A series of “radical” proposedreforms to criminal sentencinghave been submitted to ministers by the former justice secretaryDavid Gauke, who has said that, if implemented, they should solve the UK’s prison overcrowding problem. The government has confirmed that the majority of his suggestions will be recommendations. But what are they?
Gauke’s review suggests sentences of less than a year be ditched for most offences, calling on the government to legislate the reduction in their use. “While short custodial sentences may serve as punishment, they often fall short in providing meaningful rehabilitation to offenders, have a limited deterrent effect and comewith high costs,” the report said.
The review said a major increase in the number of people being sentenced to jail terms of less than a year had driven the increase in the prison population overall.
Gauke went further, suggesting judges be allowed to suspend sentences of as much as three years – up from the current limit of two – and that such measures be used more often. And it promotes beefing up confiscation orders and similar measures.
Instead of the current system, in which Gauke said there is a mishmash of regimes determining when prisoners are released, he has proposed a standardised system in which good behaviour opens the door for earlier release. Conversely, bad behaviour would see others kept in for longer.
He suggested that such measures be applied to standard custodial sentences – the most commonly handed down. The system would split the sentence into thirds: custody, post-custody and at-risk. The former would end after a third of the sentence had been served if the offender had behaved well; the second would involve intensive supervision. While the third would end active supervision, a person could return to prison if they committed a new offence.
In the case of bad behaviour during the custody stage, Gauke suggested that the option of extending it to cover half of the sentence be available.
Perhaps the most attention-grabbing measure proposed in the review is the promotion of a chemical castration programme for some sex offenders. It calls for a pilot programme already running in the south-west of England to be expanded, and for the government to study similar systems around the world.
But Gauke was careful to stress that he understood such a programme would not be appropriate for all sexual offenders. He noted, for example, that power is a key driver in many cases, for which chemical castration should not be seen as an option.
But the same package of measures also includes important proposals on how to treat female and older offenders equitably – for example, promoting release on compassionate grounds and funding women’s centres.
Rather than relying so heavily on custody, the review recommends an increased use of orders such as community service, a fine or a curfew, among other measures.
“The review received evidence, including from ex-offenders, of the ways in which community orders have enabled individuals to change their behaviour in the longterm and desist from crime,” Gauke wrote.
But he added: “We have heard that it is already the case that judges and magistrates use community sentences less than they might do because of concerns about their delivery and enforcement. To deliver a shift away from custody to community sentences will require greater confidence in the effectiveness of community sentences.
A disproportionate weight has been given to punishment over protecting victims and reducing crime in recent years, Gauke argued. The government should legislate to redress the balance.
“The current sentencing regime can be opaque and overly complex,” Gauke wrote. Ministers should consider a public messaging campaign to address misconceptions about how long offenders spend behind bars so that victims have a better understanding of the system.
Gauke also applauded the provision of free copies of judge’s sentencing remarks to victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and called for the scheme to be preserved.
Some of the most effective means of rehabilitation are properly resourced probation services, as well as charities, Gauke argued. He suggested increasing funding to each to help build trusting relationships with offenders out on licence.
Gauke’s language was carefully measured not to place the blame for the overcrowding in prisons solely on the shoulders of one government. And he proposed measures to ensure that future governments do not dismantle his work – suggesting the creation of an independent advisory body, and the requirement for a government minister to report to parliament on how measures are expected to affect the prison population.
The review suggested that technologies such “digital identity verification, AI-driven decision-making and real-time data analytics” are already helping make other sectors more efficient – and should be deployed within the criminal justice system to free up resources to be used for more important tasks.