Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Friday, May 29, 2009
This was an exceptionally busy week for the Parliament, with the Justice Committee hearing very interesting evidence from the chair of the Prison Commission and others, as part of its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Equal Opportunities Committee also continued to take evidence in relation to its Inquiry into Female Offenders. There were a number of questions in the Chamber, chiefly aimed at attacking the Justice Secretary in relation to the community court and the absconded prisoner. There was also a private members debate about a rehabilitation programme in Strathclyde, and the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is UK legislation, was also finally passed by the Chamber.
Justice Committee
The Justice Committee met in Alloa this week, with the intention of having a meeting away from the Holyrood in order to allow the community to contribute to the Parliamentary process.
Subordinate Legislation
The Committee began their long meeting with consideration of several pieces of subordinate legislation. They related to forms of mutual legal assistance in certain European countries which were not in the EU, and to consequential change resulting from legislation passed in 2007. The Committee passed them without opposition or question. You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report
Stage 1 Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill
The majority of the Committee’s meeting was however, spent in consideration of Stage 1 of the of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. Much of this week’s evidence was in response to last week’s evidence from the judiciary, who were critical of the proposals in the Bill relating to plans for a sentencing council. The first witness before the Committee was the Chair of the Prison Commission, the Right Honourable Henry McLeish. Many of the Prison Commission‘s recommendations have been reflected in the Bill, albeit in a watered down form, most notably in relation to the need to reduce short prison sentences and reform community penalties. The Bill also proposes to create a sentencing council, whose role should be both to provide sentencing guidance for the judiciary, and also to provide clarity for the public.
One of the issues the proposed sentencing council seeks to address is inconsistent sentencing, and Mr McLeish was asked about last week‘s evidence from senior judges which argued there was no statistical proof that such inconsistency existed. He was forced to admit that the Commission did not commission any new research about sentencing inconsistency, but he argued that there was an array of official court data which showed that such inconsistencies did exist. He also cautioned against dwelling on the issue of a sentencing council too closely, saying that the sentencing council was not the most important part of the Commission‘s report, indeed, if he were to drop any one of the report‘s 23 recommendations, it would be the one relating to the Council. However, he said that the most important function of any sentencing council, were it to be created, was to ensure that there was greater transparency for the public. He also said that the hostile reaction from the bench was understandable given their traditional view that Parliament attempts to interfere with their work, and that it was therefore important that the sentencing council should not appear as an ‘ultra-quasi-legal body’ that looks like it is imposing its individual judgements on the work of the courts. He argued that the whole debate about judicial independence was too emotional, and he pointed out that these debates are marked with inconsistency: for example, calls from some MSPs for mandatory custodial sentences for carrying a knife also go against judicial independence.
He also spoke about the recommendations in the report relating to short prison sentences, speaking about the profile of the prison population and his view that the majority of those serving six months or less should not be in custody. He said that new resources are absolutely critical if these plans were to be successful. He was asked about evidence received from Sheriffs who said that everyone who is sent to prison is done so as a last resort, and replied that under the Bill‘s proposals, sentencers would retain the right to sentence for six months or less if they thought it was appropriate. He said there was a need for a massive mind shift in relation to prison and community sentences: prison is a relatively easy concept for the public to understand and has existed for 100 years, but community justice is a more complex and difficult alternative for the public to support, and work needs to be done to convince the them that they are comparable. He also said that although short prison sentences may give the public some respite, they do not provide a longer term solution.
He spoke about the provisions in the Bill for Community Payback Orders, saying these were ‘very much what we had in mind’ when drafting the recommendations about community penalties in the Commission‘s report. He said that community sentences had to be immediate and dramatic in the same way that handing out a custodial sentences is, and he also spoke about the need for a ‘progress court’ for those on community service, which would reduce the number of recalls to custody for those who break the conditions of their sentence.
Mr McLeish was asked his opinion about the Government‘s decision on community courts, and he said that, while he was very much in favour of the community court model, it would be better for reform to take place throughout all the courts in Scotland rather than created a limited number of ‘special’ courts to cater for specific problems.
