Another Wearisome Battle

We've discussed many times before on here how making crime and punishment a political football might win votes, but it inevitably stores up a shed-load of problems further down the line. A new government means the circular argument must repeat itself and here's the Prison Reform Trust firing the first round in yet another wearisome battle:- 

Punitive prison policies risk repeating past mistakes

Planned government changes to sentencing will add to pressures on our overcrowded and overstretched prisons, without reducing crime or improving public confidence, a new Prison Reform Trust report warns.

The latest edition of the Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile reveals that, contrary to the impression given in much recent political debate and media coverage, England and Wales have become much tougher in their approach to punishing serious crime over the past few decades, on a scale which exceeds comparable countries or historical precedent.

Writing in the report in a specially commissioned section on life sentences, Professor Ben Crewe and Dr Susie Hulley, from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Serena Wright, from Royal Holloway, University of London, reveal a dramatic increase in the number of people serving sentences that were until recently considered wholly exceptional in their severity.

Between 2000 and 2003, fewer than 100 people a year were given life sentences where the minimum guaranteed period in custody, known as the “tariff” exceeded 15 years. But in the years that followed, this number increased significantly, rising to 249 adults in 2008.

By September 2019, 1,872 life sentence prisoners had tariffs (the guaranteed minimum time inside for punishment) of over 20 years. 880 people had a tariff of more than 25 years, and 291 had a tariff of more than 30 years, excluding 63 people who were serving the state’s most extreme punishment, a whole life tariff—and so very unlikely ever to be released.

The authors’ analysis suggests that the most likely and significant cause of the recent growth in the use of long sentences has been changes in sentencing legislation, particularly the 2003 Criminal Justice Act and subsequent amendments, which bought into effect a significant increase in the minimum sentence for a range of forms of murder.

They find no clear evidence that the recent rise in tariff lengths is linked to changes in the nature or severity of offending itself.

They conclude that the growing numbers of people serving long sentences means that our prisons are likely to remain overcrowded for the foreseeable future, regardless of any changes in sentencing practice for less serious offending or improvements in reconviction rates.

The Bromley Briefings have established themselves as an essential reference publication for anyone concerned about the prison systems in the UK.

The facts and figures compiled for the latest report reveal that our prisons continue to face unprecedented challenges, with conditions which undermine our justice system, and whose consequences blight our communities rather than helping them to thrive.

England and Wales already has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in western Europe, with 140 people held in prison for every 100,000 of our population. We also keep people in prison for far longer than many other countries, with more people serving life sentences here than Germany, Russia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and Scandinavia combined.

Pressures on prisons set to worsen as government seeks to introduce punitive reforms in its proposed sentencing bill. A government commitment to 10,000 additional prison places is unlikely to meet rising demand given the government’s failure in the past to deliver on prison building promises. A similar 2015 promise to close decrepit and overcrowded Victorian and pre-Victorian jails and replace them with up to 10,000 new prison places have resulted in just 206 additional places being built to date, whilst the commitment to close older prisons has now been abandoned.

Commenting, Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:

“Following almost a decade of deterioration, the government is right to want to restore confidence in our justice system, but so far it is looking in the wrong places. Longer sentences haven’t improved public confidence or safety before, and they won’t now. But they have helped produce a prison system that fails to deliver either safety or rehabilitation. Good soundbites don’t always make good policy - a coherent plan for reform is long overdue.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Longer sentences will not cut crime, say prison experts

Boris Johnson’s hardline approach to justice will not cut crime and will only pile pressure on overstretched prisons, expert campaigners have said, as research reveals life sentences have already risen sharply.

The Prison Reform Trust issued the stark warning just days after the government unveiled proposals to lock up some serious violent and sexual offenders for longer by scrapping automatic release halfway through a jail sentence. Offenders serving standard determinate sentences of seven years or more, where the maximum sentence is life, will be released at the two-thirds point, rather than halfway, under the changes unveiled last week.

Introducing a new report, the Prison Reform Trust director, Peter Dawson, said the government was looking in the wrong places to restore confidence in the justice system.

He said: “Longer sentences haven’t improved public confidence or safety before, and they won’t now. But they have helped produce a prison system that fails to deliver either safety or rehabilitation. Good soundbites don’t always make good policy – a coherent plan for reform is long overdue.”

Researchers suggest England and Wales are already tougher on punishing serious crime than other countries. Prof Ben Crewe and Dr Susie Hulley, from the University of Cambridge, and Dr Serena Wright, from Royal Holloway, University of London, found a dramatic increase in the number of people serving life sentences.

According to the findings, fewer than 100 people a year were handed a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years in England and Wales between 2000 and 2003. By 2008, this had risen to 249 adults and as of September 2019, 1,872 life sentence prisoners had tariffs of more than 20 years.

Last year, there were also 880 serving a minimum of 25 years and 291 with a tariff of more than 30, excluding those serving the whole-life tariff who are unlikely to ever be released.

The findings of the report indicate there was no clear evidence that the latest rise in lengths of tariffs is linked to changes in the nature or severity of offending. The research claims growing numbers of people serving long sentences will mean prisons are likely to remain overcrowded for the foreseeable future.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “Under this government, serious violent and sexual offenders will spend more time where they belong – behind bars. We are spending £2.75bn on transforming and modernising the estate, including creating 10,000 additional prison places.”

Fake News and Fake Law

I never thought I'd be part of voicing any serious concern of our wonderful BBC because it seems heretical and akin to losing faith in the NHS, motherhood and apple pie, but there's clearly something bad going on and touched upon recently by Peter Oborne and his recent Guardian article. 

The thing is this. It's pretty clear to most of us that our current prime minister is completely unfit for office having consistently proved his credentials as a self-serving and compulsive liar with dubious morals and a clear inability to be trusted in pretty much any situation whether it be political, personal or social. 

