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?
