Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a common and serious health issue. It affects millions of people and carries an economic and social cost of £15 billion a year nationally. People who have sustained a traumatic brain injury have a greater likelihood of mental ill health and of offending, as well as suffering from many other life difficulties.
Barrow Cadbury Trust and Centre for Mental Health recently organised a roundtable for experts from the West Midlands, hosted by the University of Birmingham, to discuss the implications of recent research about TBI and how support might be improved in the West Midlands region.
Addressing TBI in an effective (and efficient) way requires collective action across public services. No agency or sector can deal with it alone. We need a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, early identification and effective support from early childhood and throughout life.
West Midlands Devolution
The West Midlands devolution deal presents a unique opportunity to take a ‘whole place’ approach to TBI. The Combined Authority has already prioritised mental health and youth justice as cross-sector issues it aims to address across the region. Developing an effective response to TBI would contribute to both and to the overall wellbeing of the population.
Preventing head injuries is challenging but action to reduce risk would include measures to tackle domestic violence (the cumulative impact of physical abuse has been noted as a significant problem for women in prison), to promote positive parenting and to tackle bullying in schools. These also have a major impact on emotional wellbeing and future life chances. Improved support for children with ADHD and autism spectrum disorders can also reduce the heightened risk of TBI in these groups of young people. All of these actions should also reduce health inequalities by addressing the greater risks among people in the most deprived and marginalised communities in the West Midlands.
For those who do sustain head injuries, and particularly those who have experienced multiple traumas, identification is vital to ensure that effective support is offered and adjustments are made to reflect their vulnerability. Schools, hospitals, police stations and prisons can all ask simple questions to screen for head injuries. This can help them to ensure they offer support where it is needed, for example to manage a child’s behaviour in school and avoid excluding a young person whose behaviour results from a head injury where some additional support might be of benefit.
TBI and the Criminal Justice System
It is estimated that up to 60% of prisoners have sustained head injuries. It is therefore vital that the whole of the criminal justice system works with an awareness of TBI and an ability to respond effectively. Liaison and diversion teams, for example, can screen for TBI alongside other vulnerabilities. Prisons can offer all of their staff (including not just prison officers but education and other workers) training about TBI as part of becoming an enabling environment. Specialist linkworkers in prisons have also been found to provide effective support to individuals with TBI. And for people leaving prison, robust support is essential to help them to adjust to life outside and cope with the demands and difficulties they will face.
There are a number of initiatives already in place to build upon: HMP Drake Hall provides all staff with training in working with trauma and supports women prisoners who have experienced abuse and violence. The Geese Theatre Company provides ‘safe spaces’ for prisoners to explore their emotional wellbeing and what would help them to get back in control of their lives. And there are specialist services for offenders in the community, including for women, that offer peer support and help with health issues, that could provide more bespoke support for those with head injuries.
The significance of TBI is only beginning to be understood. But it is now clear that joint action that brings together local authorities, NHS organisations, schools, the criminal justice system and voluntary and community bodies (among others) will be essential to develop an effective response. From public health teams including TBI in local needs assessments and Health and Wellbeing Strategies to schools providing extra support to children who have sustained head injuries, we can bring about a bigger focus on prevention and early help. And by working across the justice system, we can enable some of the most vulnerable and prolific offenders to get their lives back on track.
Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are here to stay. The new Prime Minister Theresa May was responsible for their introduction in November 2012 and views them as an important part of her legacy as Home Secretary. The Labour Party has now said that it supports them. Even if any new government did want to change the model, the next wave of PCCs will be elected on the day that has been set by Parliament for the next General Election in May 2020. Even critics of PCCs recognise that the big question is how to improve the model rather than go back to the pre-2012 position.
One important reason for the consolidation of the PCC model is that the sky has not fallen in. There is no evidence that PCCs are systematically ‘politicising policing’, which was the great fear prior to their introduction. However, I want to argue not just that PCCs have ‘done no harm’, but rather that they have been a quiet success story.
First, they have considerably strengthened the accountability of the police service to the public. It is my view that the old police authorities lacked the focus and legitimacy to hold chief officers’ ‘feet to the fire’. Although there is no clear way of measuring the distribution of power in the police service, it is clear to me that the introduction of a new ‘big beast’ into the local policing jungle has made chief constables much more accountable than they once were. Second, they have increased public engagement. It was said at the time of the old police authorities that one received as little as a letter a week from members of the public. Any PCC will tell you that their correspondence is of a different order of magnitude.