Now the BBC have clearly taken the surprising decision that, not withstanding all the impartiality rules that cover elections, the public will lose confidence in politics if they were to witness an unvarnished Boris Johnson demonstrating what an utter knob he is, so things have to be 'sanitised', edited, polished or just fixed Korean propaganda-style. First we had the Remembrance Sunday film swap in order to hide the fact a dishevelled and hung-over prime minister had a wreath upside down and got his timing wrong; now we have Question Time audience laughter replaced with rapturous applause when Boris's name is linked to issues of trust. This from the Canary website:- 

Boris Johnson’s appearance on the BBC Question Time (BBCQT) Leaders Debate didn’t exactly go well. From having to sneak into the studio while Jeremy Corbyn was greeted by crowds of supporters to refusing to apologise for his previous racist and homophobic comments, the PM was on the back foot.

But it was on the issue of trust that the audience really showed how much they despise Johnson. And their reaction explicitly showed the contempt they have for him on this issue. This was, seemingly, too much for BBC News. Because it apparently edited the clip, removing the full audience response and editing it to only show applause for Johnson.

We also discover that a vociferous questioner of Jeremy Corbyn over treatment of female Labour MP's is a Tory activist from Hull who has appeared three times previously and successfully made contributions from the audience. This from the Daily Politik on Facebook:- 

Oh look! Wadda ya know? ‘White shirt guy’ who attacked Corbyn in last night’s BBC Leaders debate, is a conservative activist! Ryan Jacobsz. Earlier this year, he was also the conservatives candidate for the local council of Hessle in East Riding, Yorkshire.

Last night was Ryan’s FOURTH appearance on BBCQT. In his first, he attacked Emily Thornberry in chesterfield on 20.04.2018 over Intervention in Syria. In the second, he attacked Richard Burgon on Labour’s brexit position 31.01.2019.

Can BBCQT Audience Producer and UKIP enthusiast, Alison Fuller Pedley explain how conservative activists and candidates make it onto the BBC QuestionTime audience so frequently and why they’re also always conveniently given the opportunity to ask their staged anti-Labour Tory PR attack questions?

--oo00oo-- 

Having got that off my chest, this in the Independent was going to be today's subject, how at election time lying and making stuff up is just second nature to the Tory Party:-

Conservatives accused of ‘peddling fake law’ with pledge to jail child killers for life

A Conservative election pledge – to jail child killers for life – has been dismissed as “fake law” amid calls for all parties to tackle a worsening crisis in the justice system. Days after the number of people punished for crimes in England and Wales hit a new record low, the Tories unveiled a commitment to jail adults who murder children for life, without parole.

Robert Buckland, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, said: “Under a Conservative majority government, the law will be rewritten to be absolutely clear: any murderer who denies a young, innocent child the right to life surrenders their own right to liberty. They do so permanently, and they do so without exception.”

Anonymous campaigner and blogger the Secret Barrister accused Mr Buckland of “peddling fake law”, adding: “A lord chancellor with respect for the rule of law and integrity of the justice system would be on the airwaves correcting this nonsense”. Responding to a Conservative Party tweet claiming it would “make sure life means life for child killers”, the anonymous junior barrister called the claim “a lie”.

“It won’t apply to all (or even most) ‘child killers’ – only adults who commit murder,” the Secret Barrister added. “The law already provides for whole life tariffs for adults who murder children. The number of cases this will apply to is virtually nil. It is a distraction. It is a lie.”

A more detailed summary of the Tories’ proposal said only adults aged 21 and over – who commit the “premeditated” murder of under-16s – would be subject to whole life orders.

The Conservatives said they would make the change by amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003, but then misinterpreted the law. A press release claimed it was currently “too restrictive” and only made whole life terms the starting point for judges in cases if a murder was of multiple children, or involved sexual or sadistic conduct. But the law only says that the offence must be of an “exceptionally high seriousness” to meet the threshold, and gives those factors in a non-exhaustive list of examples.

The Conservatives admitted that even if the law were changed, the “sentencing decision in any given case would continue to rest with the judge” and the “policy will be subject to the usual judicial discretion” – meaning the term could be lowered for mitigating circumstances.

Ellie Cumbo, the Law Society’s head of public law, said “premeditation” was not clearly defined in law and many child murders may not reach the bar. She told The Independent that judges already take pre-planning into account, and that only a “small number” of cases would be affected. “The whole life order already exists in law, and is imposed exactly where you would expect – in cases of this extremely rare and serious type,” Ms Cumbo added.

Other legal experts questioned how premeditation would be defined, and whether judges or juries would decide on the issue. Barrister and author Andrew Keogh said the proposals would “impact very few cases”. “Will a single offender actually serve a single day longer in prison as a result?” he said. “I await the impact assessment when or if the legislation is published, but I strongly suspect it will not. Sounds tough, but probably of no real effect at all.”

Experts also voiced doubt over a separate Conservative election pledge to get anyone illegally carrying a knife “charged within 24 hours and in court within a week – three times faster than the current average”. Boris Johnson said: “We are speeding up prosecutions to make sure the threat of being caught is always an effective deterrent.” But the Conservatives gave no indication of how the process would be “sped up”, amid staff shortages in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and a backlog of criminal cases waiting to be heard.

Half the magistrates’ courts in England and Wales have been closed as part of austerity measures since 2010, and the number of sitting days has also been reduced to cut costs. “There’s not only a question there about how the courts would accommodate that, but about how the CPS would make a charging decision in 24 hours,” Ms Cumbo said. She pointed out that the courts themselves are responsible for deciding when cases are heard, and are working with “very limited resources”.

“Listing is a mess because the courts are completely overburdened with cases, so it’s difficult to see how another fixed requirement will be accommodated when they’re already groaning under the weight of cases,” the lawyer said. “There’s a question about how you can accomplish a pledge like that without increasing resources to the CPS and courts.”

The Law Society is among organisations campaigning for the government to increase funding across the criminal justice system, as prosecutions plummet. Statistics released by the Ministry of Justice last week showed the number of people punished for crimes in England and Wales hit a new record low in the year to June, while recorded crime rose by 6 per cent. The rate of people jailed has fallen to 6.5 per cent, and the number given immediate prison sentences is at its lowest in a decade.

