A Year - and Decade - of Penal Policy

In a curious symmetry, penal policy in 2019 has mirrored the decade as a whole. 

  

The year opened with then Prisons Minister Rory Stewart proposing to abolish short prison sentences, followed by his boss David Gauke giving perhaps the best ministerial speech on sentencing since Ken Clarke spoke at King’s College London just after the 2010 election.

While Clarke’s plans to reduce prison numbers went with him to the back benches in 2012, Gauke’s seem to have departed with him from the Conservative Party altogether. The new Prime Minister wants to toughen up what he sees as “our cock-eyed crook-coddling criminal justice system”. While Boris Johnson’s sights are set on longer periods in prison for the most serious sexual, violent and terrorist offenders, this could easily have the effect of raising the going rate for a much wider range of crimes.

 

Sentencing for serious offenders has become more severe over the decade with the custody rate for indictable offences rising from a quarter to a third and the average length of a jail term for all offences up from 13.8 to 17.4 months. But because of falling clear up rates and prosecutions, the prison population is slightly lower now than 10 years ago. Sentence inflation has occurred in spite of the guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council which marks ten years of operation next year and whose impact leaves much to be desired.  

Johnson’s line has been hardened by November’s dreadful events at Fishmonger’s Hall which tragically cut short the lives of two inspiring young people involved in an initiative to open up educational opportunities for prisoners. A month earlier, former prisons boss Sir Martin Narey had controversially called for prisons to forget rehabilitation, and with the new government pledging  a root-and-branch review of the parole system and talk of shifting responsibility for sentencing, prisons and probation back to the Home Office, the new decade looks set for a repressive turn.

It might have been different. But David Cameron’s hubristic promise of prison reform as a defining, progressive cause for his government disappeared with him and his lieutenant Michael Gove after the EU referendum. While Gove subsequently returned to the May government in other roles, his successors at Justice belatedly abandoned his lofty rhetoric about redemption and instead focussed much needed attention and funds on addressing the major operational crises created by reckless staff reductions and the increasing availability of drugs in prison. Promised new prison legislation has never materialised but controversial measures such as the introduction of incapacitant spray for prison staff are on their way.   

Alongside, the probation service, sacrificed on the altar of privatisation by Chris Grayling in 2014, suffered a widely predicted decline in performance, charted in forensic detail by former Chief Inspector Glenys Stacey.  In May this year, Gauke bowed to the inevitable by announcing the re-nationalisation of probation supervision.

The last years of this decade have thus been spent on urgent repairs to the largely self- inflicted damage wrought on criminal justice institutions. Had the numbers of people sentenced by the courts not fallen by more than 40% in the last ten years, prison and probation services would have collapsed. 

Youth justice has fared a little better- if only because numbers in custody have continued to fall through the decade, with fewer than 800 under 18-year olds behind bars in October 2019 compared to more than 2,000 ten years ago. Black and minority ethnic over-representation among children locked up remains shockingly high and the fall in numbers has not led to better conditions or treatment for those who continue to go to custody. 

Much criticised Coalition plans to build a very large Secure College were abandoned after the 2015 election and it would not be a huge surprise if a similar fate  awaits the new Secure School due to be opened by Christian charity Oasis next year but already postponed until 2021.  Many of the more radical proposals in Charlie Taylor’s 2016 Youth Justice Review were dispatched to the long grass but in the face of decades of experience, the belief in the need for yet another form of youth custody has proved enduring.             

      

Back Home? Why Sentencing, Prison and Probation Should Stay in the Ministry of Justice

The Johnson government is reportedly considering a shift in responsibility for sentencing, prisons and probation from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. I’m not altogether surprised; before the 2016 referendum, I heard Michael Gove tell an Oxford seminar he’d like to disband the MoJ (of which he was then Secretary of State), because it was a European type of institution unsuited to British traditions.

There may be a superficial attraction in combining responsibilities for crime and punishment -not only to those who favour a more punitive approach to offending but by those who hope that any Home Office plans for a crackdown would be tempered by the need for the Department to pay for its penal consequences.

But while the MoJ’s governance of criminal justice over the last 12 years may have earned it few friends, progressive reform is much less likely to emerge from our Interior Ministry – famously described by Whitehall- watcher Peter Hennessey as the graveyard of liberal thinking since the days of Lord Sidmouth.

