Council Attacks

 

What on earth is Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood doing recommending that the Sentencing Council “reverse” its new guidance on the imposition of community and custodial sentences?

She seems to object to the idea that a court should normally ask for a pre-sentence report in the case of an offender belonging to a cohort at risk of unfair outcomes.

We know that for certain crimes at least, ethnic minority defendants are treated more harshly in the courts than white; and that the pains of imprisonment are particularly severe for women, for young people and for other groups.

I’d have expected a Labour Justice Secretary to welcome guidance which seeks to address these disparities in a constructive manner. But instead it has caused her “displeasure” because she does “not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind”.  The Prime Minister appears to have backed her in a Delphic tweet saying “the British people rightly demand the security of safe streets and justice done. We’ll sort out any system not working in their interests”.

I don’t imagine Mahmood consulted her cabinet colleague David Lammy whose 2017 review found pre-sentence reports “may be particularly important for shedding light on individuals from backgrounds unfamiliar to the judge.”  Instead she accepted the absurd claim from her Conservative shadow that this was irrefutable evidence of two tier justice. If anything it shows the opposite.

I’ve not always been the greatest fan of the Sentencing Council, but this guideline is the best work they’ve done. It strongly encourages courts to use prison as a last resort and should help to replace useless short jail terms with more constructive sanctions outside.

If the government cannot hold the line against an opposition assault about pre -sentence reports, I don’t hold out much hope for the Gauke review.   

Jury's Out

 

I was supposed to have my first experience of jury service this week. Having blocked out my diary for a fortnight as required, I reported dutifully at the Crown Court at 8.30 on Monday morning. The waiting room was soon packed with almost two hundred people, most of whom were slowly but relatively surely allocated to particular courtrooms.

Sitting juries went back to trials which started last week, new ones were randomly distributed among the remaining courtrooms, initially in groups of 16 before being whittled down to 12. The waiting room gradually grew less crowded as trials got underway but plenty of people were still there when my group was told we could go out for lunch.

When we came back, we sat around until 3.30 when a Jury Officer gathered us together to say there were “complications” in the case and we could go home and should return tomorrow at 10 a.m.

On Tuesday, other than a roll call on arrival, there was no communication with my group until noon when we were told we could go home. Our trial was apparently “ineffective”, but they couldn’t say more.

Wednesday saw a more promising start as we were reallocated to a trial in a different courtroom. We would be needed for two to three days- maybe stretching into early next week. An hour or so later we were summoned to sit in the assembly area for those about to go into court. Our time had seemingly come.

Sadly not. Two trials scheduled for our new courtroom had “cracked” – in one the defendant had pleaded guilty, in the other they hadn’t turned up.

We could go home- and much to our surprise were told our service was now over. Apparently, sometimes they summon more people than they need and have spares.  We were told how to complete our expenses forms and that we won’t have to do jury service again for two years. As one of the spares, I headed home to complete my expenses.  

Although I met some interesting people, it hasn’t been the most satisfying of experiences. I’ve no idea how typical it is. I may just have been unlucky.

Lord Leveson’s review of the courts is looking at “how processes through charge to conviction/acquittal could be improved to maximise efficiency. This includes looking at the processes of the courts but also those of partner agencies in the criminal justice system which affect the efficiency of the criminal courts”.

I don’t know if he’ll consider the experience of jurors at all. I for one hope he does.

Reviewing the Situation

 

When New Labour came to power in 1997, they brought with them a raft of detailed plans for reform in many areas of domestic policy. In criminal justice, the most striking example was the radical proposals for strengthening the response to youth crime at national and local level. Within a few months, the government started to put these into practice often favouring local testing before a national rollout.  I remember joking in a talk that the new government had more pilots than British Airways.

27 years on, Keir Starmer’s team appear to have very few oven ready measures to implement. In criminal justice at least, what’s being offered are not worked up ideas for reform capable of implementation - but a series of reviews designed to produce the ideas. More reviews, one might say, than Tripadvisor.

Yes, last year’s election came sooner than anyone expected, but in contrast to the Blair government, there seems little in the way of a proactive agenda crafted during the long years in opposition. The one welcome exception is the creation of the Women’s Justice Board which has been set up to reduce the number of women in prison.

To be fair the Labour Manifesto did promise two reviews – on sentencing and on probation governance. The first is underway. Given its enormous scope, tight timescale and the unpromising political climate on law and order, David Gauke’s task in curbing sentence inflation looks someway between daunting and forlorn.

Another herculean task faces Sir Brian Leveson who has been asked to review the criminal courts. Like Gauke, the terms of reference are wide, the issues both complex and fundamental and the deadline short. He is expected to do much of the work of the Royal Commission on the Criminal justice Process promised by the Conservatives in 2019 but not delivered in any way, shape or form.  

In addition to these two mammoth exercises, separate reviews are underway on the effectiveness of the Youth Justice Board and how girls under 18 in custody should be accommodated. There has been a commitment to review the Single Justice Procedure although this may fall in Leveson’s remit.