As a number of the blogs published on the Police Foundation website written by PCCs demonstrate (see links below), having a single point of contact and a directly elected politician with a powerful public voice has increased public participation in policing debates that used to happen behind closed doors.
Third, PCCs have unlocked innovation in policing policy. Having a full time public official focused on public safety, armed with commissioning budgets and considerable ‘soft power’, has led to new ways of doing things. It is this topic which is explored in more detail in the ‘Reducing crime through innovation: the role of PCCs’ briefing, where we seek to understand the scope and drivers of innovation since 2012, as well as the challenges that remain.
And PCCs do face considerable challenges. Demand on the police has changed considerably since the PCC model was developed, with a fall in traditional volume crime and the rise in reported ‘high harm’ offences, often committed in private spaces and increasingly enabled via the internet. This requires a major re-think about policing priorities and operating models. Moreover, the increased complexity of police work means there is a pressing need for the connectivity – between the police locally and other public services – and between police forces as a network to deal with serious crime and deliver specialist capabilities. That will require further changes to both local and national governance, as well as new models of delivery. We hope that the discussion in the briefing will help illuminate some of the ways in which these challenges might be met.
Read guest blogs by five Police and Crime Commissioners on the Police Foundation website:
- Stop and Search- getting it right, Paddy Tipping, Notts PCC
- Sexual assault and the night time economy – small ideas make a difference, Vera Baird, Northumbria PCC
- Reducing crime through innovation: the role of PCCs, Jane Kennedy, Merseyside PCC
- How can PCCs better support innovative working within their communities?, Angus Macpherson, PCC for Wiltshire & Swindon
- Driving positive change – the PCC role is about more than holding the police to account, Katy Bourne, PCC for Sussex
For ten years, the Barrow Cadbury Trust has supported more than 40 research, demonstration and policy projects focused on improving outcomes for young adults involved in crime. These projects have included research on the distinct needs of young adults (e.g. by exploring neurodevelopment and brain injury among young people in custody), ethnicity (such as a study on the impact of Islamophobia on criminal justice decision-making) and gender (including looking at the distinct needs of young adult women in prison). A major focus of the programme has been on improving criminal justice practice, such as projects to support probation and sentencers to take account of developmental maturity and not just chronological age, and trialing innovative approaches to policing.
This growing body of evidence forms the basis of the ‘Transition to Adulthood’ (T2A) campaign, which promotes a more effective approach to young adults aged 18-25 at all stages of the T2A Pathway – a framework mapping 10 stages of the criminal justice process, from point of arrest to resettlement from custody, where a young adult specific intervention can be delivered that is distinct from the system as it relates to both children and older adults. In England and Wales this has contributed to significant policy and practice reforms. Currently, the House of Commons Justice Select Committee is concluding a major inquiry on Young Adult Offenders, to which T2A has provided extensive written and oral evidence. Across England and Wales a growing number of Police and Crime Commissioners, probation services and prisons are developing specific young adult services and interventions to better meet the needs of this group. T2A’s own pilots have shown that by taking such an approach, re-conviction rates are reduced, and positive outcomes in areas such as employment and health are achieved.
One area of focus for T2A for the next few years will be on the courts. There have been many positive developments that have affected the courts in recent years. In 2012, the Sentencing Council for England and Wales introduced for the first time a new mitigating factor in sentencing guidelines for adult offenders ‘age and/or lack of maturity’. In 2013, ‘maturity’ was included as a new factor in culpability considerations in the Crown Prosecution Service Code of Conduct. In 2015, the Ministry of Justice announced that the National Probation Service would be required to produce a maturity assessment for all young adults age 18-24 pre-sentence. This context provided fertile ground for a study in 2015, conducted for T2A by the Centre for Justice Innovation, examining the feasibility of establishing a young adult specific criminal court.
A young adult court would adapt the ‘procedural fairness’ principles of youth settings, which would include elements such as specialist listing arrangements so that it would only see 18-25 year olds, would likely take place in a youth court building or setting, and sentencing would be conducted by ‘youth ticketed’ magistrates. Other elements could include more integrated family involvement, more focused pre-sentence court assessment and the availability of specialist young adult disposals. ‘Procedural fairness’ adaptations of this kind, where trialed elsewhere, have shown positive impacts on reducing re-conviction rates, even where the sentence awarded does not differ. Research has shown that a defendant who understands the court process and believes the court has treated them fairly is far more likely to subsequently comply with the sentence given, even if they disagree with the decision.