Separate statistics show that prosecutions are dropping for every type of crime, down to just 7.4 per cent of all recorded offences – a fall of 41,700 in a year. The number of criminal trials being held in England and Wales has plummeted to a record low, falling by 67,000 in the past 10 years. Legal organisations have largely blamed the change on severe cuts made by the Conservative Party to the Ministry of Justice and police budgets, causing fewer cases to be solved or brought to court.

While Mr Johnson has made a promise to hire 20,000 new police officers in three years a key pledge, the Public Accounts Committee said the system may not be able to cope with the consequences of a rise in demand.

Crime and Punishment

Most TV programmes that feature prison are deeply depressing and the first episode of Ch4's Crime and Punishment is no exception. Two years in the making and billed as highlighting the work of all parts of the criminal justice journey, last night's offering that focused on the iniquities of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences amply demonstrates the folly of politicians using crime as a way to win votes. Quite ironic really as we are already hearing Boris Johnson doing exactly the same thing as a key plank of his current election campaign.

Right from the beginning when brought in by Tony Blair and his dreadful Home Secretary David Blunkett, everyone involved knew that IPP was likely to be a disaster and so it turned out to be with politicians and judges blaming each other to this day for the ongoing disaster so painfully evidenced by the documentary makers. It's such a clear message that no wonder they chose this aspect of the criminal justice system for the first hard-hitting episode.

Although quite sensibly abolished by Ken Clarke in 2012 and despite sterling efforts by the Parole Board to progress release of those who are many years over tariff, the IPP agony still has many years to run with hundreds of men cruelly trapped in a system that is simply not resourced or designed to deal with. It's bad enough to hear the frequent refrain from a prisoner that they're 'on their fourth probation officer and only met their current one via video link', but it's a professional disgrace to hear that the officer has been refused permission to attend the Parole Board hearing because of cost. In such circumstances and particularly with so obviously psychologically damaged individuals, how on earth can it be expected to do any meaningful work, yet alone treat the prisoner with any degree of respect and earn their trust? 

Of particular concern highlighted last night is the prevalence of serious self-harming by prisoners who feel trapped in a system with no obvious way out and hence this extreme exercising of control in order to gain attention and engagement with a frankly bureaucratic and managerial approach by many. In fact precisely the command and control aspect of HMPPS that is currently being highlighted as a reason why probation must break free of these civil service shackles if it is to survive as a worthwhile endeavour at all. 

It was particularly interesting to note the very strong and independent words of the Duty Governor in over-ruling the views of the health professionals regarding a proposed transfer out of the medical wing and his criticism of the recommendations by a 'remote' management - "sending two people to a meeting with a script is not helpful". It struck me forcefully that it was only really the Governor who displayed genuine concern for the prisoner and what might be the best and most pragmatic way of dealing with a very difficult issue. What should be noteworthy is that a Governor is largely independent, autonomous, experienced and not hidebound by bureaucracy, indeed just like probation used to be.      

No Prison Reform Without Probation Reform

As every day goes by, more and more attention turns to the effects of Grayling's disastrous TR and prison policies and we know the government cannot ignore things for much longer. There continues to be much discussion as to how the prison population can be reduced, but nothing will work unless the damage inflicted upon the probation service is rectified. So, while we continue to await an 'announcement', here is the Criminal Justice Alliance with some suggestions for Rory Stewart:- 

HOW TO START REDUCING THE PRISON POPULATION

Dear Rory, 

Thank you so much for coming to speak to CJA members in May and articulating your determination to address some of the prison service’s most pressing operational challenges. The present level of the prison population in England and Wales is clearly one of the most significant of those challenges. 

We are encouraged by the recent small reduction in the prison population. Increasing the Home Detention Curfew caseload has been an effective way to start to reduce some of the pressure on our heavily overcrowded prison system and providing a managed transition for prisoners into the community. But more must be done. 

You said at our recent Members Meeting that you’d be happy to receive suggestions on how the prison population might be reduced, without compromising public safety. Possibilities for this in eight areas are enclosed. None of these proposals is revolutionary. 

They’re almost all both pragmatic and incremental. Many could be effected without legislation. Their implications for a reduction in the prison population of some 12,000 during the lifetime of this parliament are based on conservative assumptions. 

Any such reduction in the prison population also offers the possibility - based on similarly cautious estimates – of saving £900m of public money. The attached schedule details these savings. 

We hope these suggestions – based on knowledge shared by many of the CJA’s member organisations – will be helpful. Thank you for asking us to share them with you. We look forward to continue working with you to support efforts in reducing the prison population. 

Yours sincerely, 

Nina Champion Director, CJA

1. IPP Sentences 

The current IPP (Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection) population stands at nearly 2,900. Almost 90 per cent of these prisoners have served beyond the tariff deemed necessary as appropriate punishment for their offences. Without further intervention, the Parole Board acknowledges this figure may reduce to 1,500 by 2020. But this number remains unacceptably high, and the Government could be more ambitious in its approach, ensuring the IPP prison population reduces to less than 500 prisoners by 2022. (Net saving allowing for costs of external supervision £202.2m.) 

In our view, the Ministry of Justice should consider legislative intervention to convert posttariff IPP sentences to determinate sentences – a simple solution providing firm release dates. As CJA member Prison Reform Trust highlights, people serving IPP sentences have one of the highest rates of self-harm in the prison system. Providing a clear release date may help reduce this rate. 

As a minimum starting point, the 459 IPP prisoners serving tariffs of less than two years could have their sentences converted, expanding to the 1,176 IPP prisoners with tariffs of less than four years, then scaled up appropriately. A ‘sunset’ provision could also provide a release date for some or all post-tariff IPP prisoners by a particular year or by a number of years post-tariff. 

In the meantime, the availability of courses conditional for the release of IPP prisoners must continue to be prioritised. 

