Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220
- 239)
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 1997
MR PETER
COAD, MR
DAVID FRASER
AND PROFESSOR
KEN PEASE
OBE
Mr Malins
220. Mr Coad, I think I am the only Member of
the House of Commons, you may or may not know this, who sits as
a Recorder and also a Metropolitan Stipe, and therefore I have
to pass sentences all the time. Can I initially say I hope you
will be kind enough to get in touch with me individually in due
course, I would very much like a meeting. I want to just focus
on one very narrow question to you. My impression, in sentencing,
and generally, of the criminal justice system is that the sentence
of community service can be slightly more effective, both in terms
of steering the defendant into a more positive way of life at
the end of the order and in terms of reconviction rates, or reoffending
rates, than a straightforward probation order; that is my impression.
Would you agree with that?
(Mr Coad) I would agree that there is something healthy
and productive about someone being made to do a task in the community,
and that one of the by-products may be something to do with their
self-esteem and sense of achievement. I could not possibly argue
with that, that is human nature. But, sadly, I must refer you
to the reconviction rates of people who have gone on community
service, and they are only 1 per cent, I think, better than probation,
or it is very, very small indeed.
221. I may have got the figures wrong, but my
impression, from figures I have seen, is that there is a slight,
not just 1 per cent but a little more?
(Mr Fraser) Yes, the up-to-date ones, and probably
we have got the same, 69 per cent reconviction rate for under-21s
and 59 per cent for the 21-24 age group, and so there is a slight
difference, but their victims probably would not appreciate that.
That is our response all the time. It is still a horrendous failure
rate, looked at from the point of view of protecting the public,
it is still a horrendous failure.
222. Do you gentlemen have any ideas, because
so far discussion today has been in some ways negative and not
very positive, I understand the reasons for that, as to brilliant
new ideas for alternatives to prison, is there any magic panacea,
is there anything that nobody has thought of?
(Mr Coad) No, I do not think so, we have not got magic
answers. We are very anxious that the mistakes that are being
made within the criminal justice system, in the context of sentencing,
are not continued and are not going on and on and on. And I might
say that to get a platform like this is almost unique for us,
because people do not want to listen to us, and it is quite understandable
because they build their empires on alleged facts, which they
cannot sustain.
(Mr Fraser) If I may just come in and say, in an effort
to strike a positive note, the existing range of alternative sentences
to prisons all have a role to play, they do have a positive role
to play, let us not forget that—conditional discharges,
supervision orders, fines, probation, community service, etc.,
etc.—they do. Our case is a simple one, they have been misapplied.
It is no good giving non-custodial sentences to people who are
not interested in stopping offending. If this wide range of very
positively-minded, non-custodial sentences were applied to the
right group of people, the right offenders, people who were going
to make positive use of them, the community would be the better
for it, that is our point really.
Mr Corbett
223. Can I just pick up a point that Professor
Pease made and try to assure him, I cannot speak for my colleagues
but I can certainly speak for myself, that if you think you have
detected some anti-prison bias in this Committee on my part you
are wrong; in fact, what got us into this inquiry was to look
at effective ways of dealing with those who offend, and the bias
is not either for this or against the other. But, having said
that, both in your written evidence and, Mr Coad, you this morning,
I just get this impression you are inviting us to regard the nation,
in that sense, as self-selecting sheep and goats. Your colleague
Ronald Lewis put it succinctly, the best alternative to prison
is an honest life, well that is patently true, obviously. And
several times you and your colleagues have spoken about those
who choose to offend. Do you not acknowledge that, of course there
is choice in this, I am not denying that, but influences on the
way that choice is exercised, for those who do offend, largely
gather around a lack of self-esteem, they may also be unemployed,
they may also be homeless, they may also be living in very deprived
neighbourhoods and families, but the nub of that is, is it not,
self-esteem, and, if that is so, that is going to have an effect
on the way that choice is made, is it not?
(Mr Fraser) My answer would be based on experience
over 26 years in the Probation Service, and particularly on seven
years working in a young offender prison, which took, first of
all, 14-16 year olds, and then later 17-19 year olds; these were
persistent offenders par excellence, young men who had
been committing crime for many, many years.
224. Forgive me; poor educational achievement.
Just give us a little thumbnail description of these people?
(Mr Fraser) Many of them had poor educational achievements,
many of them were as sharp as buttons, so it was a mixed picture,
as far as that was concerned.
225. Do you mean streetwise, as it were?
(Mr Fraser) Oh, in intelligence; in other respects,
too, with good organisational skills. For example, I can remember
one day when a draft of prisoners had to be moved from one wing
to another the prison officers could not do it but a 19 year old
prisoner said, "Leave it to me" and he organised it,
and they were good organisational skills. They are not all dumb,
by any means. So, without any doubt, my perception of those boys
coming into the prison over seven years was that some of them
did have a poor sense of self-esteem but that the majority did
not, the majority of them were ebullient, the majority were confident,
to a fault.
