A Bit More on Scrutiny of Criminal Justice

Secretary of State Robert Buckland appears before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Monday. He and Prisons and Probation Minister Lucy Frazer deserve credit for making themselves available to Parliamentary scrutiny before and during the recess, even if their evidence has not satisfied those who wish to see bolder action to safeguard the health of prisoners.  

The Committee has signalled that it will be asking him whether, inter alia, that to protect the right to family life for children of mothers in prison, he will institute early release for non-violent women offenders.

As well as pressing Buckland on this specific question, MPs and Peers may well want to clarify how many prisoners altogether have been released on Corona Virus Temporary Release and whether as was reported at the end of last week the scheme had been suspended.  Buckland will probably say that the prison population has fallen by 1,135 in the last fortnight with a proportionately greater fall among women than men. 

But given that the Howard League and Prison Reform Trust have threatened to seek judicial review of Buckland’s limited action to cut prison numbers in part because it is contrary to human rights duties to protect life and health- especially of those most vulnerable to the disease- the Committee has every right to press him on his plans and their implementation .  

The Human Rights Committee should also take an interest in the conditions facing people who remain in detention and how these are being monitored. The UK National Preventive Mechanism, comprising the 21 statutory bodies that independently monitor places of detention wrote to Buckland on 30 March but have not so far published any reply from him.

As well as raising the need to reduce detained populations to mitigate the inherent risk of maintaining people in close confinement, the NPM asked how the government will ensure skype, adapted mobiles and any other forms of contact are available to prisoners in the absence of visits. Harriet Harman should ask for an update on this as well as how the Prison Ombudsman and Independent Monitoring Boards are fulfilling their duties during the crisis.  

The Justice Committee have an opportunity to put similar questions to Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke on Tuesday when they take evidence from him in their relaunched inquiry on the ageing prison population.  Clarke has so far refrained from making public statements on what prisons should be doing to manage the crisis– ironic given that their inspection methodology across all forms of detention “consists of a series of broad thematic judgements known as healthy establishment tests”.

The Prison Governors Association -who were wrong in my view not to support Clarke’s proposals for one day light touch inspections- were however fully justified in asking him to join with others to seek a significant reduction in overcrowding. I don’t know why he hasn’t done so. MPs should ask him. 

Sir Bob Neill’s committee should also ask whether Clarke has been consulted about the new accommodation that is being constructed at pace to provide hundreds or even thousands of new single cells. If he is going to inspect them, its surely better for the prison service to involve him in their design.

These and many other matters could be raised by MPs - not least Buckland's new shadow David Lammy -in Justice questions scheduled for Tuesday. At the time of writing, they are still on the Order paper, although there's a suggestion they have been postponed.

If that's the case, Lammy should ask an Urgent Question on  the releases at least, as soon as he can.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Update on Scrutiny of Criminal Justice in a Time of Crisis

In these extraordinary times, everyone is having to adapt to the requirements of social distancing- not least the institutions that hold the authorities to account. There’s been much talk today of the need for Parliament to resume as soon and as effectively as possible. Although it’s in recess for another week – normally a period in which neither House meets to conduct business- work has continued not least in relation to criminal justice.

Four emergency Statutory Instruments (SIs) came into force last week; to allow prison governors to release prisoners temporarily; to allow those prisoners to be accommodated in Probation hostels and to access means tested benefits during the period of their release. The fourth enables the increased demand for electronic tagging to be met by a new provider – Attenti .  

There was no opportunity for MPs to debate the measures – and disappointingly no impact assessments attached to the SI’s despite an assurance in the explanatory memoranda that there would be. The Justice Committee were however able to ask questions of Justice Secretary Robert Buckland and Prison and Probation Chief Jo Farrar on Tuesday.  They concentrated on the early release provisions, asking for estimates of the numbers and rates of release, why low risk Category D prisoners were not being prioritised for release, whether all prisoners really need to be tagged.  