For one thing, according to a book she co-authored in 2011, Priti Patel the current Home Secretary believes that we need to “reverse the tide of soft justice”, ensure that persistent offenders are imprisoned for long periods of time and make prisons “tough, unpleasant and uncomfortable places”. After the Coalition- a Conservative Agenda for Britain- written with four other current government ministers argues that “the primary purpose of our justice system is to protect our society, not to act as a welfare service for convicted criminals”. Current proposals to increase the severity of sentences may not go far enough to satisfy their desire for harder penalties.  

Not all Home Secretaries are so firmly in the Michael Howard Prison Works tradition of course, but responsibility for security and the reduction of crime will often produce penal policy which is at best risk averse and at worst unnecessarily harsh. The Ministry of Justice, whose centre of gravity includes human rights and the rule of law ought to tend to a more balanced approach to the use and practice of imprisonment. Home Secretary Theresa May's joke to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke., “I lock ‘em up, you let em out” says something about the departments as well as their ministers.  

     

Consolidating crime and punishment in the Home Office would raise questions about the Parole Board- increasingly a judicial body that would not sit well in Marsham Street; about Youth Justice which many think belongs in the Education department; and about the role of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Ms Patel and her colleagues argue that the role of PCCs should be extended so they are responsible for commissioning custodial and non- custodial sentences for those who are convicted.  There could be some benefits to such a devolved approach if it creates a dynamic to encourage the development of better alternatives to prison and measures to reduce -re-offending. But the government’s belief that public confidence in criminal justice will be restored by longer prison terms make these Justice Reinvestment outcomes unlikely in the current climate.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the new democracies of Eastern Europe who wanted to join the Council of Europe had to meet certain conditions including abolishing the death penalty and moving their prison systems to the Ministry of Justice. The latter was to encourage the "civilianisation" of highly militaristic and security focused approaches to detention. The MoJ is now responsible for prisons in all 47 countries of the Council of Europe, except Spain.

In their book, Ms Patel and her colleagues have deplored the fact that an increasing human rights agenda and increasing interference from Europe discourage prison sentences, decrying the Council of Europe’s belief that prisoners should be treated in a way that reflects the normal life of freedom that all citizens generally enjoy. 

Moving prisons to the Home Office could mean much more than an administrative change. It could be a fast and slippery slope to people going to prison not as a punishment but for a punishment.          

    

Which Prisoners Can Vote on December 12th?

December’s General Election will be the first since the UK settled the prisoner voting cases in the European Court of Human Rights. In the Hirst group of cases, the Court found that the blanket, automatic restriction on all convicted prisoners voting in parliamentary elections violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights which requires that elections ensure the free expression of the opinion of the electorate in the choice of the legislature. After years of toing and froing, in November 2017 then Justice Secretary David Lidington somehow managed to satisfy the Council of Europe that some very minimal administrative reforms brought the UK into compliance. So where do these leave prisoners’ rights to vote next month?

As before the Hirst cases, remand prisoners (both untried and convicted but unsentenced) will be eligible to vote- there were 9,512 at the end of September 2019. So too will those subject to suspended sentences of imprisonment (about 40,000), prisoners released under Home Detention Curfew (2,809 at the end of last week) and civil non-criminal prisoners detained for matters such as non-payment of council tax or contempt of court. There were 850 non- criminal prisoners at the end of September, but the figure includes people held under the Immigration Act who do not qualify to vote.  The 50 odd fine defaulters in jail are also be able to vote if they wish.

The new group of prisoners who are eligible to vote following the Hirst settlement are those on temporary release from prison- so called ROTL.  Lidington told the Commons in November 2017 that he expected the change to affect up to 100 offenders at any one time, but the basis of the estimate is not clear. In the fourth quarter of 2018, there were almost 99,000 “incidences” of release on temporary licence- involving 4,283 individuals.  On the face of it Lidington’s, estimate looks on the low side.

So will all prisoners subject to ROTL on 12 December be able to vote? To do so they will of course have to register by 26th November. Lidington told MPs that any prisoner wishing to vote would have to satisfy the conditions for registration at a genuine home address. He said that they would not be able to register at the prison and seems to have ruled out registration in a constituency where the prisoners has lived previously, following a “declaration of local connection”. These two modes were available to prisoners eligible to vote pre-Hirst but appear not to be for the ROTL prisoners. Lidington told a fellow Tory MP that he thought it unlikely in the extreme that anybody serving a long sentence could demonstrate in practical terms that they had a continuing home residence other than a prison.