There is nothing so far on probation governance although the Justice Secretary has set out what she terms her vision for the service. The Justice Select Committee has asked interesting questions about the potential for English devolution and the steps being taken to advise probation services on the various options available to them in newly devolved local administrations and combined authorities.

While there is a case that Labour should have given more thought to all of these matters before the election, few would disagree with the need for improvements to be made and that reviews could kickstart the process. I’m not convinced that can be said about the latest review to be announced.

Anne Owers will be looking at why prison supply and demand did not meet and make recommendations that may help future governments avoid the cycle of repeated prison capacity crises.  

I am not sure how much this will add to the sum of human happiness.

The National Audit Office and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee have already been looking at how Government is modelling, understanding and planning for the number and type of prison places it needs. The Gauke and Leveson reviews aim to address the substantive reasons for the 2023-24 crisis.

I can only think that this latest exercise is designed to remind the public how badly the last government managed the system in case the current one struggles do much better.   

Youth Justice Futures

 

Back in 2006, I proposed a fundamental shift  in the way we respond to young people in conflict with the law, with responsibility in government moving  from the Home Office to the Department for Education (DfE) .

The outcomes for children which then drove the DfE’s work – being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a contribution and achieving economic well-being – were as appropriate for children in trouble as to any others and a change in the machinery of government was needed to ensure properly joined up policy and practice.  The Youth Justice Board, from which I was standing down after eight years could continue to provide specific leadership on youth crime where necessary but under the aegis of a department promoting opportunities for children rather than focussed on public protection.     

A year later youth justice was moved -not to Education- but to the newly formed Ministry of Justice, along with most matters relating to criminal law and policy apart from policing.  Is it now time for DfE to take over?

Shortly before Christmas, Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood was asked at the Justice Committee whether she might consider such a change. “I think it is a conversation”, she replied. “I am not shutting the door on that conversation. I would be willing to discuss further with DFE colleagues. Ultimately, it will be up to the Prime Minister whether he wishes to make a bigger machinery of government-type change”.  

The next day, Justice Minister Sir Nicholas Dakin announced a review of the Youth Justice Board, led by Steve Crocker a former President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and ex YOT manager. The review will “consider whether the YJB’s statutory functions remain useful and necessary, where these functions should sit, and whether the YJB’ s current delivery model remains appropriate”.  Dakin told MPs the review will also be key to assessing how the YJB and department should work together to deliver ministerial priorities and deliver value for money.

These kind of reviews of arm’s length bodies are usually done by senior civil servants so could Crocker’s appointment signal a wider ranging inquiry into the governance of youth justice?  He will lead “a period of stakeholder engagement across England and Wales”, although I haven’t seen any Terms of Reference or calls for evidence.

For Crocker to recommend a change in departmental sponsorship might be seen as the tail wagging the dog but those of us who would like to see it happen should say so. The Child First framework adopted by the YJB would certainly sit more comfortably alongside childrens social care than prisons.

A recent Parliamentary Question about Young Futures hubs- a hitherto Home Office plan to  prevent children being drawn into crime – was this week answered by a DfE Minister.

I may be reading too much into it, but could it augur broader and long overdue change?

Preventing Deaths in Prison

 

Last August, after the inquest into the self-inflicted death of a prisoner serving an IPP sentence at HMP Swaleside, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Sean Davies.”

They did not remain long it seems. The Prevention of Future Deaths Report (PFD) issued by the Mid Kent and Medway coroner about Mr Davies’ case is one of seven such reports relating to people who’ve died in prison which did not receive a timely response from the authorities last year.

Coroners issue PFD reports when they hear evidence of matters giving rise to concern and form the view that there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. Recommendations can be directed at the Prison Governor, HMPPS and/or the Ministry of Justice- and private prison companies where appropriate.  

They are under a duty to respond within 56 days (though the date may be extended) with details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action- or explain why no action is proposed.

As well as the seven prison cases, the total of 60 “non-responses to PDF reports” published today include two cases where people died shortly after leaving prison and one where a person was serving a community sentence.

Among the issues raised in the prison cases are the inadequacy of staff training in first aid and on the suicide prevention scheme; a lack of national specification in respect of prison healthcare units; and shortcomings in how welfare checks are conducted on vulnerable prisoners.

One of the most far reaching recommendations concerns how the duty of candour after a death in custody applies to the prison service and those individuals working for it whether employed directly or through a private provider.   

It is disappointing that responses have not been made about these important matters on time, all the more so given the Ministry of Justice's responsibility for the Coroner system. 

In a letter to the Justice Committee last month, Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government believes that "Prevention of Future Death reports are vital in contributing to public safety by ensuring that lessons are learned. Our expectation is that recipients will have systems in place to consider the reports they receive, and that they will take very seriously what those responses say about actions that will be taken".

She needs to speak to her colleague Lord Timpson to ensure that the Ministry's own house is in order and that necessary action is taken to keep people safe in prison and after release.