for extending the approach to diverting children away from the courts to young adults, so that they are given a greater opportunity to grow out of crime. South Wales Police have adopted this approach with promising results.

If there’s to be more in the way of diversion, local arrangements will need to enjoy public confidence. Most police forces have established scrutiny panels to keep an eye on the kinds of offenders getting out of court disposals and what they are being required to do in terms of rehabilitation and reparation. Work needs doing to identify the best models for holding police forces to account for their decision-making. The Transform Justice report proposes that panels should ask not only if cases dealt with out of court should have been prosecuted – but also whether court cases leading to nominal penalties would have been better diverted.

Six years ago the Police Inspectorate argued that the expression ‘out-of-court disposals’ perpetuates a sense that they are much less important than a disposal in court – in effect a soft option. Today’s Transform Justice Report concludes by calling on Government ministers and criminal justice stakeholders to communicate the positive advantages of measures out of court and make efforts to show their benefits. Rather than railing against an imaginary cautions culture, ministers should be promoting a culture of cost effectiveness – and that includes a greater not a lesser role for diversion.

Rob Allen

A Shopping List

I notice that Rob Allen has drawn up a very helpful shopping list to put before aspriring candidates and political parties in the forthcoming general election:-  

Manifesto Destiny. Criminal Justice Ideas for the 2017 Election

Chances are we won’t get much about criminal justice in any of the manifestos. But Labour’s surprisingly Blairite promise of 10,000 more police officers suggests that domestic policy may not be entirely absent from the parties’ offerings to the electorate. It’s a reminder too of how strongly received wisdom shapes policy development in the field, even in a radical party committed to transforming the country. Would not 10,000 mental health workers do more to address the crisis of well being which brings so many into conflict with the law – and free up police time to prevent and respond to more serious harm?

Here are five criminal justice priorities I’d like to see featured:

1) Sensible Sentences

The prison population has been fairly stable since 2010 at about 85,000, but with a 25% fall in the numbers sentenced for serious crimes over that period, we should really have seen prison numbers go down. The reason they haven’t is that the proportion of cases being sentenced to prison has risen – from 22% to 27% - as have average sentence lengths for almost all types of crime from 16 to 19 months. Sentences have got longer not only for violent and sexual offences but for theft and drug offences too. Further sentence inflation is neither desirable nor manageable. We will introduce a strong presumption against short prison terms and require the Sentencing Council to produce a wider range of guidelines, based on fuller consideration of the cost and effectiveness of different sentences. Stronger limits will be placed on courts preventing them from exceeding guideline levels and new pilot problem solving courts will be encouraged to impose less severe punishments when it is in the interests of rehabilitation to do so.

2) Developing Youth Justice

Youth justice has offered a ray of light in penal policy, with big reductions in numbers in court and in custody in the last ten years. Now’s the time to extend the successful leadership of the Youth Justice Board and the multi-agency approach of Youth Offending Teams to the young adult age group of 18-21 year olds. For the under 18’s, it’s time too to phase out Young Offender Institutions and Secure Training Centres and expand the number of small secure children’s homes – the only model that has proved consistently able to offer appropriate and constructive regimes for young people in custody. Responsibility for meeting the entire costs of custody for under 18's will be transferred to local authorities and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). In due course local bodies will be able to commission secure and other accommodation for under 18’s rather than simply purchasing what is currently available

3) Promoting Probation

Half of the £1.3 billion being used to build four new prisons, will be used to invest in community based alternatives to custody for the 50,000 people a year given short prison sentences – through more investment in supervision provided by probation, Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s) and other organisations; by improved dialogue with judges and magistrates and better links with the public. Priority will be given to keeping women and people with mental health problems out of prison environments and strengthening the availability of community and residential treatment services instead. We will conduct a genuine and wide ranging review of Transforming Rehabilitation to ensure that when current CRC contracts end, a suitable model is in place for a reinvigorated probation service.