226. That is far from my understanding, but
just let us leave that one aside and let us pick up something
else though. You, in particular, Mr Coad, painted this picture
of what I heard as almost careless indifference in the manner
in which probation orders were handed out; in other words that
magistrates knowingly—this was the impression I got from
you—handed down non-custodial sentences, of one kind or
another, in the sure and certain knowledge that this little tyke
was bound to reoffend. Are you seriously saying that people are
as cavalier and indifferent as that, which is the implication
I got from what you said?
(Mr Coad) It is not care less indifference, it is
the consequences of a very serious, extended period of brainwashing
by the Probation Service on their alleged ability to be effective
in supervising people in the community.
227. But why should they knowingly volunteer
for failure? They need scalps on the door, do they not, "Look
at how successful we are, give us some more money"?
(Mr Fraser) They believe what the Probation Service
has told them.
(Mr Coad) Every quarter, probation officers have an
opportunity to meet what are called liaison committees of magistrates.
Over the last few years of my service I got so embarrassed by
what was presented to these magistrates as wonderful examples
of effectiveness of probation I opted out and elected, in Buggin's
turn, one of my officers to do it because I could not bear the
deceit. In the end I had to leave the Service because I was so
appalled by what was going on. If you keep being told, at liaison
meetings and at probation committees, that your success rates
are 85 per cent, and they frequently are told that, without the
caveat that many of these will have committed endless numbers
of offences while on probation, statistically these are claimed
as a success. Now, a success, according to the Oxford Dictionary,
in human behaviour terms, is a person who does well; the Probation
Service lies, let us not quibble, they lie to the people that
matter, they lie to sentencers, you have judges, as Mr Malins
will tell you, that are liaison officers to probation committees,
and they get fed this all the time. They have convinced sentencers
and others that they are the experts. If you are told over a period
of many, many years by everybody in the Probation Service, that
they know what they are doing, in spite of the official statistics
that show that the reconviction rate is absolutely disastrous,
magistrates take the view, "They know best and we shall be
guided by them." It is interesting that the Probation Service
never recommend a prison sentence, and you had evidence given
last week that that was not the role of the Probation Service.
Chairman: Are you sure about that point?
Mr Corbett: That is not my experience, I will
tell you that.
Chairman
228. Are you sure on that point?
(Mr Coad) I wrote a letter to the Justice of the Peace
and said I would like evidence, certainly from one huge area,
of just one court report that recommended prison, and the Chief
Probation Officer declined from doing it.
Mr Malins: That is right. I have never seen
such a report, ever.
Mr Corbett: May I suggest we see this, Mr Mullin.
Chairman: I have heard some interesting points;
yes, okay.
Mr Corbett
229. Let us just pick up on something else,
shall we. Would you agree, Mr Coad, that no-one actually can talk
about success in the criminal justice system, whether it involves
prison sentences or community sentences, against the background
of high levels of reoffending and reconviction; what was it, 59
to 61, or 57 to 53, just depending on the way in which you measure
this? And to think of the success of one part of the system against
the other, against that background, is just moonshine, the whole
system is failing in those terms, is it not?
(Mr Fraser) May I take the first part of your question,
as I understand it. I think it is possible and very important
to be able to talk and think in terms of success, and success,
for the probation officer, means when the person who is offending
does not commit crimes any more. Now that is the deal. When a
person is placed on probation or placed on community service,
let us, if I may use the phrase, go back to basics, but that was
the deal, that is still the deal, "You promised", the
offender promises not to commit more offences, so why should we
hedge on that. He is saying, the judge or the magistrate is saying,
"I am placing you on probation, on condition that you do
not commit any more offences", so it is possible and we ought
to expect success. And if that person does not then certain things
should follow.
230. But, my point is, we are not getting success
by either route in those terms; I want less than 50 per cent reoffending
or reconviction?
(Mr Fraser) Yes, okay, but we are not getting success
because, to repeat a point that has been made several times this
morning, the wrong people are being given probations, and the
wrong people are being given probation and community service because,
as Mr Coad has said, the magistrates and the judges are being
misled by propaganda and misinformation by the Probation Service,
that they can do what they are blatantly not doing. That is not
an ideological answer from me, that is based on the evidence,
which we can all see.
231. I understand what you say about the promises
made in terms of the probation order, and I understand your mention
of the promise not to offend again, that is important.
(Mr Fraser) It is, yes.
232. But it is not the only measure, is it?
I cannot think that probation officers would regard that as wholly
successful. Would they not surely be looking at how many ex-offenders
managed to get and hold a job, get somewhere permanent to live,
maybe with assistance; is not this all part of that?