Once IPP prisoners are released, much more needs to be done to ensure that they do not return to prison. There is growing concern about the number of people serving IPP sentences who are recalled following release – currently over 800 prisoners. Nearly two thirds of those currently recalled are re-released following review by the Parole Board.This may necessitate a review by the Ministry of Justice of the licence conditions in the Prison Instructions. Further, people serving IPP sentences are often deeply institutionalised and require intensive independent advocacy support to facilitate their resettlement in the community. Many CJA members provide this type of support, but further investment is needed.

2. Recall 

On any given day in 1995, there were fewer than 200 people in prisons for recalls. In March 2018 there were over 6,000. 6 Over half – 58 per cent – of these had not been charged with a further offence, and were instead recalled for other licence breaches, such as failure to keep an appointment on time, or drugs and alcohol issues. And many people ‘recalled’ to prison did not receive a custodial sentence in the first instance.

There is little doubt that the extension of post-sentence supervision to those sentenced to less than 12 months has contributed to the rise in the recall population. Further, new Sentencing Council guidelines for sentencing breaches (effective from1 October 2018) will have custody as a starting point for even minor breaches. It is recognised that this ‘could have an impact on the prisons, with more offenders being sent to custody than at present’.

Recalls are costly interventions that interrupt the effective reintegration of former prisoners. The Ministry might review both the standard and extra licence conditions that Offender Managers can impose, as well as the mechanism for recalling a person following breach, emphasising that recall should be preserved for those presenting a serious risk to the public or genuinely failing to progress towards reintegration. 

But the best way to prevent an unnecessary recall is to ensure there is no breach in the first place, by providing effective rehabilitative support. Unfortunately, as highlighted in the Justice Committee’s recent review, probation services are critically underperforming and the effectiveness of Transforming Rehabilitation is in serious doubt. Securing accommodation is particularly problematic, especially for young people leaving custody, and recalls cause critical disruption to an already challenging process. 

Recognising that there will be some situations where someone may need to be recalled where there has been no further offence, keeping even 3,000 people out of prison and in the community where productive rehabilitation can take place could save £231.8m net over four years. 

3. Remand 

Those on remand – 9,200 people – now represent over ten per cent of the prison population. One in seven – nearly 1,400 – go on to receive non-custodial sentences. Ensuring this cohort is not needlessly kept in prison could save £39.9m annually.

The numbers are particularly stark for those remanded in custody and tried in the Magistrates’ Courts – of the 22,300 defendants annually, a quarter are acquitted and a third receive a non-custodial sentence. 

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 properly introduced a test of ‘no real prospect’ where remand should not be sought for an un-convicted defendant where there is no real prospect of a custodial sentence. CJA Member Transform Justice has noted that the law is largely satisfactory and compliant with international standards. However, in practice its implementation results in many defendants being remanded when other alternatives are or should be available. The Crown Prosecution Service, defence advocates and judges should ensure this test is applied much more rigorously. Greater use of electronic monitoring might also be considered as an alternative to remand.

4. ‘Sentence Creep’ 

Average sentence length for prisoners held for indictable offences is 30 per cent higher than ten years ago, up from 15.2 months to 20. There is no firm evidence that this ‘sentence creep’ has had any deterrent effect. 

If average sentence lengths had remained the same as in 2007 just for drug offences, fraud and theft, there would be approximately 2,000 fewer people in prison, saving £57m annually. (Research by data analysts Justice Episteme suggests that had sentencing policy for serious offences remained the same since 2003, there would be 16,000 fewer people in prison.) 

Change in this area will need to be incremental and the effects are unlikely to be seen immediately (unless changes are applied retrospectively to those already serving inflated sentences, such as an early release to electronic monitoring for low-risk prisoners). But without changes to sentencing practices, there seems little prospect of the vast bulk of the prison population reducing. 

More scrutiny could usefully be applied to the creation of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council in the context of stretched prison resources and the effectiveness of custodial sentences. For instance, sentencers might be encouraged to sentence more creatively, restricting the requirements to use the upper limits of guidelines and allowing them to sentence below the lower limit. 

In 2017, the Sentencing Council admitted that increased severity of sentences for nondomestic and aggravated burglary offences ‘may be attributable’ to the introduction of the guideline for these offences. The Council has committed to reviewing this guideline, but as a priority, it should also commit to greater investment in assessing the impact of all guidelines, particularly those for high-volume crimes. 

5. Short Sentences 

At March 2018, 5,340 prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences of less than 12 months. Short sentences are demonstrably less effective than community sentences at reducing recidivism (and more costly). Justice Secretary David Gauke has recently recognised this, stating that short sentences should be a last resort. Short-Sighted, a campaign by CJA member Revolving Doors, highlights that half of all people sentenced to custody are serving sentences of less than 6 months. 

Scotland introduced a presumption against custodial sentences of three months or less in 2010, and last September announced plans to extend this presumption to sentences of less than 12 months. Other countries with similar provisions include Belgium and Germany.

There may be certain instances for which this presumption against a custodial sentence would not be deemed appropriate given the interests of, and risks to, the victim and wider community. But if reductions occurred at a similar rate as in Scotland, there would be 2,000 fewer people in prison. Introducing a presumption against short sentences of less than 12 months could save £57m annually. 

6. Mental Health 

There is currently insufficient data to accurately measure the number of people in prison suffering from poor mental health. But as recently as 2016, the Centre for Mental Health estimated that 90 per cent of the prison population have mental health problems, personality disorders, or substance misuse problems. 

The 2009 Bradley Review found an estimated 2,000 prison places per year could properly be saved if individuals who receive short custodial sentences and who may be experiencing mental health problems were instead given a community sentence. This would save £57m. For many people with mental health issues, a community order with a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) would be transformative and the prison estate, in any case, is all too often entirely inadequately equipped either to treat them or address their offending behaviour. 

In order to effect any such change, sentencing guidelines on MHTR would need to be strengthened. CJA member JUSTICE has also called for a Sentencing Guideline on mental health and vulnerability to be created. Despite revised guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice four years ago, there has not yet been a significant increase in the use of MHTRs, so there is still significant scope for further uptake. As identified by the Offender Health Research Network, the purpose, process and eligibility for MHTRs should be described by the Ministry of Justice and Department of Health in collaboration.

