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.
Excellent piece of work, Rob. Thank you so much. Our politicians seem to have completely lost interest!
ReplyDelete