There’s much of interest in the new
Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) Report “What happened to the Rehabilitation Revolution?
While the opening chapter’s title - “The recent history of disappointing
progress”- grossly understates the scale of the current penal crisis, several
of the initiatives proposed by Jonathan Aitken and John Samuels are surely prerequisites for resolving it. Improving
the numbers, training, status, pay and conditions of prison officers and fixing
the failures of the remodelled probation service are now widely agreed to require
urgent attention. Ending the injustice
faced by tariff expired IPP prisoners is also long overdue. If CSJ’s political connections
can ensure further action in these areas, so much the better.
But what of the more controversial
of the report’s ideas, in particular the expanded role it envisages for judges
and magistrates. CSJ propose that courts
should monitor and review the sentences they impose, authorise recalls to
prison for offenders in breach of their licence requirements, and hear
applications both for early release from prison and for limitations on the
impact of criminal records. John Samuels
has been a longstanding champion of problem solving courts and is
understandably frustrated at the mixed messages from government about their prospects.
But with tight budgets, court closures
and digitisation, is the judiciary in any kind of position to take on these additional
tasks?
Despite some heroic cost benefit assumptions-
based it has to be said on experience in the very different context in the USA-, there’s no doubt that increasing court lists would require something in the way of upfront
funding. In his final annual report Lord Chief Justice Thomas wrote recently that
“the just, effective and timely delivery of criminal justice remains of real
concern to the judiciary”. Taking on more duties is hardly likely to alleviate such
concerns.
There’s a broader question too
about how far courts should become involved in the implementation of sentences.
There is a strong case for courts to
decide whether people who don’t comply with probation conditions should be
returned to jail. But there is a balance to be struck between judicial and
executive responsibilities in the management of offenders. The continental system
of penal execution judges may not be desirable let alone affordable in England
and Wales.
Rather than invest in additional layers
of judicial accountability, the government might do better to enable more cases
to be kept out of court altogether. In a
forthcoming report for Transform Justice, I’ll be arguing that there is scope
for diverting many more low level offenders. Since
2010, the numbers of convictions and out of court disposals have both fallen
sharply but while the former have gone down by 12%, the latter have declined by
47%. Less than a fifth of cases were
dealt with out of court last year compared to more than a quarter seven years
ago. Increasing numbers who appear in
court get fines and discharges – 85% of summary offences and 30% of either way
offences. Why not deal with some of these more cheaply and speedily without prosecution?
Re-offending rates are no worse and
victims somewhat more satisfied. David Lammy’s report last week argued that greater
use of suspended prosecution- along the lines of Operation Turning Point in the West Midlands -could help to reverse the gross racial
disproportionality that scars our system. But reviving diversion would benefit
all.
Suspended prosecution is in fact part
of the government’s long term plan- seven years and counting in the making- for streamlining out of court disposals. But to work as intended, police and prosecutors will
need to be able to point people at rehabilitative or restorative activities
that can help them stay out of trouble – whether it’s cutting down on drinking,
keeping their temper, or finding work. Funding
such approaches with funds released via fewer prosecutions is the way forward.
Not problem solving courts but problem solving, out of court.