This may explain why the number of prisoners on ROTL who will be able to vote is estimated to be so small. It explains too the puzzling claim in the Government’s report to the Council of Europe that the prisoners who will be eligible “are primarily, as in other countries, prisoners who are serving short sentences”.  ROTL is mainly used in Open Prisons where 80% or more of prisoners are serving sentences of more than 4 years. On the face of it, it’s only a very rare bird- a short term prisoner on ROTL -who will in practice be able to vote thanks to the Hirst judgement.  

Guidance was sent to Prison Governors last year about the new arrangements – which I have not seen so I may have misunderstood what has happened. It's quite possible that once MPs had been placated, a more sensible set of arrangements have been put in place under the radar. But there seems to be no revision to the Prison Service Order on Prisoner Voting Rights. In the absence of proper scrutiny of the new system, the suspicion must be that the government can say that their policy is that those on ROTL will no longer be barred from voting while implementing it in a way that continues a de facto ban. Expect another case in the European Court before too long.

Tagging Along

Boris Johnson’s efforts to increase prison time served by serious sexual and violent offenders by way of a Statutory Instrument were stymied by the House of Lords. Before the election was called, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also put paid to the other proposal to emerge from the so-called Sentencing Review- the national rollout of the Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) or Sobriety Tag. This requires an offender to abstain from alcohol for up to 120 days with compliance electronically monitored. The tag worn on the ankle takes a sample of sweat every 30 minutes which is analysed for the presence of alcohol. First piloted in London when  Johnson was Mayor, both the PM and his erstwhile advisers now in No 10 are enthusiastic about it.

Back in 2015 the Conservative manifesto pledged to make Sobriety Orders, reinforced by tags available to all courts in England and Wales- but it didn’t happen (and the policy was not mentioned in the 2017 manifesto). It was not until The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019 was laid before Parliament last month that the government has sought to enable the Sobriety Tags to be imposed as part of a requirement of a community order or a suspended sentence order throughout the country.   

As with the Statutory Instrument which would have increased the proportion of time served by prisoners convicted of serious crime, the Lords Committee raised concerns. Being asked to approve the programme on the basis of very limited information was “unacceptable”; it was “interesting”, but rollout was “premature”.   The Committee recommended that the House press the Minister for more detail on all aspects of the plans for rollout and anticipated long-term outcomes. There was no time to do this before Parliament was dissolved so the law hasn’t changed.  

The 2012 Act provided that  national implementation could only happen after piloting and the Government claimed that two pilots had proved sobriety tags a success. A process and performance review of the scheme across the capital – one of four published evaluations – has reported on more than 1,000 AAMRs imposed between April 2016 and March 2018. There was a compliance rate of 94% with the tag- although compliance with the overall order of which the tag was a part was lower- a distinction about which the Lords Committee wanted clarification. More significantly, there is no data about re-offending with an analysis from the Mayor’s office almost a year late.  

The evaluation of the other pilot in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire is not due to be completed until February 2020. Despite this, the MoJ considers that it now has the information necessary to fully commence the legislation and roll out AAMR across England and Wales. Their Lordships disagreed.

It’s certain that sobriety tags will figure in the Conservative manifesto, alongside perhaps  the promises of swift and certain punishment or flash incarceration made before . Whether they come to anything is of course another matter.    

The Lords of Mercy

What happened to the Government’s plans to increase the time in prison served by serious offenders? On 1st October, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland told the Tory Conference that for the most serious violent and sexual offenders … this Conservative Government will abolish automatic early release at the halfway point”. Two weeks later the Queen’s Speech duly announced a Sentencing Bill which would change the automatic release point from halfway to the two-thirds point for adult offenders serving sentences of four years or more for serious violent or sexual offences, bringing this in line with the earliest release point for those considered to be dangerous. The Bill of course got nowhere before the election was called. 

But on the same day as the Queen's speech, Buckland tabled in Parliament the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019. This Statutory Instrument (SI) would have brought the same change into force from April 2020- much sooner than primary legislation would have allowed- but for prisoners sentenced to seven years or more, rather than four. Buckland explained the different thresholds to the Justice Committee on 16 October in terms of “trying to make sure that we create a system that is supported by the resources I need”.  