The session seems to have formed part of a belatedly established inquiry into the impact of Coronavirus on prison probation and courts,  announced on 31 March – three weeks after the Home Affairs Committee announced their inquiry into Home Office preparedness for Covid19. But at least the Justice Committee has been able to hold two meetings with Buckland and will question prison and probation minister Lucy Frazer this week.  

As well as focusing on how probation is managing to operate in the current climate, Tuesdays’ hearing should also look at three questions that were neglected in last week’s meeting with Buckland.

The first is staffing. Prisons are really struggling with staff either sick or self-isolating. Some staff have been redeployed from HQ into jails and Operation  Quickthorn could be activated to allow troops to backfill "non facing" roles . But under what circumstances would the military be involved, what exactly would they do and under whose authority. Could they assist probation as well?

The second question relates to the 500 new prison places being created, how they will be used and what physical conditions they will provide.  There’s been concern expressed by reformers that expanding capacity in this way will mean that prisoners eligible for temporary release may be kept in prison instead and that the numbers freed will not reach the estimated 4,000 let alone the 15,000 reportedly recommended by Public Health England.

Third, the Justice Committee should ask about the work of the bodies charged with monitoring prisons and probation. Independent Monitoring Boards are continuing to monitor both prisons and immigration detention during the pandemic, though “much of this will necessarily be remote monitoring”. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman cannot read and reply to letters from prisoners who wish to make complaints.   The PPO has also ceased all visits to prisons so their investigation of fatal incidents – including deaths of prisoners from Coronavirus is affected. They “will continue to be informed of all deaths and will open new investigations as normal, but it is likely that we will need to extend our timetables and/or suspend cases until we are able to gather information and investigate safely”.  

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons announced this week that they have created – in collaboration with HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and the Ministry of Justice -an adapted approach for the Coronavirus period, involving short scrutiny visits to prisons. These will focus on core issues such as healthcare, nutrition and hygiene; contact with families, friends and the outside world; legal rights; use of time and the need for meaningful human contact; support for those at risk of self-harm and suicide; and support and risk management for those being released.

What looks like a pragmatic approach from the Inspectorate received short shrift from the Prison Governors Association who consider that the visits are not needed and will put undue pressure on governors and their staff.  Somewhat disturbingly, the PGA’s strongly worded response talked of the "fear of inspection"some of their members have, and the likelihood that no tangible benefits will result from any inspection report. 

Whatever the Governors say, there is no doubt that some form of monitoring must take place. The UN and WHO have stated that monitoring bodies, should continue to have access to places of detention. The Council of Europe’s (CoE) Committee for the Prevention of Torture has said that monitoring by independent bodies remains an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The question must be not whether inspection visits take place but how.  

The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights argued this week that prisons need a humane and comprehensive crisis plan which should be formulated “in consultation and co-operation with relevant human rights stakeholders, in particular National Preventive Mechanisms, other independent monitoring bodies, national human rights structures and human rights NGOs”.

MPs should ask Miss Frazer whether this is the approach that is being adopted in England and Wales- as a concrete example, are the plans for new build accommodation being discussed in advance with inspectors to check they meet minimum standards? 

This would indicate the kind of collaborative approach which is likely to serve the system best during the crisis and protect the health of those involved in it.

Scrutiny of Justice in a Time of Crisis

Good news that the government plans to reduce pressure on prisons by releasing 4,000 low risk prisoners up to two months early.  Credit’s due to the excellent work of the Howard League and Prison Reform Trust among others in pressing the Ministry of Justice to do the right thing.  And on the government side, one has to admire the tactic of wheeling out Michael ‘Prison Works’ Howard to provide political cover for an administration that pre-Covid 19 made so much of the need for prisoners to serve longer spells inside before release.    

But is today’s announcement enough? The uncrowded capacity of the system was 75,380 at the end of February and last Friday the population was 82,589.  So even if numbers fall by 4,000, many prisons may still struggle to avoid enforced cell sharing.     

There are other important questions to be clarified.  Do all the released prisoners really need to wear electronic tags? Is there capacity to achieve that?  What are the strict conditions prisoners will have to adhere to?  What will be the process for assessing eligibility? And most important when will it start?

