The Sentencing Academy welcomes today’s final report of the Independent Sentencing Review. It is clear that David Gauke and his panel of experts have undertaken a serious and evidence-led exercise in response to the terms of reference set by the Government, in which the need to reduce pressure on prison capacity has been explicit from the earliest stages.
We are pleased to see that a number of the recommendations we set out in our submission to the Review have been adopted. These include a presumption against short sentences (which the Review says should be used only in ‘exceptional circumstances’), and ensuring that technology such as electronic monitoring is used not only to monitor offenders’ compliance but to promote behaviour change.
The most significant recommendation in the report is the creation of a new ‘earned progression model’ for those serving Standard Determinate Sentences, under which release on licence at a specified point in the sentence will no longer be automatic. In our submission, we indicated our support for modest sentence reductions for offenders who show exceptional progress, but the Review proposes more thoroughgoing change, in which most offenders will be able to secure their release a third of the way through their sentence on the basis of good behaviour
The Sentencing Academy is especially encouraged that the Review has accepted our proposals concerning deferred sentencing, which has the potential to divert suitable offenders from custody on the basis of demonstrable changes in their behaviour before the sentence is passed. Our submission proposed extending the maximum deferral of sentence to 12 months instead of the present six, issuing clear guidance to assist sentencers in making more use of this disposal, and increasing the range and onerousness of the requirements attached. This recommended approach has been reflected in its entirety in the Review.
The effectiveness of all these measures will naturally depend on the detail, much of which will not emerge until the Government publishes the necessary legislation. In particular, questions remain about the exclusions that will apply to the presumption against short sentences There is a balance to be struck between the need for these measures to deliver the necessary reduction in the use of prison, and the need to preserve the confidence of victims and the public, especially in relation to offence types where there is a risk of repeat victimisation and escalation, such as domestic abuse.
As the Review itself notes, it is essential that these recommendations are aligned to an increase in resources for probation and related provision such as community accommodation and health services. The Sentencing Academy would also wish to add the need for comprehensive training for judges and magistrates on the changes, to ensure that they are used confidently and appropriately once the legislation passes.
Given our role in promoting more evidence-based approach to sentencing in general, the Sentencing Academy is interested not only in how effectively the proposals respond to the immediate challenges in the criminal justice system, but in whether and how they will help to drive a more evidence-led and sustainable public discourse around sentencing in the longer term.
We therefore welcome the recommendation that there should be an independent advisory body to guide Government, Parliament and the public on what works to reduce crime and reoffending, and on the impact of proposed measures on prison and probation capacity. However, it is not yet clear what form this body would take and to whom it should report and be accountable, and we therefore await the Government response on this point with particular interest.
The Review also expresses concern about the general lack of public awareness of sentencing, citing our own research on this. We support the suggested initiatives to enhance the public and victims’ understanding of the sentencing framework and what it means in practice, but we also believe that using the clearest possible language is part of the solution, and should be prioritised as the legislation that will follow the Review is drafted. We will shortly publish new research into the perceived lack of clarity in some of the terms currently used to describe various sentencing practices, which we hope will prove useful.
Finally, in addition to many of the recommendations themselves, we also endorse the warning sounded in the Conclusion to the Review, that ‘If the proposals contained within this review are to be anything other than a temporary reset, politicians need to resist the temptation to believe that the answer to every problem in the criminal justice system should be answered by legislating for longer sentences’. We have previously noted this risk, especially in a Parliament with a significant number of new MPs, and note that the responsibility for averting it does not lie with those who have carried out the Review, nor even solely with the Government, but with all political parties and opinion-formers, including the media.
Our question – ‘How will the seemingly irresistible political demands that stand accused of having led to the current situation be avoided in future?’ – will only be answered long after the Review recommendations have entered into law, and we encourage all those who will be involved in the next stages of this highly consequential reform of sentencing to keep it in mind now and in the future.
The Sentencing Academy will publish further reflections on the Review, the Government response and any emerging legislative proposals over the coming weeks.