4) Safeguarding Prisons

We will redraft the Prisons Bill with much stronger duties on the authorities to provide decent conditions, avoid overcrowding, and treat prisoners with humanity, fairness and respect for their dignity. Prisons will be required to ensure proper staffing ratios based on 2010 levels and a task force established to drive developments in education, vocational training and work in prisons. Mental health services will be strengthened and a programme to develop life coaching for prisoners expanded across the estate.

5) Rehabilitation Devolution

We will develop a Justice Reinvestment Taskforce to identify the best ways of transferring responsibilities for justice services to a more local level, with a view to devolving budgets by the end of the parliament. Police and Crime Commissioners will be invited to chair new Justice and Safety Partnerships with CRC’s, local government, health and judicial participation which would give a greater regional voice in the system and create a commissioning vehicle to which criminal justice budgets might be devolved. Pathfinder initiatives will be agreed with Mayors in London and Manchester through which savings resulting from reductions in prison numbers will be reinvested in prevention and rehabilitation programmes.

There is a lot more that a new government should do - not least committing to take seriously David Lammy's recommendations on race equality in criminal justice; expanding the availability of Restorative Justice and considering a new approach to illegal drugs. But action on these five might help bring to an end what has been an increasingly unhappy period for criminal justice in England and Wales.

Rob Allen

Questions

From a week or two ago:-

The Justice Select Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into restorative justice. The Committee welcomes views on any aspects of the current and potential use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system.

Does anyone have any update on how the Pre-sentence RJ Pathfinder Programme is going? Pilot areas were to be: Cardiff, Bristol, Truro, Wood Green, Croydon, Manchester, Preston, Lincoln + 2 more. From memory, the pathfinder was going to use volunteers to facilitate restorative justice pre-sentence and then prepare a report (pre sentence) to the Court who will decide on sentencing.

If Probation Officers are to be removed from all Magistrates' Courts (is this what the plan is with E3?) then what is to say that RJ volunteers won't replace PSOs? Would it be beneficial for Probation Institute and/or NAPO to contribute to the Justice Select Committee inquiry making it clear that whilst RJ has it's place it should not replace PSRs?

******
Do you work for the Probation Institute or Napo? I'm sure I read somewhere that the PI was to volunteer a written submission to the committee. The PI and Napo could instead start supporting probation by condemning E3 and its diluting of probation practice. It's time to speak up for the professional role of the qualified probation officer. The problem is the PI is unable to speak against TR and E3, and Napo's "press officer" has gone missing.

Inquiries Here, There and Everywhere

First, news that Gove has written to the House of Commons Justice Committee in relation to the preferred candidates for the two vacant HMI posts:-

As you are aware, I am responsible for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation. Further to our correspondence before the recruitment process began, I am pleased to put forward my preferred candidates for the Committee’s consideration: Peter Clarke for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Glenys Stacey for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation.

Peter is a retired senior police officer, who served in the Metropolitan Police Service for more than 30 years. He rose to the rank of Assistant Commissioner and also served as Head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch and National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations. In 2014 he was appointed Education Commissioner for Birmingham, with a remit to conduct an inquiry into the allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter. Peter is currently a member of the Board of the Charity Commission.

Glenys is currently the Chief Executive of Ofqual, the exams regulator in England. She is a solicitor by profession but also has 17 years’ experience leading public sector organisations, having previously served as CEO of Standards for England, Animal Health, the Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Courts Committee and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In August this year, she announced her intention to leave Ofqual when her term comes to an end.

Candidates were informed prior to appointment that the positions were subject to scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee. As you are aware the hearing is non-binding but I shall consider the committee’s conclusions before deciding whether to proceed with the appointment.