The government’s press release says that the releases will be phased over time but can start from next week. It also says that the “Statutory Instruments to allow these releases to take place will be laid on Monday.” 

But Parliament is in recess so it’s not clear to me at any rate what procedure will be used to sign them into law. Surely some scrutiny of the government’s proposals is required before it’s done.

As it happens, on Tuesday the Committee will hear from Justice Secretary Robert Buckland about COVID19 and the justice system but “due to restrictions on Parliamentary capacity, partly caused by the virus, the meeting will be held online and in private. A summary note will be published shortly after.”   

This doesn’t seem good enough. On the same day the Transport Committee will be questioning Secretary of State for Transport on the impact of Coronavirus on UK transport. The session will take place virtually and will be broadcast live. There seems no good reason why the Justice Committee meeting should not be scheduled at a time when it can be broadcast too. There is considerable public interest not only in the release but the search for publicly owned sites which can be used to house temporary prison accommodation.   

It may seem churlish to complain about the lack of public involvement when politicians, officials and public servants in all departments are facing such extraordinary pressures. But as Penelope Gibbs has shown in respect of courts, without scrutiny, things can go wrong despite the best of intentions – and sometimes even because of them. Allowing independent access to justice institutions should remain an important priority.  

Chief Prison Inspector Peter Clarke was probably right to suspend his team’s inspection programme but promised to “seek alternative ways of fulfilling our obligation to monitor, understand and report on the treatment and conditions in prisons and places of detention”.  I’d like to see a set of expectations drawn up on how prisons should be dealing with the crisis and some kind of independent monitoring of how they are doing particularly in respect of medical care. For example, the Prison Rules require a medical practitioner “to report to the governor on the case of any prisoner whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or any conditions of imprisonment. The governor shall send the report to the Secretary of State without delay, together with his own recommendations”. How is this being interpreted?

Some input is needed too from the Sentencing Council to ensure a more sparing use of prison is made by judges and magistrates during the crisis. The experience of imprisonment is undoubtedly harsher at the moment with no work or education and more time in cell. Should this not be reflected by courts reducing sentence lengths and wherever possible suspending prison sentences? More radically still, the MoJ should enable custodial sentences to be deferred where a defendant has been on bail. The advantage of releasing low risk prisoners from the back door of prison will be eroded if low risk offenders continue to enter through the front door of sentencing.    

Specifically, the Council should say something about the sentencing of offences related to the Corona Virus Act 2020 or to the emergency more generally.  Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill said last week that he thought Justice Secretary Robert Buckland would want the courts to deal with these “swiftly and condignly”. But that’s less a matter for Neill and the Justice Secretary than it is for the Council who should urgently give it some more measured consideration.      

Criminal Justice in a Time of Crisis

In their excellent briefing paper Coronavirus: Health care and human rights of people in prison, Penal Reform International recommend that during the crisis “Criminal justice systems must adapt the way they operate to prevent doing harm”.

Much of the discussion so far in the UK has been about whether to postpone trials to reduce risk of disease among those involved; and how to protect people in prison from transmission.

On court hearings, the government have decided that Crown Court trials expected to last more than three days will not commence, and more cases will be heard remotely using video technology. On prisons, the government are looking to increase the numbers of prisoners eligible for release on Home Detention Curfew. While both seem sensible measures, they don’t go far enough and in the case of early release don’t address the fact that far too many prisoners have nowhere suitable to go if and when freed.

What’s needed is a systematic approach which looks to reduce demand on the system as a whole allowing it to focus on its core priorities. For police and prosecutors this means diverting many more minor cases away from the courts.

Many Police Forces have recently moved to a two-tier approach of Community Resolutions and Conditional Cautions but in the current crisis the full range of options – simple cautions, fixed penalty notices, drug warnings – should once again be made available.  In 2018 almost half a million court convictions resulted in low level penalties such as fines or discharges. Many of these could have been dealt with through out of court disposals. The CPS is supposed to prosecute only where it is in the public interest to do so. Given what the public interest currently demands, prosecutors should ensure that out of court disposals have been fully considered before agreeing to take a case to court.

