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:
— Public confusion and frustration;
— 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
| 
