In May, I raised concerns about an income generating scheme established
by the Magistrates Association (MA) which involves private Community
Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s) investing in the MA Education and Research Network.
I argued that the MA -which represents the 23,000 lay justices who deal with
90% of criminal cases in England and Wales- should not put itself in a position
where the content of any guidance, information or advice it produces could be
seen to be influenced by commercial considerations.
Yesterday the Network was officially launched at the Supreme
Court. A brochure describing the plans for the Network does little to allay
those concerns.
It is not a problem with research itself. The MA’s Royal
Charter specifically permits the organisation to “promote or undertake study or
research and disseminate the results of such research”. It is the invitation to
become an affiliate of the Network which raises a potential conflict of interest
for the MA.
Affiliates are offered- presumably in return for funding - a
variety of benefits. These include:
* A conduit for valuable research information which may assist in the “development of affiliate businesses or organisations”
* Networking
with other affiliates leading to information exchange, “helping to identify
commercial trends”
* The
ability to commission additional research projects “and own the results” and
* Opportunities
to host seminars or functions in Association with the Network “to promote your
organisation”.
I understand that at least two CRC’s have become affiliates.
It is easy to see why they and other private sector organisations might have an interest in doing so. Only five years
ago, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee reported that “the
Magistrates’ Association raised concerns about the impact that introducing a
profit motive for reducing re-offending may have on meeting the core aims of
the criminal justice system”. The MA’s then Chair had given evidence that sentencers
must have confidence that the sentence will be properly and effectively delivered
and they “did not believe it should be driven by profit”. What better way of winning round a sceptical
stakeholder than helping to fill a hole in their finances?
Moreover in order to help ensure a prosperous shape for future
criminal justice developments, under what better auspices could private companies
showcase their technological innovations – the focus of the Network’s first
year’s work?
The MA will no doubt claim that the research undertaken
through the Network will be independent and rigorous and will test the claims
for these and other products, programmes and measures. Indeed, the Network has
an impeccable academic consultant. She
will presumably ensure that the Network’s research will in all cases be peer
reviewed and published, (even when the results are “owned” by the commissioning
affiliate). Otherwise we may be in in for the kind of controversy seen in the pharmaceutical
industry about access to data and research producing negative as well as
positive outcomes.
The MA will claim too that the Network is an independent company and it is- a wholly owned subsidiary of the MA set up, in part at least, to raise funds for the association. The Network is chaired by a former MA Chair and the Company Secretary is the current MA Chief Executive.
The MA will claim too that the Network is an independent company and it is- a wholly owned subsidiary of the MA set up, in part at least, to raise funds for the association. The Network is chaired by a former MA Chair and the Company Secretary is the current MA Chief Executive.
The objects for which the Magistrates Association is
established and incorporated are to promote the sound administration of the law,
“including, but not restricted to educating and instructing Magistrates and
others in the law, the administration of justice, the treatment of offenders and
the prevention of crime”. Its Charter
makes clear that the income and property of the Association, however derived,
shall be applied solely towards the promotion of those objects.
These provisions may provide the legal wriggle room for the arrangements that have been put in place for the Network. But one is left wondering if the MA has really considered that it looks to be lending its name to the expansion of business opportunities for private companies in criminal justice?
These provisions may provide the legal wriggle room for the arrangements that have been put in place for the Network. But one is left wondering if the MA has really considered that it looks to be lending its name to the expansion of business opportunities for private companies in criminal justice?
No comments:
Post a Comment