Clarke has been a very busy chap since retiring from the police:-

New board members appointed to Charity Commission 22 May 2013

Mr Clarke is a retired senior police officer. He was Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Service where he was Head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch and National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations. Previous roles included Head of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Department and Deputy Director (then Acting Director) of Personnel for the Metropolitan Police. He is a trustee of Crimestoppers, a patron of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College, London, and a non-executive Director for the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Rob Allen has his concerns and it's probably worth bearing in mind I'm pretty sure he broke the story about Paul McDowell's family connections.This from his recent blog post on the matter:-

Whatever one thinks of Clarke, it is disappointing that the opportunity has not been taken to make the post of Chief Inspector of Prisons more independent of government. Last year Hardwick told the House of Commons Public Administration Committee that being appointed by and reporting to the Ministry of Justice is “by its nature incompatible with full independence” and proposed direct accountability to Parliament. The Committee recommended as much in their report but just before the election, change was rejected, with the MoJ arguing that allowing the inspectorate separate offices and a website plus more freedom to recruit its staff were sufficient to “reflect the unique watchdog status of HMI Prisons”.

At the same time, as if to amplify concerns about independence, the Justice Committee were involved in a spat with Chris Grayling over the selection of Hardwick’s successor. The fact that the two "independent" members of the selection panel were revealed to be tory activists, led the Commissioner of Public Appointments to promise to amend the rules about panel membership. In the event no appointment was made but now that it has been, the Justice Committee will no doubt want to know who made it.

What else might they ask when Clarke comes before them for a pre appointment hearing? Most of their questions will no doubt focus on the skills, experience and values he will bring to a post which many consider as one of the foremost human rights monitors in the country. But there are three specific matters they would do well to raise.

First they will need to establish whether Mr Clarke has any family relationships that might cause a conflict of interest, such as that which ended Paul McDowell’s time as Probation inspector (and about which the Committee regrettably failed to inquire at the material time).

Second they might want to ask how being an ex-police officer could affect his judgement. After all inspection of police custody suites is an important role of the prison inspectorate these days. Former prison service staff are ineligible to be Chief Inspector of Prisons, but ex police officers seemingly not. His investigation skills will not be in question but will his impartiality?

Finally, they may want to ask a bit not only about how his experience in counter terrorism might affect his attitudes to the treatment of Muslim prisoners but about his other police roles too. For example he was deputy then acting head of personnel at the Met in the early 2000’s. Today the Met admitted that that there had been no proper management of the deployments of undercover officers, even after the introduction of supposedly stringent legal controls. Was that debacle any part of Clarke’s responsibilities? Lets hope not otherwise he will be busy contributing to Lord Justice Pitchford's inquiry.

--oo00oo--

It must only be a matter of time before the awful Criminal Courts Charge introduced by Grayling gets the chop. The Justice Committee have pronounced:-

Justice Committee report concludes that the Government should bring forward legislation to repeal the criminal courts charge.

Report: Criminal courts charge
Report: Criminal courts charge (PDF 243KB)
Inquiry: Courts and tribunals fees and charges
Justice Committee

If the Government is unwilling to abolish or radically reduce the levels of the charge, the Committee recommends that as an irreducible minimum, judges and magistrates should be given discretion to decide whether to impose the charge, and on the amount, in accordance with individual circumstances.

The Committee's main concerns are:

• The levels of the charge being grossly disproportionate to the means of many defendants and to the gravity of the offences in relation to which it has been imposed
• The lack of discretion given to judges and magistrates on whether to impose the charge and if so at what level, creating unacceptable consequences within the criminal justice system
• The creation of perverse incentives for both defendants and sentencers
• The detrimental impact on victims of crime and on the CPS from reduced awards of compensation and prosecution costs
• The capacity of the charge to raise the revenue predicted by the Government, and the effect on respect for the legal process of levels of non-payment

Chair's comment

Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill MP said:

"The evidence we have received has prompted grave misgivings about the operation of the charge, and whether, as currently framed, it is compatible with the principles of justice. In many cases it is grossly disproportionate, it fetters judicial discretion, and creates perverse incentives - not only for defendants to plead guilty but for sentencers to reduce awards of compensation and prosecution costs. It appears unlikely to raise the revenue which the Government predicts. It creates a range of serious problems and benefits no one. We would urge Michael Gove to act on our main recommendation and abolish it as soon as possible."