Since early 2016, CJI has led a major new T2A initiative funded by Barrow Cadbury Trust to establish a network of young adult courts, an idea that has the backing of central government and the court services. Following a call for expressions of interest to court areas to take part in a local feasibility study, far more areas than expected sought to develop a pilot with many bids led by Police and Crime Commissioners. This level of interest illustrated the real desire among court professionals to develop the feasibility study into a pilot. From their point of view, not only was this approach ideologically right, but it tied in with broader policy agendas, such as improving outcomes for groups with the highest recall and breach rates (where young adults lead the way), efficiency savings (which could be achieved by focused, specialist listings), and utilising empty youth courts and specialist magistrates (both of which are currently under worked following the welcome 70% fall in five years in the number of children entering the criminal courts).
Ultimately, five sites have been selected, and are now working intensively with CJI to complete local needs analyses and feasibility, leading to an options paper for each site at the end of 2016. These will set out how the sites can move forward to become operational. Once live, each court would manage around 2,000 young adults per year, and an independent academic evaluation will monitor re-conviction outcomes with support from the Ministry of Justice’s Justice Data Lab. Aside from support locally from CJI and the costs of the evaluation, the sites will be operating entirely within existing resources.
We hope that by demonstrating a significant reduction in re-conviction rates, young adult specific criminal courts will become part of mainstream practice, and that many other areas will seek to develop models to suit local need, adding further to a growing momentum for the T2A agenda.
Until December, 2015, the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (SMR) were those which had been adopted in 1955. The process of bringing them up to date took five years and four expert meetings. Quakers, acting through the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC) were involved throughout the process. This account describes the process of updating the SMR, with a focus on prison officials’ duty to maintain safety.
Revision was controversial. Many states argued that the SMR retained their full authority and should not be changed. An open-ended expert group was convened in Vienna, in January 2012, to examine the status of the SMR. The argument for revision built on two factors: first, concepts of human rights had evolved in international instruments since the SMR were agreed; and second, knowledge about managing prisons had moved on.
The first expert meeting agreed that while many of the SMR were fine as they were, some changes were needed. A targeted revision would be restricted to nine areas:
Dignity; Healthcare; Discipline (including solitary confinement); Investigation of deaths and evidence of torture; Needs of vulnerable groups; Legal representation; Complaints and inspections; Replacing outdated terminology; and Training of staff.
A principle was established that no change could lower existing standards. States and NGOs were invited to submit proposed rule changes to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
The 1955 SMR did not require that prisons be safe. The text included rules about prison discipline to maintain order, but no explicit statement of a duty to maintain safety. Hence, the SMR did not meet the standard set by the Bangkok Rules for the treatment of women offenders, which declared the right of women “to be free of victimisation while imprisoned” (Bangkok Rules, Preliminary Observations, para 9).
Quakers, joined by Penal Reform International, called for a new rule, establishing prison safety as a duty of states. There were two main reasons: first, the dignity of people in custody depends on their being safe; second, the deprivation of liberty places people in a vulnerable position and therefore the state assumes a duty to protect them. In 2001, Penal Reform International had argued: “When the State deprives a person of liberty, it assumes a duty of care for that person. The primary duty of care is to maintain the safety of persons deprived of their liberty” (PRI, 2001: Making Standards Work; see also ECHR, Salman V Turkey, 27 June 2000, para 99).
But would states agree to undertake such a duty? Could the delegates be convinced that it was even possible to run prisons safely?
In September 2012, prior to the second expert meeting, Quakers submitted a paper listing developments in prison practice which contributed to safety:
“Prisons can be made safe by meeting people’s basic human needs; teaching more effective ways of managing conflict; confronting tactics that escalate disputes; and establishing formal mechanisms within prison which facilitate and promote conflict resolution.”
At the second expert group meeting (Buenos Aires, December 2012) there was a shift in mood. There was a strong commitment to producing a new set of SMR. The chair, Victor Abramovich, was dynamic and positive in approach. He guided the experts to find areas in which there was agreement, and to take note of others where there were strong differences.
A document prepared by the UN Office for Drugs and Crime provided a compendium of rule changes proposed by states and NGOs. The second meeting also drew on a paper produced by experts (including FWCC) convened by the University of Essex. During the second expert meeting, a Quaker oral statement drew attention to the important role prison staff perform in challenging the harmful behaviour that escalates into violence.
A third meeting was convened in Vienna, in March, 2014. This was a drafting session. Rules were proposed in full; the wording was debated in detail; but only a few new rules were produced. The revision was far from complete. The meeting did agree on a new rule that:
“Prison administrations are encouraged to use, to the extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms to prevent disciplinary offences, as well as to prevent and resolve conflicts.”
