Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


30.  Memorandum submitted by the Police Federation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.  Public confusion over sentencing and anxiety over early release schemes should be a major concern for all involved in the criminal justice system. Police officers rely on the public for information. It is our experience that public frustration over sentencing has a negative impact on their willingness to assist the police and to provide information.

  2.  Most pressing of all, we believe the fundamental question What is effective sentencing? must be urgently readdressed. Effective sentences must punish, deter and rehabilitate. We have serious and growing concerns that freedom and flexibility has been taken away from judges and that sentences are seemingly being dictated by prison capacity, not the severity of the crime.

BACKGROUND

  3.  The Police Federation of England and Wales represents 140,000 police officers from the rank of constable to chief inspector. We would welcome the opportunity to provide further written or oral evidence to assist the Committee in their inquiry.

  4.  We take a keen interest in the effectiveness of sentencing for a number of reasons. First and foremost, sentencing and the efficacy of reoffending programmes impact directly on the work of police officers. Second, our members deal first-hand with victims of crime and support them from the start of the criminal justice process, right through to court and sentencing. Third, frustration with sentencing is not restricted to the general public. Police officers are particularly concerned that sentences given to dangerous violent offenders have reduced in recent years; and that the revolving door of justice is still turning. This can have adverse affects on both morale and motivation.

  5.  We frequently respond to consultations in this area, most recently Making Sentencing Clearer[92] and Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea.[93]

  6.  This memorandum focuses on both those areas we believe are of greatest concern; and where we believe observations from our frontline experience can contribute most to the inquiry:

    —  Honest Sentencing:

    —  Public confusion and frustration;

    —  Sentence terminology;

    —  Guilty Pleas and remission;

    —  Freedom and flexibility for judges;

    —  Non-custodial sentences; and

    —  Prison capacity dictating prison numbers.

HONEST SENTENCING

Public confusion and frustration

  7.  Information is the police service's most important weapon in the fight against crime. It is our experience that if the public, or sections of the public, lose confidence in the courts' ability to deliver what they believe to be fair sentences, they can be less inclined to report crimes or assist the police. A lack of public confidence in sentencing therefore not only brings the whole of the criminal justice system into disrepute; it impacts upon the effectiveness of the police service.

Sentencing terminology

  8.  A vital element of ensuring public confidence in sentencing is to ensure that sentences are easily understood by the general public—not just the minority who work in the legal profession or police service. The perception—right or wrong—is that sentencing is disingenuous. Unclear messages lead to an unhappy public.

  9.  "Life" sentences are a case in point. The average number of years served is in fact a fraction, in the region of eight years. Many people are confused and upset by this. Aside from the quite separate debate as to whether a given sentence is too lenient or too severe, people—not least victims and their families and friends—are frustrated that the sentence served does not reflect their understandable interpretation of the sentence.

  10.  We believe there is little point in apportioning blame on the media or others for this widespread confusion. There can be no surprise that many people interpret a life sentence to be life behind bars.

  11.  We believe there is a very strong case for a wholesale reassessment of sentencing terminology. Returning to the example above, "life" could, arguably, only refer to those cases where the judge has made explicitly clear that there will be no parole.

Guilty pleas and remission

  12.  Guilty pleas and half point release or remission (Section 244(3) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003)) have been the source of considerable public confusion and professional frustration for police officers.

Guilty pleas

  13.  While we support reductions in sentences if individuals plead guilty at an early stage of proceedings, we believe reducing sentences by one third is far too generous. A maximum reduction in sentence of a quarter would still be sufficient to attract guilty pleas without undermining the sentence, and the punishment, itself.

  14.  We emphasise that we believe these reductions should only be granted for early guilty pleas. All too often individuals only choose to plead guilty at the very last moment, when they see the weight of evidence and witnesses firmly stacked up against them. This is totally contrary to the principle behind sentence reductions for guilty pleas: that they are awarded in recognition of the time and money saved, for instance in preparing the prosecution case, and for reducing the stress faced by victims giving evidence. The law could include a requirement for pleas to be registered by the point of committal in order to qualify for a reduced sentence.

  15.  Further, we believe the debate about guilty pleas is all too often conflated with whether sentences are too short or too long. The point is in fact, quite distinct. It is about awarding reductions in sentence—whatever the sentence—despite still inconveniencing the police, the courts and the public.

Remission

  16.  Section 244(3) of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) allows for a further fifty percent reduction in offenders' sentences if they cross the prison threshold. This means that the time served by offenders is usually in the region of one third of the original sentence. A six year sentence would, for instance, initially be reduced by a third to four years following a guilty plea (however late that may be, as outlined above) and then reduced by a further half (an additional two years) under s244.