Witnesses to the inquiry who gave oral evidence on the subject were critical of it, as were those who referred to it in their written evidence, except for the Ministry of Justice.

--oo00oo--

The Committee have launched an inquiry into Restorative Justice. The Chair Bob Neill has written a guest blog for Russell Webster and the terms of reference are as follows:-

The Justice Select Committee introduces inquiry into restorative justice

We welcome submissions by 31st of January addressing this subject. The Committee welcomes views on any aspects of the use or potential use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system, but would be particularly interested in submissions addressing the following points:

• Progress made by the Government in implementing the Restorative Justice Action Plan 2014, including any changes that have been made to this plan
• How the entitlements to restorative justice in the Victims’ Code are working, and their implications for any such entitlements in any future Victims’ Law
• The impact and effectiveness of the National Offender Management Service’s restorative justice programme to promote the development of victim-offender conferencing
• The effectiveness of delivery of restorative justice across the range of service providers and funding arrangements, including provision made by Police and Crime Commissioners, the Prison Service, the National Probation Service, and Community Rehabilitation Companies.

--oo00oo--

Finally, with increasing attention being drawn to rising numbers of deaths in custody, it's probably worth mentioning another of Gove's appointments :-

Although not subject to pre-appointment scrutiny, I would also like to take this opportunity to draw to your attention to the appointment of Kate Lampard, CBE, as the Interim Chair of the Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody.

Kate is a former barrister and former deputy chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service. She was previously appointed by the Secretary of State for Health to provide independent oversight of the NHS’s investigations into Jimmy Savile’s activities, and to produce a ‘lessons learned’ report. She was also commissioned by Serco to lead an independent review into the culture of Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre. She currently serves as a senior non-executive director in the National Health Service. She will serve for a period of 6 months from 16 November 2015, during which time a public appointment exercise will identify a permanent Chair.

There is also the enquiry recently set up by the Home Office into deaths in police custody and discussed here in a blog post by Russell Webster:-

There are three terms of reference:

• to examine the procedures and processes surrounding deaths and serious incidents in police custody, including the lead up to such incidents, the immediate aftermath, through to the conclusion of official investigations. It should consider the extent to which ethnicity is a factor in such incidents. The review should include a particular focus on family involvement and their support experience at all stages.
• to examine and identify the reasons and obstacles as to why the current investigation system has fallen short of many families’ needs and expectations, with particular reference to the importance of accountability of those involved and sustained learning following such incidents.
• to identify areas for improvement and develop recommendations seeking to ensure appropriate, humane institutional treatment when such incidents, particularly deaths in or following detention in police custody, occur. Recommendations should consider the safety and welfare of all those in the police custody environment, including detainees and police officers and staff. The aim should be to enhance the safety of the police custody setting for all.

The role of Inquest

The Home Secretary also confirmed that there will be a formal role for INQUEST, a charity that offers advice to families bereaved by death in police custody. Deborah Coles, Director at INQUEST, has been appointed as a special adviser to the chair and the charity will:

• facilitate family listening days so that the Chair can hear evidence first-hand from those who have lost loved ones in police custody to ensure their views are taken into account.
• play a leading role on an advisory board which will offer expert advice to the Chair during the course of the review.

What's in a Word?

The ramifications of the riots continue and I can't help noticing how many politicians have been talking about making those convicted of riot-related offences do certain things, like meet the victims. No doubt mindful of up-coming elections and criticism of his slow return from holiday, Mayor of London Boris Johnson was quite quick off the mark in telling Justice Secretary Ken Clarke that rioters should be made to repair the damage and meet the victims. Poor side-lined Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said much the same thing in a speech emphasising that those convicted had to be made to face up to the consequences of their actions by meeting the victims. 