Where prosecution is unavoidable, steps need to be taken to reduce custodial remands to a minimum. In 2017, of those who were remanded in custody pending trial or sentence in magistrates' courts, 58% did not go on to be sentenced to prison - over 13,000 people  – and more than one-quarter of people remanded in custody in the Crown Court did not receive a custodial sentence. Without action, postponing Crown court hearings could lead to an increase in the number detained awaiting trial. Bail, with or without conditions (including electronic monitoring) needs to be encouraged wherever possible as an alternative.

At the end of last month, Wormwood Scrubs in West London held 1053 prisoners, not only well over its uncrowded capacity, but unusually, more than its operational capacity -the total it can hold taking into account control, security & the proper operation of the planned regime. A quarter of its population are on remand- increasing that number just now would be reckless.

As for sentencing, courts should be encouraged by the Sentencing Council to suspend prison sentences as much as possible. If unsuspended imprisonment is deemed necessary, convicted persons who have been on bail before court should be permitted to defer their custodial term for six months.  Probation staff should be encouraged to recall people on licence to prison only when they present a risk to the public.

This kind of demand reduction strategy is arguably sensible at the best of times but looks essential over the coming months.  There are ministers in the government who straddle the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. They together with the Law officers and Judiciary need to get on and implement it.  

Staying Afloat - 20 years of Youth Offending Teams

Despite well aired complaints about the volume of change faced by the criminal justice system in recent years, deep seated institutional innovations remain relatively rare. Last night’s anniversary event for the Association of Youth Offending Team (YOT) Managers at the House of Lords, provided the chance to reflect on the 20 years since New Labour’s creation of local multi- disciplinary teams to provide youth justice services, and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to coordinate their efforts.

   

The YJB’s founding chair Lord Warner told us that the inspiration for YOTs came from Kent where he had been Director of Social Services in the 1980’s. His predecessor there, the Reverend Nick Stacey had persuaded police, probation and education staff to work alongside social workers on out-of-court disposals, the provision of court reports and the supervision of children serving community-based orders and after release from custody. 

Following the Audit Commission’s scathing 1996 youth justice report Misspent Youth, the incoming Labour government used the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act to alter fundamentally  the landscape in what Home Secretary Jack Straw called at the time the 'secret garden of youth justice'. Rejecting overtures from the Probation Service to take it over, Straw and Warner opted for a local authority led approach, adding health into the new YOT mix which was rolled out nationally by 2000.   

What’s the verdict after two decades of the new youth justice?

In 2007, I described it as the good, the bad and the ugly. Then, the creation of multidisciplinary teams to address the personal, social and educational deficits which underlie so much offending looked undoubtedly positive; and aspects of the way we locked up children including the gross over-representation of racial minorities in custody was shameful.  

What’s changed since then is the dramatic fall in both the numbers of young people being processed in the formal youth system and the population in the secure estate. YOTs deserve great credit for keeping so many children out of court and out of custody by carefully managing the unintended consequences of their interventions. While there is surely further to go, the 724 under 18s behind bars in December 2019 is a major improvement on the annual average of between 2,500 and 3,000 in the years 2000 to 2008. On custody, it's been a game of two halves.

What of the future?

While acknowledging the strengths of YOTs, Charlie Taylor’s 2016 Review of Youth Justice called for the removal of the duty on local authorities to establish them. He was concerned that some YOTs were alienated from other local authority services, operating within a silo and unable to secure the essential contributions of other services that their multi-agency make-up was intended to guarantee.

His findings echoed academic concerns from 2004 that “ the paradox of an imaginative multi-agency YOT structure that has, in general, weak links with child protection colleagues and a weak commitment to child welfare issues is one of the strangest features of the new English system.’ In similar vein, a survey conducted by the AYM this year identified a reduced sense of ownership of the YOT by the local authorities’ partners.