Whatever length of sentence qualifies for the more restrictive arrangements, it’s surprising that secondary legislation can be used to introduce a measure which would so substantially increase levels of punishment, requiring 2,000 new prison places by 2030. But that’s what the Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits. At least the SI had to be laid under the affirmative procedure which means it must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raised no concerns about it on 23 October but the following week the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee were less sanguine, drawing it to the special attention of the House “on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest” to it.

In particular, the Committee took the view that the Order “represents one piece of a large and complicated jigsaw and the House may wish to ask the Minister for more information about how the pieces fit together. In particular the House may wish to seek reassurance from the Minister that adequate resources will be available in good time to meet this expanded remit, both in relation to prison accommodation and prison service staff”. The dissolution of parliament meant there was no time for such reassurance to be sought so the law has not been changed.

Should the Conservatives form the next government, the policy will presumably return whether through primary or secondary legislation. Before it does, the Ministry of Justice should take a step back and conduct a proper review of sentencing unlike this summer’s charade.

The MoJ redeemed itself a bit by preparing a detailed impact assessment about the longer periods of imprisonment. These highlighted not only the financial costs of the policy but the possible effects on prisoners and their families, on stability in prisons and on the lengths of sentences imposed by courts. In the light of these broader concerns, the House of Lords declined to be steamrollered in the way that Mr Buckland presumably hoped. It performed a valuable service.           

Don't Forget Rehabilitation: Remember It in Everything A Prison Does

Sir Martin Narey’s call for prisons to “Forget Rehabilitation” was no doubt designed to provoke a reaction and in that the former head of the National Offender Management Service has succeeded. Canadian expert Frank Porporino found Narey’s presentation at the conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) in Buenos Aires saddening and puzzling because as Narey himself admitted he had, as prisons chief in England and Wales, overseen a big  expansion of education and psychological programmes  designed to help prisoners change their behaviour. The disappointing results of the latter have led Narey to conclude that “the real and moral challenge is to make imprisonment humane”.

Much of what Narey had to say was uncontroversial. Prisons should be clean, orderly and respectful institutions and ensuring decent everyday conditions and treatment should be given a higher priority than they often are. His warnings about the risks of jails descending into brutality and violence were powerfully made. But is he right that humane containment is the best that prison should strive to achieve?

International law makes clear the “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation”, and while the reality of most prisons worldwide may be far removed from that lofty ideal, that’s no reason to dismiss it. There’s good evidence that education, vocational training and work in prison reduce recidivism and as a recent manual I drafted for the UN recommends, these need to be expanded not forgotten. It would be a disaster if Narey's headline deters the developing countries represented at ICPA from doing so.

Moreover, without a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, how will prisoners in any jurisdiction be able to prove to a Parole Board that they have made efforts to reduce their risks of re-offending? What conclusions will  politicians concerned about violent crime draw about how to protect the public?  And how will Prison Services be able to attract the optimistic and skilled staff to work with the people in their care?

Other presentations at ICPA have stressed the need for a more humane and hopeful philosophy and practice in prisons-  not in opposition to rehabilitation but as the very foundation of it. A public health approach to incarceration in the US state of Oregon has seen dramatic improvements in wellbeing of prisoners and staff. There and in other states, new practice is informed by prisons in Norway where staff are trained not only as guards but as “facilitators for rehabilitation” and mentors.  A similar initiative in Pennsylvania is having to overcome the hurdle of regulations prohibiting fraternisation between staff and prisoners. But good relationships between staff and prisoners is increasingly recognised as the key not only to safe prisons but ones where prisoners can use their time positively.

Shadd Maruna, in a magisterial lecture demolishing the false science of static risk assessment tools, encouraged instead an approach which takes a much fuller account of what has happened to prisoners in their lives -which in many cases includes the experience of trauma.  This is not just a matter for psychologists and social workers but for everyone working in prison and making decisions about prisoners.

The emerging consensus is that prisons need both to treat prisoners with dignity and respect and to offer them opportunities to come to terms with what they have done and chart a new course for the future. In fact, you can’t have one without the other. As Debbie Kilroy, the Australian activist and former prisoner told the conference, it's only when prisoners are treated as people and not defined by the worst thing they have done, that they ill take up the opportunities to change. 