Magistrates and judges might also require additional training to raise awareness of the use of MHTRs attached to community sentences, though emphasis should be on their availability and inclusion in pre-sentence reports. 

7. Women 

At the end of March 2018, 1,250 women were in prison for non-violent offences - either theft, fraud or drug offences.23 Serious concerns have properly been raised about the necessity of custodial sentences for such women, when the vast majority could serve a sentence in the community without posing a threat to public safety. It is alarming that any woman is imprisoned in 2018 for TV licence non-payment. 

Of the 852 women sentenced to prison for drug offences since 2016, 240 were sentenced to three years or more.24 This small group aside, there remain 1,000 women imprisoned for non-violent offences whose sentence could better be served in the community, saving £28.5m.

CJA member Women in Prison’s 2020 campaign – to halve the women’s prison population to 2,020 (or fewer) by 2020 – highlights how alternatives to custody such as Women’s Centres and community support services result in lower reoffending rates than prison. Further, sending a woman to prison for a short period of time can have a significant impact not only on the woman herself, but also on any dependent children, which in turn can lead to additional costs needing to be funded by the state, such as foster care. 

In order to effect this change, sentencing guidelines would need to be amended and steps taken to address funding of women’s services, particularly Women’s Centres. We welcome the pledge in the Female Offender Strategy to commit £5 million to community provision for women to address offending behaviour.

However, there are serious concerns that this is an insufficient amount to achieve the strategy’s aims. Moreover, it is a pittance in comparison to the £50 million originally earmarked for the now scrapped plan to build five community prisons. 

As of March 2018, there were 500 women serving sentences of less than 12 months.26 These women would almost certainly be better rehabilitated in the community with access to appropriate treatment and without disrupting existing housing or childcare arrangements. This would save £14.3m. 

8. BAME people 

If the demographic of the prison population reflected that of England and Wales, there would – as noted recently in David Lammy’s review of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) representation in the Criminal Justice System – be 9,000 fewer BAME people imprisoned, the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons. If just ten per cent of these were diverted, this would save 900 prison places with (net) savings of £25.7m. 

As highlighted in the Review, one of the reasons for this disproportionality may be the association between ethnic group and likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence. Black people are 53 per cent more likely than white people to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Court.

Lammy also highlighted the need for increased trust in the criminal justice system amongst BAME defendants, who were found to be more likely to opt for trial in Crown Court due to their higher confidence in the fairness of juries than in the fairness of the Magistrates’ Court. It recommended sensibly that all sentencing remarks in the Crown Court be published, to make justice more transparent and comprehensible, thereby building trust. Similarly, CJA member Centre for Justice Innovation advised that to improve the criminal court experience for BAME defendants, judges, magistrates and court staff should be trained in better courtroom engagement. 

Other recommendations in the Lammy Review include the CPS considering its approach to both gang prosecutions and to how Modern Slavery legislation could be used to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable young people and for identifying information to be redacted from case information passed to the CPS by the police to allow for ‘race-blind’ decisions. The 35 recommendations of the Review, if implemented, could significantly reduce the numbers of BAME people in prison.

Omnishambles Update 49

Irritating in many ways, I nevertheless have to admit that twitter can be useful in providing an insight into what the hell is going on in probation as the TR omnishambles marches on. So, here's some edited snippets gleaned from a well known probation tweeter, all in handy bite-sized chunks, no more than 140 characters long, and I hope they forgive my unauthorised plagiarism. 

Heard probation rumour today: NPS PO will have final say over CRC SPO in any disagreement about risk escalation.

I have a stack of new policies, forms, processes, instructions etc etc that I'm told are crucial to my new role. No time to read them!

Evidence received today that sex offenders WILL be managed in the CRCs which in future will be privatised.

I see risk of serious recidivism score has been increased again. Have to score 7. 2% to be auto allocated to NPS.

Some of the greatest and most inspiring PO's I know are quitting with no job to go to. They've had enough. Ridiculous state of affairs.

Two more emails received from agencies today. Offering me work all over the country as a PO. Email said they are "desperate"

I really don't know if I can continue this twitter given I will become a civil servant soon. Managers indicated social media is a no no.

Three separate emails received today from agencies offering me temp PO jobs. Willing to pay me to live in a hotel mon-fri.

NPS allocated PO told me how she was begged to go into CRC & she has refused. Apparently it's very short staffed. Nobody has begged me! Ha.

My CEO said staff aren't leaving the service. Why do we have so many temps then? We have never had this many! TR getting rid of good staff!

Trainee PO's told they will have to be seconded to CRC for 2 days a week in order to gain relevant experience.

Much older/wiser colleague told me I should have been a PO in the 1980's & would have made a good social worker. I took that as a compliment

Informed client today he will go to CRC. He said he thinks there will be a lot of breaches so the private company can fill their own prisons

One SPO has always done allocation of work in my office. Now two SPO's and two admin do it. 4 members of staff! Nice one Grayling!

I am so behind in my own work. Add the 20 OASys I have to do for "the split" and it's tipping me over the edge! I know I'm not alone.

NPS told not to propose DRR/ATR for Mappa or high risk of harm as IOM is CRC  Another example of how well it's working.

9 emails, 2 phone calls, 7 POs, and 2 SPOs to allocate 1 new probation case.

Client phoned up the office as he is concerned he has not been seen in two months. Officer off sick with stress.

A comment left on here yesterday reflects a situation typical up and down the land:-

I knew this TR crap was going to be very bad. However it's even worse than I could've imagined. Our office in a well known university city is imploding. More than 60% of the caseload is held by new PSO staff with less than 3 months experience. Recalls, prison paperwork, breaches, OASys assessments outstanding. CRC staff drowning in totally unmanageable caseloads. NPS colleagues drowning in PSRs. Senior managers nowhere to be seen. The duplicitous processes are staggering in the extreme, the cost to the public purse outrageous. Amongst all this, clients are looking bewildered, are falling through the gaps and the cannier ones are using the chaos to their own advantage. I can't sleep, I hate going into work. I cannot believe that the best performing public service has come to this. The UK is sleepwalking into the shadow state, the government completely abdicating its responsibilities to its citizens.