A fourth expert meeting was arranged, sponsored by the Republic of South Africa. The experts met in Cape Town (March 2015). Judge Dunstan Mlambo chaired this session with wisdom, patience and authority. Differences were raised, debated, and resolved. The difficult questions included: should health care be free to the prisoner? Should inspections be independent? On what aspects should prisoners be able to benefit from legal advice? What does solitary confinement mean?
The meeting was scheduled to run from the 2nd to the 5th. We made amazing progress, working steadily through the rules. The UNODC Secretariat read out proposed text, amendments were suggested, debated and agreed, and we moved to the next rule. On safety, the Secretariat’s working paper included under Rule 1 a basic principle that “The safety and security of prisoners, staff, service providers and visitors shall be ensured at all times.”
On the morning of the 6th of March, at about 3 a.m. the 4th expert group concluded its work. A new set of standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners had been agreed, henceforth to be called the Nelson Mandela Rules. The revised SMR were agreed as a whole by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in May 2015, and then adopted by the UN General Assembly in December, 2015. Now the challenge is to promote them as a tool to improve prison practice.
Recognition of the Nelson Mandela Rules will form part of the celebrations of Nelson Mandela International Day for Freedom Justice and Democracy on 18 July.
Improving the lives of women and girls in the criminal justice system will involve more than “new rehabilitation techniques and smarter ways of managing prisoners” as was suggested by David Cameron in his recent prison reform speech.
Listening, understanding, validating, valuing and holding hope for women when they can’t hold it for themselves may be more compelling ways of making a difference, according to debates among practitioners and academics at a conference at Sheffield Hallam last week. Undoubtedly, for the most serious and dangerous female offenders, imprisonment may be an appropriate and necessary response. However, this is a minority group within the current prison population and we need to be mindful that experiences of trauma (often as a result of relationships) feature strongly in many women’s pathways into crime.
The experiences of mothers in prison
The experience of imprisonment can ‘re-traumatise’ women by separating them from their children and requiring them to ‘fit in’ with a system which has been designed for men. At the conference, a former prisoner described how the allotted time for phone calls home was between 3 and 4 in the afternoon, precisely the time when children would be walking back from school so not at home to take the call. She also described how she was rushed into making a decision about whether to apply to keep her baby with her in a Mother and Baby Unit during her prison sentence and how prison staff ‘advised’ that her baby may be better off being cared for in the community.
We heard about one woman who had been returned to prison after giving birth to her baby and put in a cell without being given sanitary towels, another who was placed in segregation, just a few weeks after giving birth. Given the dehumanising nature of these experiences, it’s clear that a crucial element of support for women in conflict with the law should be for this harm to be repaired by creating new, nurturing relationships which offer hope for a different way of relating, as women attempt to build a better future for themselves and their children.
What’s needed and what’s missing?
For example, key workers in women’s community centres and staff in prison Mother and Baby Units can provide positive templates for healthy relationships. Interventions which foster connection and communication between imprisoned mothers and their children are also essential. But it’s not just these interpersonal relationships which matter but also the relationship which society has with women in conflict with the law. What we ‘do with’ women lawbreakers needs to be considered in the context of how women’s lives (and inter alia their experiences of prison) are different from men’s.
David Cameron’s proposal for increasing the use of community sentences for women offenders (especially those with young children) is welcome. However, what’s missing is an explicit recognition that women who commit crime are often already traumatised by their experiences as victims of crime, particularly domestic and sexual assault at the hands of men. For some women, prison is the best home they’ve ever had and, in a shocking indictment of the systems which are meant to protect women, the safest place they’ve ever known. Thus a commitment to addressing the violence and abuse of women and girls, including preventative measures as well as responsive ones, is a serious omission in his proposals.
Creating a positive future
As the primary care-givers of children women are disadvantaged in the workplace which means that women in conflict with the law have limited opportunities for creating more positive futures for themselves. And policy drive in criminal justice has a strong male bias. So I wonder if, as the Government considers its ideas for “full-on prison reform”, is it not about time that wider issues of inequality and social injustice (and the gendered nature of these) become a key part of criminal justice rhetoric?
Going to court can be confusing, intimidating, and frustrating for anyone. For young adults (aged 18 to 24), who make up roughly a third of people sentenced in criminal courts each year, these reactions are intensified.
Criminal justice interventions aimed at adults but applied to this age group often fail to prevent further offending. In fact young adults serving community orders have the highest breach rates. We believe these two facts are related.
