Last January, confronted with the
disgusting conditions at HMP Liverpool, Prisons Minister Rory Stewart told MPs
that the neglect of basics in prisons had resulted from too much talk “about grand issues of
sentencing policy, reoffending and the policy context”. A year on, Stewart feels compelled to indulge in just that
talk himself, telling the Telegraph he is “looking very carefully” at imposing a new legal presumption on English and Welsh courts
against sentences under six months - and potentially longer.
Stewart has come round
to the view expressed by the Council of Europe after their 2016 visit to the UK that prison reform will be unattainable without concrete steps to significantly
reduce the current prison population. Also of course, many of the ten prisons on which his own ministerial performance will be judged in the summer
have large numbers of short term prisoners. The case for dealing with most of
them in the community has been very well made by the Revolving Doors Short Sighted campaign.
So what happens now? First, Stewart and boss David
Gauke will have to persuade government colleagues to legislate for the
necessary changes, and MPs to back them. In 2011, five newly elected Tory MPs
wrote “It has been argued in the past that instead of short prison
sentences, there should be a presumption against sending criminals to prison.
We should take exactly the opposite approach and ensure that persistent
offenders are imprisoned for prolonged periods of time”. All those expressing that view are current
or former ministers. Stewart will have to win them over and hope for a
following wind from Labour. It was Ed Miliband’s opportunistic attack on Ken Clarke’s progressive
penal policy that killed of the last serious effort to reduce prison numbers
eight years ago.
Second the Ministry of Justice will need to find the technical
mechanisms to bring about the reduction of short sentences in practice. In
Scotland, since February 2011 a court must not pass a sentence of imprisonment
for a term of 3 months or less unless it considers that no other method of
dealing with the person is appropriate. But five years on, in 2016/17,
almost three and a half thousand people received such sentences including 750
for shoplifting and 689 for breach of the peace. That year, these very short sentences still accounted for 28% of
prison sentences compared to 34% before the presumption against their
use. The overall number of
custodial sentences has fallen from about 15000 to
12000 but this reflects a fall in court cases. Yes, community
sentences have risen, but many have probably replaced fines rather than
custody.
So Scotland may not provide the best model. The MoJ should look at other approaches too. One is to be more explicit about how serious an offence must be before courts can impose a prison term. There is no general definition of where the so-called custody threshold lies. While Sentencing Guidelines say that “the clear intention … is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences”, almost a thousand people were in prison at the end of March last year for shoplifting, 25 for theft of a bicycle and 11 for possession of cannabis. A higher hurdle is surely needed.
Another problem is that courts must regard an offence as more serious if
committed by someone with relevant previous convictions. Modifying this
requirement so that courts may – but do not have to – punish repeat offenders
more harshly is another route to consider.
A further option would be to encourage more suspended sentences. Currently, if the court imposes a term of imprisonment of between 14 days and 2 years, it may suspend the sentence for between 6 months and 2 years. Perhaps replace “may” with “must” other than where the interests of justice require immediate custody?
A further option would be to encourage more suspended sentences. Currently, if the court imposes a term of imprisonment of between 14 days and 2 years, it may suspend the sentence for between 6 months and 2 years. Perhaps replace “may” with “must” other than where the interests of justice require immediate custody?
I’d also like to see reinstated the principle that courts
should take overcrowding and other painful realities of prison life into
account when determining the punitive weight of a sentence.
A third task for the MoJ is to ensure that a wide range of properly resourced community-based measures are available and their availability communicated to courts. Problem- solving courts seem to have faded as a policy idea but if short sentences are to go, more, and more thorough, pre- sentence reports will be needed. So too perhaps a more systematic role for courts in reviewing the progress of sentences. The new probation contracts shortly to be let must take account of the MoJ' s new sentencing policy and provide resources to match it.
Earlier this week, the Chief Inspector of Probation wrote to the Justice Committee that “with Brexit and other uncertainties, the proposed transition to new probation arrangements is not necessarily certain”. Still less certain to be taken forward perhaps are Mr Stewart’s grand issues of sentencing. They deserve to be. As was pointed out last year “Prison can become a ripe place for criminal education, serious and organised crime, and radicalisation, rather than rehabilitation”. By whom? No less than the National Police Chiefs Council.
A third task for the MoJ is to ensure that a wide range of properly resourced community-based measures are available and their availability communicated to courts. Problem- solving courts seem to have faded as a policy idea but if short sentences are to go, more, and more thorough, pre- sentence reports will be needed. So too perhaps a more systematic role for courts in reviewing the progress of sentences. The new probation contracts shortly to be let must take account of the MoJ' s new sentencing policy and provide resources to match it.
Earlier this week, the Chief Inspector of Probation wrote to the Justice Committee that “with Brexit and other uncertainties, the proposed transition to new probation arrangements is not necessarily certain”. Still less certain to be taken forward perhaps are Mr Stewart’s grand issues of sentencing. They deserve to be. As was pointed out last year “Prison can become a ripe place for criminal education, serious and organised crime, and radicalisation, rather than rehabilitation”. By whom? No less than the National Police Chiefs Council.
Well done, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI'd go further. The probation reforms cannot safely progress until they fully incorporate Stewart's new approach, in a fully tested and costed way. Anything else deceats aims of both programmes. To rush through TR2 would be demonstrating the same behaviours as the worst repeat offenders. Brave words from Stewart but it now needs braver action. Many willing to support a new approach if they're convinced he's serious. A key early test will be slowing the TR2 programme.
ReplyDelete