Searching around on the internet, I came across this quote from a couple of months ago in the Daily Telegraph by the incoming CEO of Capita, an outsourcing company widely tipped to pick up a considerable amount of probation work. I thought it was illuminating given that I've repeatedly heard that virtually all of the Tier One bidders know virtually nothing about probation. This is what he said:-

He is handing over to Andy Parker, himself a 13-year stalwart of Capita, who said the increase in the bid pipeline was partly down to Capita being shortlisted for seven of the 21 regions under the looming part-privatisation of the probation service. “Probation officers are typically spending less than 25pc of their time on offender-facing tasks, with 75pc of it spent on admin, which they’re not particularly good at,” he said. “We see huge opportunities to free up their time for what they’re better at – front-line duties.”

I'd say the chances of that happening are close to zero.

I've also only just noticed this piece from the Prison Governor's Association on the Politics website:-

Chris Grayling's "Spartan" prison regime is leading to a "tipping point" of instability, the president of the Prison Governors' Association has warned. In a highly embarrassing intervention for the justice secretary, Eoin McLennan-Murray warned that the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme was triggering an increase in assaults and suicides behind bars.

"In order to run a safe, decent prison it is vital to have the co-operation of the majority of prisoners," he said. "This relationship is underpinned by staff having legitimacy in the eyes of prisoners and this is dependent on trust and transparency in decision making. "Some of the recent changes to the IEP system have undermined this trust and threaten the legitimacy of decisions made by staff. "If this is allowed to continue unchecked then a tipping point may be reached whereby prisons are more likely to become unstable than stable. "We are already seeing the early signs of this with rising levels of assaults, reportable incidents and a disturbing rise in self inflicted deaths."

The IEP scheme has been criticised across the political spectrum for the ban it places on all parcels being sent to prisoners. The inclusion of books in the ban sparked a protest campaign by the Howard League for Penal Reform and English PEN. The regime also limits family contact and opportunities for education and learning - all factors which have been shown to reduce people's risk of reoffending.

IEP contains a number of other draconian measures. It makes it much harder for inmates to secure 'enhanced' status in prison, where they are granted certain creature comforts, and much easier for them to drop down a status level. It is thought to have significantly increased the number of people on 'basic' regime, where they are kept alone in a cell for most of the day and denied any personal property.

On the subject of prison, almost daily we are hearing of more supposedly 'dangerous' prisoners absconding from open conditions and there's probably good reason to feel it's IPP prisoners long over their tariff's who are responding to news that Town Visits and ROTL's are going to be curtailed. Feeling that they may have little chance of being released any time soon, some may well have decided to take a chance and just walk out in the hope they can avoid recapture for a time.  

This article in the Economist offers some further thoughts on the subject:-

As a result, absconding—that is, leaving an open prison—or failing to return after a day release have become virtually the only ways to get out illicitly. Yet those who abscond rarely remain free for long. Absconders are mostly low-ranking crooks who happen to be violent. Few have the networks and money that allowed old-time professional criminals such as Ronnie Biggs and Charlie Richardson to evade capture, says Dick Hobbs, a criminologist at the University of Essex. Few are picked up fleeing the country. They are more likely to be found at an old address or lurking at their mothers’ houses.

Absconding, too, is much less common than it was. In 2013 just 204 prisoners absconded, down from 956 in 1996. That improvement is largely the result of better risk assessments of those granted some kind of limited freedom before their release. In 2012 almost half a million licences were granted to let prisoners leave prison temporarily, mostly for activities to prepare them for their final release. In fewer than 500 cases did people fail to return or otherwise breach their licence. After the recent embarrassments, Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, has tightened the rules governing temporary release. 

But some worry that this trend could reverse. The POA, which represents prison officers, says that overcrowding means unsuitable prisoners are being moved to open conditions. Andrew Neilson of the Howard League, a prison-reform charity, points to a lack of properly skilled staff to do risk assessments. Shortages exacerbate this. Between 1997 and 2012 the ratio of officers to inmates fell from one for every 2.4 to one for every 3.3. Officers who lock doors and supervise meals do not make decisions about the release of inmates. But they can provide important information to those who do. Time to get to know prisoners is increasingly scarce. Even the least adept crooks may spot more chances to get out of jail free.

The whole issue of lie-detectors and chemical castration for sex offenders has re-surfaced and if one was cynical one would think it might be connected with the fact we are now in the lead up to a General Election. Getting probation officers to use the equipment is going to pose a considerable professional and ethical dilemma for many and I suspect will serve to hasten the exit of many more skilled staff already utterly pissed off with the whole thing. 

Readers might recall that initially this was work that was going to be farmed out to private contractors such as G4S, until they screwed up that is:-

The Government has abandoned plans to allow the private sector to run lie detector tests for hundreds of serious sex offenders, amid continuing turmoil over outsourcing following scandals involving the country’s two biggest contractors. The programme to test hundreds of sex offenders was due to start this month but has now been delayed for staff to be trained internally, in the latest blow to privatisation plans for monitoring former offenders in the community.

The compulsory tests for about 750 released serious sex offenders in England and Wales are part of a major planned expansion of the use of the polygraph this year despite concerns over its effectiveness.

On the subject of ethics, interestingly the Probation Institute has just closed a consultation exercise on the subject. Here's the first draft:-

 CORE VALUES AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

1.    We believe in the ability of people who have offended to change for the better and become responsible members of society

Associated principles:

·         Desistance from offending is a process that may take time, requiring a level of patience, tenacity, care and proactive engagement on the part of probation workers

2.    We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual

Associated principles:

·         Interventions must show due regard to the dignity, health, safety and well-being of service users

3.    We are committed to promoting social justice and social inclusion

Associated principles:

·         People who have offended should receive fair, impartial and just treatment throughout all phases of the system and discrimination should be challenged

·         Diversity and difference is viewed with positive regard

·         Service users should have a voice in the planning of services 

4.    We believe in the worth of probation supervision in the community, based on establishing positive  relationships with service users, to promote their rehabilitation.

