Critical Reviews

 

If Labour forms the next government what will happen to sentencing and the prison population? Much will depend on the outcomes of two reviews which its manifesto says it will carry out. One is a review of sentencing “to ensure it is brought up to date.”  The other is a strategic review of probation governance, “including considering the benefits of devolved models.” The terms of reference for each of these and who does them and how quickly, could determine the penal direction of Starmer’s premiership.

On sentencing, Labour think that when criminals are found guilty, “the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public. This is particularly worrying for offences against women and girls”. They aren’t clear whether their review will focus only on such offences or take a broader look at sentencing levels across the board.

Either way, given that “tough new penalties for offenders” are seen as one of the measures Labour hyperbolically deem necessary to “take back our streets”, there is a risk that the review will simply lead to more people going to prison for longer through increased maximum sentence lengths.

What’s surely needed is a genuine and dispassionate assessment of sentences and their enforcement and of what needs to be done to ensure that they make sense to victims and the public apart from making them harsher. 

For one thing prisons can’t cope with more sentence inflation and Labour’s plans to increase capacity look unconvincing. More fundamentally, the prison population rate in England and Wales (and Scotland) is already very high. The latest Council of Europe statistics find they are the only jurisdictions in Western Europe with a rate more than 25% higher than the median value in CoE countries. Let’s hope the review takes account of the financial, social and ethical costs of imprisonment as well as superficial views of what the public say they want.

Why not ask the Sentencing Council to do it rather than civil servants? It would provide an element of independence which might prevent the review coming to an entirely foregone conclusion. The last sentencing review conducted by civil servants before the 2019 election was a travesty, involving no research or evidence paper, no meaningful consultation and no outcome published. When I tried to get a copy a judge ruled that “publication would present  a significant risk of undermining the confidential space needed by the MOJ to discuss and formulate policy in this controversial area”. The decisions taken after that review - to increase the proportion of sentences served in prison for sexual and violent offenders- led in part to the prospect of an unmanageable prison population. Let’s hope we don’t go further down that dismal road.

As for the strategic review of probation governance, the mood music is considerably better. The former Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell (a one-time Labour staffer) wrote last year that “the time has come for an independent review of whether probation should move back to a more local form of governance and control, building on the highly successful lessons of youth justice services.”

On this I’d like to see a broader look at the case for a more integrated local response to supervision in the community. Why not Adult Offending Teams as well as YOT’s? A more genuine effort to meet the needs of people on probation would almost certainly lead to less re-offending and recall- although the review could usefully look again at the desirability of imposing breachable supervision following all short sentences.

Consideration of the benefits of devolution could even include building in more local responsibility for the funding of prisons through so-called Justice Reinvestment.

If Russell is interested and available, could he be the person to lead the review?