But Taylor’s recommendation that local authorities be given more flexibility in how they deliver youth justice services surely runs the risk of a return to Straw’s 'secret garden'. At the risk of stretching the metaphor, the government’s pledge merely  “to look at" Taylor's idea puts the proposal to remove the requirement for YOTs into the long grass where it probably belongs.

What does deserve serious consideration is how to enhance the work of YOTs through increased professionalisation of their staff and greater powers and  financial accountability. 

There is a growing case for recognising youth justice as a defined occupation, drawing on, but distinct from the disciplines represented in YOTs -as indeed there is in the secure estate. This is an area the Youth Justice Institute established last year is looking to explore further.

As for powers, the Youth Justice Task Force, that worked up the YOT concept after the 1997 election, argued that young people sentenced to custody should be placed by the YOT on behalf of the YJB; and that the latter should look at recharging some or all the costs of secure facilities to the responsible local agencies, so that custodial provision would no longer be a free good. 

Some steps have been taken in this direction, but a Justice Reinvestment approach could drive further reductions in the use of custody and the development more effective local measures to prevent and respond to youth crime. 

The YJB has been relieved of its duties to commission secure places and there were some mutterings last night about its long-term future. Taylor steps down as Chair in a few days and as far as I know  no successor has been announced. Whatever happens there, YOTs need to be kept afloat.      

"In other prisons you are an animal, here you are human" How Norway supports Prison Reform in Eastern Europe

Norway is well known for its distinctive approach to criminal justice. Fewer than 4,000 prisoners represent just 60 per 100,000 of the population (less than half the rate in England and Wales). Prisoners are mainly held in small and innovative prisons where highly qualified personnel aim to create as normal an environment as possible. Though difficult to measure, apparently very low reoffending rates have attracted visitors from around the world and the “radical humaneness” of Halden and the “nicest prison in the world” at Bastoy attract frequent media coverage.

What deserve to be better known are the impressive efforts Norway makes to promote and support prison reform beyond its borders, particularly in Eastern Europe. Just published is a Rapid Assessment I led last year on a 53 million Euro grant programme to support prison and probation systems in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. 

As a legacy from the communist period, these countries inherited high prison populations, lack of community-based sanctions, inadequate and overcrowded prisons and poorly trained staff. Underpinning these problems has been a historical priority attached to punishment and security rather than rehabilitation. The Norway Grants scheme has helped to make inroads into the punitive culture in four main ways.

First, by improving material conditions. 78 pre- trial detention centres in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania now largely meet European standards on space, ventilation, light, exercise and visits as a result of renovation and new equipment. New and modernised infrastructure has enabled prisons to reduce overcrowding, and better meet basic and healthcare needs- for example via a new kitchen at Bulgaria’s Burgas prison and medical facilities at Sliven Women’s prison. Replacing large dormitories with cell type accommodation in a Lithuanian prison has helped reduce the influence of a negative prison subculture dating from Soviet times. More creative infrastructure was developed in Romania where deep in the Danube Delta, prisoners were trained to use traditional techniques for walls and roofing to build vocational training spaces. Now, the mainly Roma prisoners can benefit from the “human ecology” approach to imprisonment pioneered at Bastoy.  

Second, regimes and services for prisoners have been enhanced, not only through education and training but treatment for addiction and preparation for release. Olaine Addiction Centre was set up to offer treatment for the four out of five prisoners in Latvia with a drug problem. Intensive individual and group programmes are provided for each resident by psychologists and “contact persons”- prison staff -who don’t wear uniforms and play a role more as mentors than as guards. One resident told us “in other prisons you are an animal, here you are human.”

More innovative still is the Lithuanian Mother and Baby Home – a comfortable 5-bedroom detached house purchased with Norway grant funds so that women can serve their sentences without being separated from their young children.  The mothers felt that they could really look after them, buying and cooking food, taking them out to a nearby park, the theatre or other educational activities. As one said, “It’s not like prison it’s like home”.