Associated principles

·         Effective supervision relies on setting an environment in which sensitive issues can be explored whilst maintaining appropriate role boundaries.

·         Meeting the needs of service users will frequently involve working in partnership with other agencies and organisations in the community.

·         The most appropriate use of custodial sentences is for serious or persistent offending. Community sentences are more effective in supporting rehabilitation than short custodial sentences.

5.    We accept to protect the public the rights of service users have to be balanced with the rights and protection of victims and future victims.

Associated principles:

·         The needs of victims take priority over the needs of service users where these are in conflict.

·         Responses to the needs of service users must take account of their assessed level of risk of causing harm to actual victims and future potential victims.

6.    We recognise the importance of training for identified levels of competence and of continuing professional development.

Associated principles:

·         Initial qualifying and continuing training must be of a length and quality appropriate to the level and complexity of the work to be undertaken.

·         Individual workers are accountable for the quality of their work and for maintaining and improving their professional practice, whilst recognising that the employer also has a responsibility to enable this.

7.    We are committed to the development of knowledge, through research, to inform policy and practice in work with offenders.

Associated principles:

·         Methods of working with service users vary according to their different risks and needs and their social contexts.

·         The effectiveness of different interventions should be judged on the basis of evaluation and research that can be widely disseminated and scrutinised.

·         Supporting and contributing to research is essential for the development of good practice.

8.    We are committed to acting with professional integrity

Associated principles:

·         The values and principles of the profession are upheld and all work will be conducted in a reliable, honest and trustworthy manner.

·         Appropriate boundaries must be established in relationships with service users and colleagues.

·         Judgements should be based on balanced and considered reasoning.  Members should maintain awareness of the impact of their own values, prejudices and conflicts of interest on their practice and on other people.

·         Staff should account for and justify their judgements and actions to service users, to employers and to the general public

·         Record keeping must be accurate and professional.

Finally, look what we have to look forward to on TV shortly:-

Parole Report

Mindful that some readers may become a little weary of endless discussion of privatisation plans, can I say that it is my intention to try and vary the content and return to my original aim of just writing about what crops up or I find interesting. I'm more than happy to respond to suggestions by the way.

A few weeks ago I had cause to attend an Oral Hearing of the Parole Board. This was convened at the jail where the prisoner is currently held and as usual was made up of three panel members. For those unfamiliar with the process it is quasi-judicial and the chairperson is quite often a retired judge. The prisoner is legally represented and both they and all the expert witnesses, including probation officer, can be cross-examined following submission of their evidence.

Each panel member will be in possession of a large parole dossier amounting to some 400 pages and will have read the contents carefully prior to the hearing. Oral Hearings are so called in order to differentiate the process from 'paper' hearings conducted in private and without the prisoner or expert witnesses being present. Although not my case, I had reason to be attending due to some knowledge of the prisoner who is serving an IPP sentence, is now over tariff and requesting a move to open prison. An IPP sentence is similar to a Life Sentence, but the tariff date is normally much lower, ie the earliest date at which application can be made to the Parole Board for release.

Although Indeterminate Public Protection sentences have been abolished, there are many prisoners in the system subject to this sentence and either well over their tariff date, or rapidly approaching it. The Parole Board is mindful of this and are trying to deal with the issue as quickly as possible. To put it bluntly the main problem has been either the lack of suitable courses for prisoners to undertake in order to demonstrate a reduction in the risk they may pose, or long waiting lists for such courses.

I've always been impressed with the work of the Parole Board and the care and attention with which they approach their work. I think the public would be impressed and reassured if they knew more about what went on. These hearings are often not easy for a prisoner, sitting as they do eyeball to eyeball with panel members across the Governor's board room table and usually under the official gaze of a portrait of The Queen. They have to be prepared for a forensic examination of the details concerning the index offence. It can be harrowing and it's not unusual for tears to flow.

I simply cannot comprehend how those bean counters down in London can seriously contemplate suggesting that such proceedings can be conducted properly by video link in the interests of saving money. Despite the best efforts of the MoJ to pressurise the Parole Board into such short-sighted economy measures, I suspect many panel members are resisting and I applaud them for that. I cannot see how the process could be conducted remotely and with the same degree of dignity, care and concern for the prisoner, and have the same confidence that sound and fair decisions could be undertaken.

On this particular occasion all the 'experts', probation, psychology and prison offender manager were singing off the same hymn sheet and recommending a move to open conditions. It is not always so however and even in this instance Panel members were keen to forensically probe the reasons why there had been a change of view in some quarters. The whole hearing took nearly four hours. 

There is no doubt in my mind that over recent years the power and influence of the psychologists within prisons has increased and their assessments can be at considerable variance with that of probation. I think this is at least partly due to the fact that many probation officers still have lengthy involvement with individual prisoners, thus building up an unrivalled knowledge. They are often able to describe in detail progress that has been achieved over many years and can therefore speak authoritatively on the case. Continuity is so important, but sadly not as common nowadays.

In many ways psychology strike me as being 'super' risk-averse and invariably seek to exhaust every known course and assessment before supporting progressive moves. In the end though it is for the independent Parole Board to make the decision on either progression or release, having listened carefully to all the arguments. In my experience they are willing to be more pragmatic and take a balanced view of risks and this should be of some reassurance to prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. 

Now I can't end this discourse without mention of OASys. Each panel member will be extremely familiar with this assessment method since its introduction and has the benefit of a full print-out in front of them. What struck me was that at the end of each expert's evidence, the file was metaphorically pushed aside and each person asked a series of blunt questions "Now what do you think the risk is of a) absconding b) harm to staff c) reoffending d) harm to the public?" In turn each was asked a supplementary "Do you have any doubts?"  

I put it to you. What exactly is the purpose of OASys? Because I don't know.  

Sign the No10 petition here.    