Now the concept of perpetrators of crimes meeting their victims has been around for a long time and pioneered by the Probation Service. Experiments in this area of work have variously gone under the name of Mediation, Reparation and more recently Restorative Justice. The idea has broad political support and the coalition government signalled early on their intention to encourage its development, dependent on resources of course. It has always been an important part of Ken Clarkes so-called 'Rehabilitation Revolution', so it shouldn't be surprising that the Prisons and Probation Minister Crispin Blunt recently announced some funding for a register of Restorative Justice Practitioners. He said:-

'Restorative Justice is a unique process that helps to repair the damage caused by crime as well as helping to stop offenders committing further crimes. It demands criminals take an active role in acknowledging the harm they have caused, as well as making amends.   'If we are to better tackle the rate of criminals who reoffend, and so bring down crime, we are clear that we must have robust programmes of both punishment and reform available to our courts.

'Making criminals see for themselves the consequences of their actions, as well as undertake tough punishments, can be an effective part of this; and crucially, this gives victims a say in how offenders make amends.'

What caught my eye was the tenor of the statement and choice of the word 'demands' coupled with 'making'. So here we have yet another politician talking tough in the wake of the riots and this time a government minister with departmental responsibility. The trouble is that the sentiments being expressed, involving as they clearly do that of implied compulsion, are completely counter to my understanding of the concept that underpins the restorative justice process. 

For it to be effective in its twin aims of encouraging the perpetrator to face up to the consequences of their actions and trying to heal the pain caused to the victim, it has to be a voluntary process on the part of both parties. Not only does it have to be voluntarily entered into, the whole thing has to be very carefully and sensitively arranged and moderated so as to avoid the possibility of it making a bad situation worse. It is definitely not something to be entered into lightly and it won't be suitable in anything like all cases, but where it is deemed appropriate and entered into with good faith, it has the capacity to change lives and help heal tremendous hurt. 

So, politicians please note. This is not a magic silver bullet solution to be imposed upon unwilling or unprepared convicted rioters. It is however a very potent process to be undertaken in carefully selected instances and administered by trained professionals.     

Restorative Justice

Going back to the days when Probation Officers wore dual hats as Divorce Court Welfare officers, they have been involved in processes variously termed mediation, reparation and conciliation. Nowadays, within the Criminal Justice System, the broad philosophical aims behind these titles has become generally known as 'Restorative Justice.' 

It is the process by which victim and perpetrator are able to meet in a carefully controlled manner. In the case of the victim, it affords the opportunity to meet the individual responsible for the crime and to learn about them and their motivation and for the offender the opportunity to meet the victim, understand the effect their behaviour has had and take responsibility for their actions. Unlike the court hearing, which necessarily focusses on the offender, this meeting seeks to 'personalise' a criminal act by the involvement of the victim in a process that is designed to be therapeutic and healing for both parties. 

The aim is that the victim will be assisted in coming to terms with the anger and grief associated with the effects of the offence and for the perpetrator to understand the distress and harm caused by their actions. Each assists the other in the jointly shared aspiration of creating no further victims. It is a process that requires careful preparation and mediation by skilled practitioners and may prove unsuitable in many cases. 

It should go without saying that it has to be felt appropriate for both parties and that the victim does not feel in any way 'pressurised' to take part. Of course it's equally important to assess the motivation of the offender and it's in this regard that the process is derided in certain quarters. All I can say is that Probation staff are well used to making such judgement calls and are fully aware of the possible pitfalls in what is undoubtedly a process not without risk, but the possible benefits are considerable. This recent article from the Guardian describes a typical restorative justice process.

So far opportunities for victims to interact with offenders is limited, not least due to the cost of such initiatives, but Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has signalled his support and it's widely understood that the forthcoming sentencing reform bill will contain measures to fund an increase in provision. This is certainly good news in my view.