Our courts can and should play a leading role in reducing crime and ensuring a fairer justice system. There is clear evidence that how decisions in court are made and how the process feels to participants (a concept known as procedural fairness) can be as important as the sentence itself to young people’s perceptions. A number of studies have demonstrated that defendants reporting high levels of procedural fairness are more likely to comply with court orders, to perceive laws and legal institutions as legitimate authorities, and to obey the law in the future. But we know that standard practice in adult courts generates a number of important barriers: the process can be difficult to understand and follow, intimidating, and leave participants feeling disengaged and unfairly treated. This is particularly important for young people, who are especially attuned to perceptions of unfairness and signs of respect.
In a new report, [Young adults in court: developing a tailored approach], we outline a number of feasible adaptations to standard court practice for young adults. These include measures such as use of simplified language to aid participants’ understanding, taking steps to ensure the process is comprehended, encouraging family participation, and adapting the courtroom environment to make it more conducive to engagement. Taken together, we believe that these adaptations hold out the prospect of increasing perceptions of procedural fairness and improving rehabilitation for this distinct population.
Many of these changes are relatively modest. And much of this practice already exists, at least in aspiration, in our youth courts. Since the youth court was established by the Children Act 1908, we have learned much more about the variable and protracted development of the young brain, and undergone more than a century of social change. Today, a hard cut-off between jurisdictions based only on chronological age makes increasingly less sense. Aspects of justice system practice in England and Wales have adjusted in recognition of this – for example, adult sentencing decisions include maturity as a mitigating factor, and the Crown Prosecution Service takes maturity into account as part of its public interest test. But this approach has not yet reached the court process itself.
In the course of our research, we spoke with many court stakeholders who inherently recognised a need to develop a tailored approach for young adults, and who were enthusiastic about delivering adapted practice. The Lord Chancellor has recently lent his support to the concept of specialist “problem-solving” courts which would play a more active role in the process of rehabilitation. We hope that this may signal a willingness to allow interested areas to pilot new approaches. To this end, in the next phase of this work, the Centre for Justice Innovation and the Transition to Adulthood Alliance are keen to work with a small number of courts to plan, implement, and evaluate pilot young adult court approaches. We believe that our courts can provide a better response to offending by young adults, and in so doing make a positive difference both to their lives and to our communities.
The Founder
“I set up Miss Macaroon in 2011 to bring together my passion for making the handed crafted delights that are French macaroons and providing supportive work placements for marginalised young people. Through a family member’s experience in the care system and chance encounters with a young homeless man in my home town I have always felt that I was extremely fortunate not to have been in a precarious situation myself. I dreamt of a business that combined my love of food, its power to create strong connections, a sense of community and nourish supportive relationships, throughout my time at school, university and abroad while setting up my first restaurant.
With help from amazing mentors, board members and University College Birmingham, where I did my catering training, I started producing our delicious French macaroons and ran a pilot training programme in 2011, out of which the Macaroons that Make A Difference programme emerged. To date we have worked with 17 of the most difficult to engage young people. I love making our beautiful product, quality control (taste) testing, and creating new flavours, but the thing that keeps me engaged after baking the 5000th macaroon of the day is seeing our newest member of staff practicing all of the skills he learnt on the first day he started the MacsMAD course. Initiative, time management, communication and team work are all improved by working in our kitchen. I’m really proud of the huge amount of hard work and commitment to learning and growing he has shown in working to get his apprenticeship and succeed in the Miss Macaroon kitchen, so much so that he is now called ‘Flash’! With the support from Barrow Cadbury we can now increase the number of training placements, work experiences, mentor support sessions, and paid employment opportunities we can provide for young people who have been involved with the criminal justice system, who have been in care or found themselves homeless.
The new board member
Rosie Ginday’s Miss Macaroon has it all; exquisite hand-made French macaroons and a great cause. So when I was invited to join the board of this CIC I jumped at the chance. I’m very happy to help a project which supports young adults by providing work experience and practical help to guide them into work or education. It’s an exciting company and the energy and enthusiasm oozing from Rosie is highly infectious. She is a fantastic role model, not only for the young adults the organisation helps, but all SME business leaders, including me. Each time I attend a board meeting or catch up with Rosie in between time, I inevitably reflect back on how I can improve my own business. The Board consists of a group of experienced SME leaders with a wealth of experience across all aspects of business and it’s always interesting to get their perspective. However the most rewarding aspect is knowing (hoping!) I can play a small part in improving the work and educational opportunities for some young people. This was brought home to the board recently when one young man who had been given a short term contract at Miss Macaroon came to speak to us about his experience. He was confident, happy and had certainly soaked up some of Rosie’s enthusiasm. It was a pleasure to meet him and confirmed for me the real value of this worthwhile organisation. I also get to eat some of the product; a perfect indulgence!