Juries

The subject of juries has come in for quite a bit of discussion recently as a result of the first Vicky Pryce trial and the now infamous ten questions they put to the judge. They were eventually discharged and a fresh trial ordered when unable to agree a majority verdict and raised questions as to their ability of being able to 'grasp the basics' concerning the issues involved. 

Of course we can never know what went on in the jury room as such deliberations must remain sacrosanct, but the measured view seems to be that the questions arose not from ignorance, but rather from some members exasperation and a valiant effort at trying to seek confirmation of the issues and therefore a decision. Obviously this was not to be and a re-trial is in progress.

I want to highlight a case where a jury has made a decision, but a deeply disturbing one in my view. As always, any discussion of a case without full knowledge can be risky, but the case of Nicola Edgington is truely shocking and one I simply do not understand. 

Most press attention has focused on the IPCC report confirming that police failed to deal correctly with this woman's numerous telephone pleas for help. As someone who had already been subject to a Hospital Order for killing her mother some years before, she was becoming desperate to be 'sectioned' because of her state of mind. In one call she reportedly said 'the last time I felt like this I killed my mother' and yet she was not assessed or detained. 

Tragically for everyone concerned, because this woman was not dealt with properly, she armed herself with a knife and committed two horrific attacks on random members of the public, almost decapitating one.

I think most people hearing the broad details of such a case would not require expert psychiatric opinion to confidently come to the conclusion that at the material time the balance of her mind was significantly affected by a severe mental illness and therefore how could she be found guilty of murder?

To most people, acceptance of a guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and a Hospital Restriction Order would seem much more appropriate. But instead, astonishingly in my view, a jury convicted her of murder and the judge in summing up is reported as saying 'she should take full responsibility for her actions' and gave her a tariff of 37 years. 

The saddest and most worrying aspect of this case in my view is that in all probability she will at some point be transferred from prison to Special Hospital due to her psychiatric state. She needed treatment all along and if she had been dealt with correctly, a life would have been spared and another wouldn't now 'be doing life.'
        

Good Luck Ben

It's good to see that long-term prisoner Ben Gunn has finally been released on Life Licence. As I've said before, to go so long over tariff indicates a high degree of effort on the part of the prisoner in frustrating progression. However, I'm equally sure that the Parole Board pondered the case long and hard, and in the end felt able to acknowledge the progress that had been made. 

For Ben the really hard bit is about to begin and he's already had a taste of tribulations that might lie ahead by the reaction to his piece in the Guardian recently. I was not entirely surprised, and suspect that the online readership might not be the same liberal types that shell out daily for a hard copy of the paper. 

Having read Ben's blog avidly for some time I know it's unfair to say that he doesn't express remorse, because he does. The trouble is that he doesn't do humility a great deal and often casts himself in the role of victim. It was definitely a mistake to invoke the image of Nelson Mandela and hopefully Ben will learn from the reaction he got. Unfortunately, apart from a few trolls, I suspect he has been developing a somewhat distorted view of the world as expressed by his blog fan base.

Adjusting to life outside prison after so long is not going to be easy and a task made that much more difficult by any temptation to continue a self-stylisation of victim hood. In my view in order to make a success of release on licence, Ben will have to work on an entirely different mindset that focuses on the positive, rather than the negative. It's not going to be easy and he will need help from all those around him, including his supervising probation officer. I wish him well though and will watch with interest.      

The Way It Is

I notice that it didn't take long for 'escaped' life sentence prisoner John Massey to be apprehended and for the Guardian to weigh in with some comment. In essence the article is confirming what I suspect is the private view of a lot of prison officers at HMP Pentonville that 'John has done his bird and should have got out years ago'. 


I have a degree of sympathy with this view and personal experience of similar cases where some life sentence prisoners feel passionately that 'keeping a clean and tidy cell and being respectful to staff' will be enough to warrant release after the passage of a suitable period of time. Unfortunately it doesn't work like this with regard to life sentences. In order to progress through the prison system, let alone be released, the prisoner must co-operate with risk assessments and undertake courses designed to demonstrate that they are safe to release. Failure to co-operate, or worse show disdain or disregard for the directions of the Parole Board, probation service or psychology, inevitably means that meaningful risk assessments cannot be carried out and therefore no progress towards release can be achieved.


What tends to happen, and John Massey's case seems to confirm this, is that a disgruntled prisoner decides to take some direct action of some sort as a demonstration against what they perceive as an unfair system. As a result they are inevitably punished, progress is reversed and any move towards release is delayed yet further. Way beyond his tariff, this is what has happened to this prisoner, and significant numbers of others in similar situations. As others have discovered, no amount of facebook popularity, letters to politicians, petitions or articles in the Guardian will change the way that the system works, as long as we have indeterminate sentences for very serious offences such as rape and murder. As a consequence, there has to be a fair and transparent system for determining release, and that has at its core in-depth considerations of public safety. 


I have written at length on the topic of risk aversion. Intensive media attention in recent years concerning high profile murders, particularly by those known to statutory bodies such as the  probation service, has ensured that the whole system is risk-averse. The public cannot have it both ways. We either return to the realistic situation when I started out that meant there was very little chance of spotting the propensity of someone to commit awful crimes. Or we accept that awful things are done by some people and give up seeking to blame some hapless individual who failed to have a bloody crystal ball. We have to decide if it's appropriate to stick with the current risk-averse situation where everyone is scared witless about the possibility of being pilloried by the commission of a Serious Further Offence, or we get a bit more real.  


Yes in Mr Massey's case "the probation service had other ideas and insisted he went to a hostel". In many cases, especially where there is a settled family situation to return to, it's a complete waste of time and counter-productive (as in this case) but you can bet it wasn't the probation officer that insisted on that. Much more likely to have either been a MAPPA decision influenced by probation service managers, or if not in the full MAPPA arena, then just a management directive borne of fear not common sense. I know because I've pleaded with management not to insist on a hostel placement for an offender being released, but was over-ruled on the basis of 'what if something happens' - not judgement. 



PS Since publishing this post, I notice the latest edition of 'Inside Time' has an interesting article by a man on Life Licence and about life sentences.