  17.  We strongly believe this is wrong. Effective sentences must punish, deter and rehabilitate. Drastically cut sentences fail in every regard. The sum result is that victims and the general public feel cheated; left on the fringes, not at the centre of the criminal justice system.

Freedom and flexibility for judges

  18.  We believe judges should have the flexibility to give the sentences they feel most appropriate, based on the evidence they have examined, to reflect the specifics of the case. Over the last decade we have witnessed a gradual erosion in the power of individual judges to determine sentences, mirroring the death of discretion in policing. The introduction of the custody threshold, has in particular, narrowed the parameters in which judges operate.

  19.  We acknowledge and accept that greater latitude for judges would lead to some decisions that neither we nor much of the public would support. We would, however, infinitely prefer that state of affairs to the current inflexibility.

Prison capacity dictating sentencing

  20.  No debate concerning the impact of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) on sentencing should ignore the charge that sentencing is dictated more by prison capacity than the severity of crimes, and that guidelines are amended accordingly.

  21.  We strongly believe an effective sentencing framework is one that puts victims at the heart of the criminal justice system and prioritises public safety. Sentencing must therefore focus on reducing reoffending and by extension crimes committed; reducing the number of victims; and reducing the fear of crime.

  22.  We believe the introduction of half remission and more lenient sentences, together with the wider introduction of what are often unproven and untested non-custodial programmes for not inconsiderable crimes is a reflection of the Government's motivation to "keep prison numbers under control"—not derived from any evidence or belief that these changes will reduce reoffending and crime rates.

  23.  Sentencing should be dictated by the severity of the crime and the evidence presented to the judge, not by prison capacity. Any other approach is wrong-headed. No one would advocate longer, more severe sentences simply if there was a surplus in prison places. At present we are faced with the reverse and it is equally perverse.

  24.  The result of the crisis in prison capacity is that many sentences are demonstrably too short and therefore anti-rehabilitative. In particular, many sentences for drug-related crimes fail both individual and society because they are too short for the offenders to enter or complete drug programmes.

  25.  Of equal concern, is that a swathe of crimes that, only five years ago, would have automatically led to prison sentences have now been downgraded to "petty" offences. We strongly reject the notion that violent crimes such as robbery and muggings should ever be described as petty. It is deeply frustrating for police officers to see such offenders on community sentences that do nothing to protect the public. Moreover, it is vital that criminals face a suitable punishment for these sentences or it will merely give the green light for others to do the same.

  26.  Prison numbers in the UK are high due to a high crime rate, particularly violent crimes which should lead to prison sentences. We believe it is important to bear this in mind when discussing the historically high prison population in the UK. It is noteworthy that if the UK were to sentence offenders in line with other European countries the prison population would be well in excess of 100,000 individuals.[94] It is therefore a distraction to simply talk about "prisoners per head"—it is prisoners per crime that matters.

  27.  It is widely reported that approximately one in four prisoners in the UK suffer from mental illnesses. Many of these individuals should be in care—not prison. Our anecdotal evidence suggests that many individuals commit crime simply in order to go to prison in order to have a roof over their heads. This concern is therefore not just of relevance to debates surrounding mental health, but also of the wider debate about prison numbers.

The use of non-custodial sentences

  28.  In our experience properly financed non-custodial sentences can prove to be a successful means to reduce reoffending rates. Unfortunately it is also our experience that the probation service is severely overstretched, under-resourced and uncoordinated. The result—at no fault of the probation service—is that successes are sporadic and patchy.

  29.  We note recommendation 9 of the Home Affairs Committee report nearly a decade ago outlining the Committee's astonishment at the absence of rigorous measures for the efficacy of non-custodial sentences.[95] We contend that very little has changed. There is still no meaningful or verifiable means of measurement.

  30.  Our own anecdotal research from frontline police officers suggests that the "hidden cost"[96]—ie further crime—of non-custodial sentences continue to cause genuine and understandable public fear, and is both a concern and an issue of morale for the police. This is exacerbated by the extension of non-custodial sentences to those forms of crime outlined above in paragraph 25, particularly violent crimes.

6 March 2007






92   Home Office: http://www.noms.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications-events/publications/consultations/ Back

93   Sentencing Guidelines Council: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/ Back

94   The Burden of Crime in the EU-Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Crime and Safety Survey (EU ICS) 2005: http://www.gallup-europe.be/euics/Xz38/downloads/EUICS%20-%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20 the%20EU.pdf Back

95   Home Affairs Committee Third Report: Alternatives to Prison Sentences http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/486/48615.htm Back

96   Home Affairs Committee Third Report: Alternatives to Prison Sentences http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/486/48615.htm Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 11 June 2007