The newest full-time member of the team and beneficiary
My name is Zee and I’m 25 years old. I’m a trainee pastry chef doing an apprenticeship at Miss Macaroon. I work in the kitchen and prepare macaroons. I do a lot of the filling, packaging and baking. When I was in a hostel last January I came across a flyer advertising the MacsMAD course as an opportunity to learn new skills. I had been unemployed for four years so the course was a good opportunity to readjust to a working environment and meet new people. I saw the flyer and thought it was something worth engaging with so I applied to get involved in the MacsMAD course. I met Rosie who helped me as mentor and gave me an introduction in to the catering industry. I also gained my food hygiene qualification. My confidence grew throughout the process. I stayed in touch with Rosie who encouraged me to get some work experience.
I was offered the opportunity to get some experience one day a week and grow in the industry. After that I got offered a position. I then went on to do three days a week. It’s been a good transition I guess to start off on one day then three days, and finally on full time hours. There hasn’t been pressure – I’ve gradually been allowed to fit in. It’s been easier than just going straight in to full time work which would have been a bit more pressure if I hadn’t had the chance to develop the way I have. I was asked to speak at a board meeting in July and I didn’t know what to expect. I was a bit nervous but excited too. I definitely learned a different side of business and how this is a crucial part, how different minds and skills come together to improve the company. I felt privileged to be involved and it will be great to put on my CV. The opportunity was good for me to express myself about my experience at Miss Macaroon. It reassured me that I wasn’t judged. It was a good experience – definitely something positive to take forward in life. I learnt more about everyone’s roles and more about management.
Miss Macaroon has helped me to get a job in catering. It’s helped with skills, confidence, direction, focus and determination. It’s given me the opportunity to be part of something positive and constructive and to appreciate what skills are required in the work place. Rosie is a good motivator so my confidence has grown. Setting goals is now part of the way I work which I didn’t do before and that’s because of the five year plan we have put in place.
Find out more about Miss Macaroon on their website. Twitter: @IamMissMacaroon Facebook: MissMacaroonCIC
I am pleased to announce that one of the two inquiries that the Justice Select Committee has launched this week to begin its work for this Parliament will examine the treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system. The number of young adults in custody is falling, partly because there are fewer younger offenders entering the criminal justice system and being sentenced to custody. Nevertheless, those that remain in the custodial estate have become more challenging to manage in several respects.
Very shortly after my election as Chair of the Committee Lord Harris of Haringey published his thought-provoking report Changing Prisons, Saving Lives to conclude his independent review into self-inflicted deaths in custody of young adults.
Lord Harris made recommendations to encourage the diversion of more young people from custody as well as to improve the custody system for those who remain in it, and concluded that action on these should be an urgent priority:
“Delaying action until the resource position is easier is not an option. Unless progress is made on the proposals that we have made, young people will continue to die unnecessarily in our prisons and we will continue to waste countless millions of pounds in failing to rehabilitate those who could be rehabilitated, in locking up those for whom a non-prison option would be more appropriate, and in failing to intervene early enough to prevent people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.”
I asked the Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, for his thoughts on the implications of the Harris Review when he appeared before the Committee for the first time last week. He replied:
“Lord Harris’s report was, in the best sense of the word, difficult reading, as was the report yesterday by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. We have significant problems in our prisons at the moment. You cannot look at the number of suicides and self-inflicted injuries or at the level of violence overall in the prison estate and feel anything other than concern about the conditions in which prison officers have to work and the conditions in which offenders are kept.”
The annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons was published last week. That report made a number of observations about young adults in custody. It said that cohort was over-represented in statistics on violence, adjudications and use of force, but the Inspectorate found there was little or no action to understand, address and manage this population. It also found that young adults tend to spend more time than other prisoners locked in their cells and as a result have poorer outcomes in relation to access to purposeful activity like education and training.
Consecutive governments have proposed abolishing sentences to detention in a young offenders’ institution for 18-20 year olds. The last Government issued a consultation proposing this in November 2013 entitled Transforming the Management of Young Adults in Custody. The Government made no response to this consultation pending the findings of the Harris Review.
In response to a further question by my committee colleague, Christina Rees MP, about whether the Secretary of State accepted particular recommendations, he said:
“There are one or two aspects of Lord Harris’s report that I questioned and have questioned officials about. I wondered whether his reasoning was absolutely right in every regard, but I do think overall that the report was fair and helpful. As I have said, it was difficult reading in the best sense of the word. But I cannot commit to any of those yet, because I am reflecting both on his recommendations and on some other concerns that I have about the prison system that I want the ministerial team and the leadership of NOMS to address before I can come down firmly in favour of particular changes.”