So, while it may be right to forget the false promise that a short psychological course can repair deep seated problems of disadvantage, a rehabilitative culture should remain a central aim for prisons, alongside all that is required to make it a reality.

If You Build it, They will Come

When Boris Johnson announced in August that 10,000 new prison places would be built, commentators- myself included - were quick to point out that similar plans had been made as far back as 2015. What’s very different is that the new policy is not about relocating prisons from outdated city centre sites to modern new facilities. It’s about adding 12% or more to prison capacity in England and Wales. The Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Sir Richard Heaton told MPs this week that compared to the 85,000 places in prisons today, by the mid 2020’s “the total prison capacity we anticipate ….to be between 95,000 and 105,000.” His boss Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland confirmed that he was not planning any prison closures.

Back in August the MoJ estimated the numbers inside would be lower in 2024 than at present . They estimated a 5% likelihood it will reach or exceed 87,300 in June 2023.So why do we need all these additional places?

One good reason might be to reduce overcrowding in existing prisons so that prisoners are held in a “good decent standard of accommodation” that the Prison Service aspires to provide. There are currently only 75,000 places in use that provide this kind of uncrowded accommodation. So almost all of the new building could be used to improve the basic conditions for a prison population of the current size. But in their evidence to the Justice Committee, the MoJ made no reference to this worthy aim.

Instead they justified the increase in prison places in terms of first, a surge in prison numbers resulting from the 20,000 more police officers who will be available to catch more offenders; and second the longer portions of sentences to be served by sexual and violent offenders.

On the impact of more police, Sir Richard admitted it’s “hard to convert those into prison places” because we do not know  if they will be pursuing “high-level crime, low-level crime or crime that results in imprisonment”. Buckland took the view that “we will see quite an increase in volume crime detection. That might not necessarily result in prison sentences; it might result in more community sentences”. The Justice Committee failed to press him on whether investment in probation and other community-based services wouldn’t be a wiser course to take.

The increased portion of sentences served in prison by violent and sexual offenders (not considered dangerous)  is estimated to require 2,000 more prison places by 2030.  Between the Queens Speech on Monday and the Committee hearing on Wednesday, the Government decided to restrict the group having to serve two thirds from those getting 4 year plus sentences to 7 years plus.   Buckland told the Committee he is “trying to make sure that we create a system that is supported by the resources I need.”

The decision that these prisoners should serve a longer portion of their term was ostensibly made following a Sentencing Review announced by the PM in August. Buckland told MPS that the Review “took the form of very thorough advice to Ministers. It is an internal document”. So, nobody will see it.

As for the Review, Sir Richard had already explained to the Prison Reform Trust that “Given the time constraints it has not been possible to undertake any formal public engagement, but we have conducted telephone interviews with some key stakeholders to give them the opportunity to give their views.” The MoJ have listed the 13 organisations they spoke with in the review.[1]   Noticeable by their absence are any sentencers, and the Sentencing Council. This is despite the Government’s Impact Assessment (IA) acknowledging that “it is possible that as a result of this policy the length of sentences handed down by the courts could be reduced in view of the longer period to be spent in prison”. 

The contrast between the depth and detail of the IA which is consistent with the Treasury Green Book Guidelines on policy development, and the superficiality of the Review (which is far from it), is frankly embarrassing. The IA notes "potential transitional risk to prison stability" with  increased tensions in prison establishments, with consequent impacts on prisoner violence or self-harm; and possible increases in the risk of re-offending; plus a cost over ten years of £710 million. 

Woeful too is the lack of proper consultation about the need and use for more prison places. The Green Book recommends that “research, consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the wider public, should be conducted at an early stage” of policy development. “This provides understanding of the current situation and valuable insights into potential improvements”. The rate of imprisonment in England and Wales - 141 per 100,000 of the population- is second only to Scotland’s among the countries of Western Europe. We need to find ways of moving down that league table of shame not cementing our place near the top of it.

---

[1] The Association of Youth Offending Team Managers; CLINKS; Criminal Justice Alliance; HM Inspectorate of Prisons; HM Inspectorate of Probation; Howard League; Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody;NPS Victim Liaison Officers; Parole Board; Probation Institute; Revolving Doors; Standing Committee for Youth Justice; Victim's Commissioner (Office)