You can read Mr McLeish‘s evidence in this part of the Official Report
The next panel comprised of officials from three different Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) and from the Association of Directors of Social Work. The representative from the CJAs said they supported the intentions of the Bill, and they said that a sentencing council would both provide much needed clarity to the public and also help to iron out some of the inconsistencies in sentencing which they said the annual Government statistics of each Sheriff court in Scotland highlight. The speakers said that it did not matter whether the Sentencing council was comprised of a judicial majority or not, as long as it contained some lay members.
The witnesses poke about the difficulty of ensuring consistent provision between prison and community, and they said that the CJAs have gone a long way in improving the continuity of care of an offender from the time they are in prison until after they are released. The witnesses from the ADSW said that they would prefer to see a reduction in those serving short custodial sentences than to further increase the co-operation between the SPS and the community, although more co-operation was naturally a good thing.
They also welcomed the new single community sentence, the Community Payback Orders, saying there would be little merit in maintaining the three existing community sentences, although they questioned the value in keeping the DTTO, given that a community payback order could have conditions for drug rehabilitation attached to them. The speaker from one of the CJAs spoke about a survey which they had commissioned into the public‘s perception of a short-term community service visibility project which ran for six months. She said that the CJA were able to raise awareness of community justice by 50% over that period of time, most of which was achieved through newspaper articles. The survey also found that around half the respondents thought that community service was ‘an easy option’, but she also said that over 60% did considered it as an alternative to custody.
The witnesses from the CJAs said they try to involve the whole community to help offenders reintegrate, and they gave a number of examples from their Authorities how they do this. They also spoke of their concern that the funding provided in the Bill for the proposed increase in community sentences, was not sufficient. And their opinion was that, as long as the Bill retained the option of a six month custodial sentence, it would be suitable to have a presumption against their use.
You can read the evidence from CJAs and the ADSW in this part of the Official Report
The final panel of witnesses were academics and the chair of the Howard League, all representing the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice. Professor Fergus McNeil began by saying that the part of the Bill which list the different purposes of sentencing does not in fact provide much clarity or help to sentencers or to the public, because it does not provide any guidance about which rationales should take priority in particular circumstances. He also called for the Bill to include a commitment to the principle of parsimony in its text, arguing that States should always seek to impose the least intrusive sanction that is consistency with justice. He said there was merit in the approach taken by several European countries whereby the system of sentencing begins by stating its aims are to achieve justice and fairness, and then to think about the specific outcomes that can be achieved under that banner through proportionate sentences.
There were different opinions from the witnesses about the merits of a sentencing council, with Professor Spencer saying that before any such council was to be created, there needs to be a political decision to decrease the numbers of people in prison, and then sentencers work together and decide how they are going to achieve this. John Scott from the Howard League also agreed that the sentencing council would be imperfect although he thought it could have a valuable role in communicating sentencing to the public, and possibly also to the judiciary, given that they repeatedly claim to not be aware why the prison population is rising. Professor McNeil was in favour of a sentencing council, but was unsure whether the proposals in the Bill were the best way of creating it, and he argued it was important to ensure that a council was free from political interference, querying whether the Cabinet Secretary should have a role in appointing members. The Consortium was also asked about inconsistency in sentencing, which has proved such a vexed issue so far in evidence for this Bill, and Professor McNeil was able to furnish the Committee with examples of research which showed that sentencing practices do vary beyond what was ‘reasonable and defensible’ given that variation will always exist because no two cases are exactly the same. He also said that so called ‘judge shopping’, where those involved in the courts are aware of different sentencing practices of different sentencers, is common knowledge, and to call such evidence ‘anecdotal’ does give sufficient credence to the fact that inconsistent sentencing exists.
The witnesses spoke about how these proposals were going to be resourced, and one witness said that if the operation of local prisons was handed over to CJAs, the resources for short custodial sentences and community sentences could be merged, which would allow resources to flow more easily between them. Another witness spoke of the massive cost of implementing the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which is estimated at around £47 million, which is between half and a third of the total current budget for criminal justice social work.
The Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will amend the custody provisions in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which is yet to be implemented by the current Administration. The witnesses spoke about the Custodial Sentences Act, calling it ‘dreadful‘ and saying it would have ‘very negative consequences for the operation of the prison service and criminal justice social work’, and another witnesses said that if this legislation were to be implemented, Scotland would be less safe.
You can read the final panel of witnesses‘ evidence in the Official Report. You can also read all the written evidence submitted to the Committee as part of their scrutiny of the legislation, on the Bill‘s Committee page
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry into female offenders
At the same time as the Justice Committee‘s meeting, the Equal Opportunities Committee were continuing their inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. The remit of their inquiry is to:
“assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re-offending.”
The Committee heard firstly from Baroness Corston, who conducted a review of females in the justice system for the Home Office in 2007. She wrote “The Corston Report: a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system” which concluded that there needed to be a ‘radical’ change in the way that women are treated throughout the whole of the CJS, including those at the risk of offending as well as those who have already offended. She told the Committee that there was a powerful argument for a ‘women’s centred’ approach to be taken in the CJS, because historically, prisons have been built by men and designed for men, and they therefore do little to take into account of the differing needs that women display.
One of the recommendations of her report was for small, multifunctional and geographically dispersed prisons, which would hold around 70 – 80 prisoners, which would allow women to maintain their ties with their families and local communities.
She spoke about the mental health difficulties that feature so prominently amongst the female prison population, and she said that there is growing awareness that so called ‘personality disorders’ which relate to a person‘s inability to understand others‘ emotions, can be addressed, whereas in the past they were considered untreatable. She also gave her understanding of why the prison population has increased, saying that women often get harsher sentences than men do for the same crime, and also that more women are being sent to custody because there is no faith in community penalties.
The final panel of witnesses comprised of a spokesperson from the 218 Centre, which is designed to provide a community-based alternative to sending women to prison for short periods, and a spokesperson from the Glasgow City Council social work department. They answered questions about whether alternatives to custody are appropriate to deal with the specific profiles of female offenders, and whether they are used effectively throughout Scotland. They spoke about the innovative work that is carried out in the drugs court, and a the difficulty of sharing best practice throughout Scotland.
The speaker from the 218 Centre said that women who are sent there do not view it as an easy or soft option, it requires more work and is a tougher process for them to go through than spending time in Cornton Vale. She said that many of the women who come to the Centre may be vulnerable and lead chaotic lives, but they can also be incredibly resourceful. She also said that there was no reason the model of the 218 centre could not be introduced throughout the rest of Scotland and that there has already been interest from other local authorities in this regard.
You can read the full transcripts from this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also access all the evidence received so far as part of this inquiry, on the Committee’s Inquiry page
The Chamber
Questions
Community Court
The issue of the community court continued to occupy Parliament last week. During general questions, Margaret Curren (Lab) claimed that the Government‘s decision not to proceed with the community court in Glasgow undermined the Cabinet Secretary‘s credibility, and she argued that the SNP Government ought to heed the will of the Parliament and reverse their decision. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the decision on the Community Court was taken by the project board, which was comprised of representatives from other organisations as well as the Government. He reiterated the Government‘s commitment to community justice, outlining the increase in funding that it has received. In response to a supplementary question from fellow SNP Member Anne McLaughlin, he agreed that the recent reduction in crime reported in the south side of Glasgow shows that the increase in community policing in Scotland is having a beneficial effect.
You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also read the press stories about the community courts in the CJScotland Newsblog
Registered Sex Offenders
Paul Martin (Lab) asked how many recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee‘s report into the management of child sex offenders, which reported in December 2006, have been implemented. This Committee was set up in the previous session of Parliament with the sole remit of examining the management of child sex offenders. Mr Martin, who sat on the Sub-Committee along with Mr MacAskill, complained that he had submitted a written question in March to which he was still awaiting reply. The Cabinet Secretary replied that he too was committed to implementing all of the sub-committee‘s recommendations. He confirmed that 29 out of the 33 recommendations had so far been implemented, and assured the Member that he will receive an official answer shortly.