My colleagues on the Justice Committee and I decided that it was timely to inquire into the treatment of young adults both in prison and — given the broad-ranging nature of the recommendations of the Harris Review — in other parts of the criminal justice system. Our remit does not extend to the police — the oversight of which is the responsibility of the Home Affairs Committee — therefore for the purposes of our inquiry the criminal justice system is taken to include the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the sentencing framework, youth offending teams, probation services and prisons. See below for our full terms of reference and guidance on submitting evidence, which is also available on my committee’s webpages.
Recent advances in behaviour and neuroscience research indicate that brain development continues well into the 20s, meaning that young adults have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults. In their report Maturity, Young Adults and Criminal Justice the Transition to Adulthood Alliance state that one of the consequences of this prolonged period of development and maturation of the brain is that “temperance (evaluating consequences of actions, limiting impulsivity and risk-taking is a significant maturity factor that continues to influence anti-social decision-making among young adults”. On this subject Lord Harris concluded:
“[g]iven the current understanding of maturity and human development, and brain development in particular, we feel it no longer makes sense to expect that young adults, especially when they are distinctly vulnerable, should be sentenced as an adult solely on the basis of their age.”
Some steps have been taken to do this. The Sentencing Council now includes lack of maturity as a mitigating factor in its sentencing guidelines and the Code for Crown Prosecutors also makes reference to it. Accordingly, my colleagues and I also wish to examine the evidence on what might constitute more effective or appropriate treatment of young adults throughout the criminal justice process and review the impact of guidance to sentencers and prosecutors which advises that they consider the maturity of the offender in their decisions.
Our inquiry’s terms of reference
We welcome submissions by 30 September 2015 addressing this subject, with particular reference to the following points:
1. The nature and effectiveness of the Ministry of Justice’s strategy and governance structures for dealing with young adult offenders.
2. The suitability of current provision for young adult offenders i) in the community and ii) in custody, including the extent to which there is distinct provision currently, and addressing the following questions:
- What is the evidence on how outcomes across a range of measures for young adult offenders compare with other offenders?
- Taking into account the findings of the Harris Review, what measures should be prioritised in addressing levels of suicide, self-harm, and violence amongst young adult offenders currently held in custody?
- What impact have the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms had on the transition between youth offending teams and probation services?
3. The Harris Review advocated a distinct approach to young adult offenders. Is this desirable? If so, what would this entail i) in the community and ii) in custody? If not, why not? Please also address the following questions:
- Should sentence to detention in a young offender institution for 18-20 year old offenders be abolished? If so, what should replace it?
- The Harris Review concluded that all young adults in prison are vulnerable and that the experience of being in prison is particularly damaging to them as they are developing. Do you agree?
- The Harris Review recommended that more young adults should be diverted from custody and from the criminal justice system. Is it appropriate to seek to divert more young adults from custody and the criminal justice system, and if so, how would this best be achieved?
4. What legislative or other barriers are there to more appropriate practices for young adult offenders and how could these be overcome?
5. What impact, if any, has the introduction of maturity as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions had on sentencing practice for young adults? Do sentencers have sufficient information to make assessments of maturity?
6. What impact, if any, has the inclusion of the concept of maturity in guidance for assessing culpability (in the Code of Conduct for the Crown Prosecution Service) had on prosecution decisions? Do prosecutors have sufficient information to make such assessments?
7. How could a criminal justice system which would treat young adults on the basis of maturity rather than age operate in practice?
Please note that the Committee may not investigate or intervene in individual cases. Submissions may make reference to individual cases for illustrative purposes, provided they are not the subject of legal proceedings currently before UK courts.
I look forward to receiving your written submission which should be made using the portal available on the inquiry page of our website.
The Commission on Sex in Prison was established by the Howard League for Penal Reform to conduct the first ever inquiry into sex in prisons in England and Wales. It was funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, Esmee Fairbairn and the Bromley Trust, and has spent the past two years investigating consensual and coercive sex in prison and the healthy sexual development of children in prison.
As the work of the Commission draws to a close with a national conference in London on 17 March, it is fitting to reflect on the findings of the Commission and its achievements in raising awareness of this difficult and at times controversial issue.
When the Commission began its work in 2013 it found that there had been very few studies on consensual or coercive sex in prisons. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman was one of the first people to give evidence to the Commission and described it as a ‘hidden issue in a hidden world’. The Commission has helped to raise awareness of sex in prison and prompted people to reflect on prison policies and practices.