Third, professional training has involved more than 20,000 participants across the six countries - guards, psychologists and social workers – with courses including first aid and escorting duties, specific treatment programmes, human rights and dynamic security. Poland in particular, has invested heavily in its prison staff training capacity, borrowing heavily from the Norwegian Correctional Staff Academy, while the Czech Republic developed a curriculum for continuing professional training of probation staff. In Bulgaria, a prison service previously cautious about working with and learning from civil society groups embraced the opportunity to do so.     

Finally, Norway has supported alternatives to prison through funding Electronic Monitoring  and investing in probation staff and programmes. In Latvia, if they agree to be monitored, prisoners can apply for conditional release from prison at an earlier stage of their sentence than usual. Since the scheme was introduced in 2015, 267 people have been “tagged”, with a 93% success rate. Only 16 were returned to prison following violations.  

The assessment found that the impact of the programme as a whole was down to much more than Norway’s deep pockets. Bilateral cooperation with Norwegian institutions has provided inspiration, support for policy and practice change, educational content in terms of models and programmes, and connections with relevant organisations and agencies. Some of the more straightforward infrastructure improvements might have been made without input from Norway (and the Council of Europe who were also involved). But new regimes and services for prisoners, alternatives to custody and professional training of staff could not have been developed and implemented to the extent that they were without the involvement of the partners.

A new cycle of grants is now underway which looks to build on what has been achieved. The assessment makes a number of recommendations about how impact in the future can be maximised- and better measured.  But the report is in large part a relatively rare thing. A good news story about prisons.  

Process or Content? Why the Royal Commission should look at Sentencing and Prisons.

Unless I’ve missed it, the government is yet to clarify the scope of the proposed Royal Commission which will review and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process. No one seems sure what lies behind the idea for the Commission, although the Prime Minister has said through it, his government will spare no effort in addressing the profound concerns of millions about the state of our criminal justice system. But what are those concerns and what will be covered?

“Process” suggests the review will look at least at police powers, the role of prosecutors and the way courts go about convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent.  But what about the two areas which are currently near the top of the domestic agenda- sentencing, particularly for serious offenders and the way sentences are implemented through imprisonment, probation supervision and parole.  

Statutory instruments have already been used to toughen punishment for serious sexual and violent offenders sentenced from April and an emergency bill to amend release arrangements for terrorist prisoners will be put before parliament this week. 

But these look like first steps. If, as former Chief Justice Lord Judge told the Lords last month, the ​Government are committed to a wholesale investigation of whether sentencing levels and dates for release are appropriate, changes should not be made through a piecemeal series of secondary legislation as thinking develops. A much more measured and coherent approach is surely needed instead.  A White Paper has been promised but something more profound and less partisan might find consensus on what are inevitably controversial issues.

A recommendation made in a 2014 British Academy report to review sentence lengths in relation to those of other European countries has probably not aged well.  But the Academy’s conclusion that policy making needs to take place in a longer-term context, with greater separation of sentencing policy from the political process is still surely correct.   

Similarly, on prisons, probation and parole, there is a risk of a series of tactical responses to problems as they arise without any strategic thinking about the purpose and structure of penal system. We might see the creation of “one terrorist prisoner management service, covering individualised treatment programmes, risk assessment, release decisions and resettlement supervision” as proposed last week by Ian Acheson, who reviewed Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice back in 2016. Or the transfer of responsibility for the penal system as a whole from the Ministry of Justice back to the Home Office as recommended by Policy Exchange – something possibly made more likely by the National Audit Office’s dispiriting report on the MOJ’s recent efforts to improve the prison estate.

There are arguments for such changes- not strong in my view- but they deserve to be considered in as politically neutral space as possible, as part of a comprehensive assessment of prison and alternatives to it and their links with wider areas such as health, education, employment and social services. Ex-jail governor John Podmore argued last week that two thirds of people going to prison need social inclusion not security. But such a change of emphasis will only come about through some kind of external pressure of the kind that can emerge from a Royal Commission or similar.

There are risks of course. The 1964 Royal Commission on the Penal System in England and Wales was brought to an early close as it was felt that the time was “not opportune for a single review of the penal system” that could draw clear and robust conclusions and recommendations. But maybe its time to start it up again.