(Mr Fraser) That would be wonderful; getting a job
would be wonderful, for an ex-offender, there would be no argument
about that, that would be successful, if you got a job. But if
you got a job and continued to commit offences it would not be
success; the pivotal point is that he has got to stop committing
offences.
233. Yes, I know, and I think what separates
us on this is that I attach more weight to an ex-offender, say,
with a probation order now who is given such assistance as he
needs, because it is by and large a man's occupation, to get a
roof over his head, to get help with training and work, because
in my view that is going to minimise—minimise, I am not
going to say eradicate, minimise—the chances of reoffending.
I think that must be so, must it not, generally?
(Mr Fraser) I am sorry to come back to it yet again,
but it is of such importance, this. That is so if the person who
is being worked with is genuinely remorseful about what he has
done and wants to change. We can all—
(Professor Pease) Can I mention a subject nobody has
yet, and I agree it is a totally gloomy perspective, when you
look at it from the offender's perspective. The only thing you
can talk about is the respite for the victim during periods of
absence.
234. Yes, and can I just quickly ask, you talk
in your evidence about many alternatives to prison, which have
a constructive role to play in sentencing, can you just point
us in the direction of the alternatives you are referring to,
please?
(Mr Coad) As I have said before, I think there is
a lot to be said for the proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill,
I think the things about parenting orders, I think—
235. Early intervention?
(Mr Coad) Early intervention. I believe that the Probation
Service should concentrate their efforts in preventing the situation
that we have today; young people are more impressionable, you
can reach out, I think, easier to young people, they are less—
236. Forgive me, there is a role also envisaged
in that, is there not, for the social services as well?
(Mr Coad) Oh, absolutely. They should combine with
the social services, youth services, the education department.
I would have them all working for the same end. Teachers have
a skill in recognising potential offending behaviour, that can
be addressed through parenting orders. I would agree with all
these ideas. We do have a positive view on alternatives to prisons.
We made a big thing, coming to this Committee, of saying, "Look,
the traditional alternative of probation does not work, it is
a failure of quite dramatic proportions, it is not a marginal
failure, it is a total failure, it is, in fact, a national scandal."
237. I did put to you, right at the beginning,
that the reoffending rates between custodial sentences and community
sentence, there is not a ha'penny worth of difference in them,
frankly, is there?
(Mr Fraser) Can I respond to that.
238. Are you going to break the figures down?
(Mr Fraser) No, I am not going to break the figures
down, simply to respond to what I think is the premise perhaps
on which that point is made. Supervision in the community has,
at the last resort, to protect the public, and prison is yet another
sentence to protect the public. Prison always works in protecting
the public, because if this man goes to prison for two years the
public is safe from him. If this man gets put on probation for
two years and he is under 21 his reconviction rate will be at
least 77 per cent, which means that his reoffending rate will
be nearer 100 per cent; the public will not be protected from
him. This comparison of the reconviction rates of those who are
released from prison, I am going to suggest to the Committee,
with the conviction rates of those on probation, is irrelevant,
it is irrelevant to the question do alternatives to prison protect
the public, it is irrelevant. Whatever happens after they are
released from prison, that is a separate question.
Chairman: I am anxious to move the discussion
on a bit. We have all got the general drift of your evidence regarding
the relative merits of imprisonment and probation, but there are
other alternatives which we have touched on from time to time.
Mr Howarth.
Mr Howarth
239. The British Crime Survey revealed that
the public's perception of both the levels of crime and the sentences
is somewhat out of kilter with actual fact, and that whilst, for
example, I think, 61 per cent of convicted adult male house burglars
were imprisoned in 1995 a majority of the respondents to the Crime
Survey thought that only 30 per cent were. So I wondered if you
could explain to us why you think there is this difference of
perception amongst the public about what is actually happening
on the ground?
(Mr Fraser) I will let Peter Coad answer that, if
I may, but my quick comment, before I pass over to him, is that
we think it is a massive irrelevancy, but you expand on that.
(Mr Coad) Yes. This is Paper 179 or Research Paper,
shorter version, 64, which I think I have, in fact, circulated
to you with comments. My first comment on that paper is that as
it was research into the public ignorance; how it concludes that
there should be policy changes, totally amazes me. How can you
arrive at a conclusion there should be policy changes because
the general public has not understood sentencing; it is a non
sequitur, it cannot be justified. I have written to the Home
Secretary, saying this was a paper that never should be published
in that form. It is good to know that the public are ignorant
about sentencing and crime, but I would suggest to you that if
they really did know, you would get a much more dramatic response
than you did in that piece of research. In fact, the public, even
in that piece of research, only 2 per cent said that they thought
there should be more community service and more fines. 20 per
cent said there should be tougher sentences. I am afraid that,
apart from informing—
|