It highlighted the public health implications of preventing prisoners from obtaining condoms in confidence. Prisoners are a high risk group for sexually transmitted infections and the public health agenda must be the paramount consideration in prison policies relating to consensual sex. Punishing prisoners for having sex may deter them from obtaining condoms or sexual health advice.
It looked at the different experiences of women in prison, who are particularly vulnerable and sometimes form relationships with other prisoners to help them cope with the detrimental effects of imprisonment. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons referred to the issues raised by the Commission in its recently published inspection criteria for women’s prisons, including the need for staff to support women when relationships end and to monitor relationships which might become abusive.
The Commission looked at coercive sex in prison and found it was hidden and under-reported. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a learning lessons bulletin on sexual abuse in prisons expanding on the evidence it had given to the Commission in 2013. The report called for allegations of sexual abuse in prisons to be investigated thoroughly and for staff to identify and challenge abusive relationships in prison. In January 2015, the Ministry of Justice announced it would be publishing an analysis of reported sexual assaults in prison due to ‘public interest in the area’.
The Commission raised concerns about the detrimental impact of prisons on children’s healthy sexual development, at a time when the government is planning to build a huge new prison in Leicestershire for children.
There is still more to be done. The UK government could learn much from the US which passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Anonymous surveys of prisoners are now conducted annually. The data on sexual assaults have galvanised US prisons to do more to prevent abuse.
Research is still needed to determine the nature and scale of unreported abuse in prisons in England and Wales. Prisoners must be entitled to the same support and protection from abuse as people outside of prison. Keeping prisoners safe will keep all of us safe.
Ministry of Justice announcement on sexual assaults analysis https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397655/intention-to_publish-ad-hoc-on-sexual-assaults-data.pdf
Commission on Sex in Prison website
http://www.howardleague.org/behind-closed-bars/
The high court did not need to do anything fancy to find that restricting books for prisoners is unlawful.
Nine months of campaigning by the Howard League, together with English PEN and numerous authors, culminated in a fine legal judgment last Friday. The case was brought by fearless public law lawyer, Sam Genen, with barristers Annabel Lee, Victoria Butler-Cole and Jenny Richards.
Mr Justice Collins was asked to rule on whether the restriction on books to prisoners was lawful. He was provided with a web of complex legal arguments based on human rights and the Equality Act 2010. In the end, he decided the restriction was unlawful quite simply because the policy’s effect was contrary to what the justice secretary said he intended.
Our law, built up case by case over time, says that a policy will be unlawful if its effect is contrary to the expressed intention and objectives that it was supposed to promote.
In the case of books for prisoners, the secretary of state and the deputy prime minister had said that there was no book ban. The deputy prime minister went so far as to say: “If there was a ban on sending books to prisoners, I would be the first to demonstrate outside the local prison. It would be ridiculous. It’s outrageous…..Education and training, reading and learning are a critical part of [rehabilitation].”
Yet a forensic examination by the high court found that the policy clearly resulted in a restriction in books, that access through the library services was not sufficient to make up for not having your own books, whether for reference, such as Brewer’s Dictionary or a compendium of a particular author’s works, to be dipped into frequently. The court adopted the desert island philosophy in finding that “possession…can matter as much as access”.
He therefore found the privileges policy unlawful to the extent that it banned books. This simple judgment is unimpeachable. It is not based on human rights or equality but on old-fashioned common sense. The government refused to reflect on the obvious truth that books are not a privilege and learning is central to its own ‘transforming rehabilitation’ agenda. It refused to accept the simple truth that the policy had the effect of banning books. It refused to change the policy of its own accord.
Instead, it took a fully contested judicial review at taxpayers’ expense, with the prisoner’s lawyers acting pro-bono, to enable a high court judge to unravel the spin from the reality of prisoners’ experiences and determine the justice secretary’s policy unlawful on the basis that it was quite simply the opposite of what he said he wanted.
No wonder then that the justice secretary is so keen to restrict the ability of individuals and public interest groups to speak truth to power through the courts. In the House of Commons last Monday, he revealed an astounding lack of knowledge of the way the law works, compounding his disregard for it in the case of books for prisoners. He accepted he was “baffled” by attempts by peers to preserve judicial discretion and sought to reverse them.
Peers have a final chance this Tuesday to defeat the government’s current attempts to restrict judicial review cases. Let’s hope they take it.
Laura Janes is acting legal director at the Howard League for Penal Reform. This blog was reproduced with kind permission of Howard League for Penal Reform.