You can read this question in the Official Report. See also “MacAskill reports on implementation of Justice 2 Sub-committee report on sex offender management 17.03.08” CJScotland Newsblog
You can watch both of these questions, along with all other general questions on Holyrood.TV
Absconded prisoner and the Cabinet Secretary
The leader of the Opposition, Iain Gray (Lab), used his question at FMQs to argue that the case of the prisoner who absconded from the open estate showed that this Government had not done enough to protect the public. He said that lessons had not been learned from the Robert Foye case (in which a prisoner escaped from open prison and raped a teenager), and he argued that the escaped prisoner, who was 3 years into a 10 year firearms offence, should not have been moved to an open prison in the first place. The First Minister replied that the whole Parliament had voted in favour of the changes to the open estate that the Cabinet Secretary announced in the wake of the Robert Foye case, and furthermore that Iain Gray is in no position to criticise the Government about escapes from open prisons given that the numbers of absconders as a percentage of the open prison population, has decreased by 23% under the SNP Administration.You can read the question in the Official Report, and read the press about this story in the CJScotland Newsblog You can watch this, along with all other FMQs, on Holyrood.TV
Coroners and Justice Bill – UK Legislation
Later in the Chamber, the Justice Secretary moved to pass a piece of UK Legislation, which required a Parliamentary vote in Holyrood given that it impinges on three areas of devolved Government. This Bill has already been through the Justice Committee on several occasions, because they rejected a major part of its original content, which related to plans for data sharing.
The Cabinet Secretary outlined the three areas of the Bill which will affect Scotland, saying the legislation will enable any profits that are made from writing and selling criminal memoirs to be recovered from the author, which he said will act as a ‘powerful deterrent’ against the writing of books which glamorise criminal activity and allow profit to be made as a result of it. The Bill also makes changes to the law surrounding the deaths abroad of Scottish service personnel regarding inquests and fatal accident enquiries held in the UK, and also makes some changes to legislation as a result of the EU Services Directive.
The Opposition parties were quick to point out their role in vetoing a former version of the Bill because of the concerns over data sharing, and they denounced the Scottish Government‘s attempts to pass such a significant piece of legislation through the Justice Committee, meaning it would receive minimal Parliamentary scrutiny. However, there was consensus from all parties regarding the amended version Bill, and it was passed without opposition.
You can read the Official Report, and read the information about the Bill on its Ministry of Justice Homepage . You can also watch the debate on Holyrood.TV
Private Members Debate on the Strathclyde Police Prolific Offender Programme
At the end of the day, there was a debate led by John Wilson (SNP) on a programme run by Strathclyde police which is aimed at offenders whose offending is connected to alcohol and drug addiction. He said that he has taken a particular interest in this programme, which has resulted in a 30% reduction in offending rates, particularly in crimes such as shop lifting, housebreaking and prostitution. The project provides intensive support including counselling, education and housing, alongside addiction treatment, though community based outreach work. He said that given the success of the initiative, it was vital that funding for such schemes continues.
The Members that spoke after Mr Wilson also welcomed the programme, and spoke about the importance of a multi-agency approach to dealing with this group of offenders. Robin Harper (Green) argued there was a need for a new type of ‘social accounting’ which looks to the longer term and more dispersed benefits that can be achieved if these sorts of projects are funded upfront.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about fine enforcement in court, and about numbers of violent crime in the Edinburgh and Lothians area. There was a question about how police record reports of domestic abuse, and about the number of DTTOs issued to under 18 years olds. There was a question about the feasibility study of the Glasgow community court, and about whether the Government intends to reverse its decision on the courts or not, and whether it considers the vote by the Parliament on the issue to be binding or not. There were a number of questions about police, including recruitment numbers and assaults on police officers. There were more questions about the police, this time on police retirement and the costing of major events. Finally, there were several questions about the new prison at Low Moss
Posted by KM
on Fri 29th May 2009
at 10:53 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend