New Sentencing Review: What is it and what does it mean for RJ?
This is a blog by our CEO, Sara Dowling.
Last week, the Government published their long-awaited Sentencing Review, led by former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. In light of the current prison crisis and the early release of prisoners late last year through the SDS40 scheme, the principal aim of the review was “to put the prison population on a sustainable footing, ensuring that in the future further emergency releases would not be necessary.” As stated in the executive summary, the review has come out of an “urgent necessity to reduce the prison population below its projected levels”.
The review was based on the following three guiding principles:
- First, sentences must punish offenders and protect the public – there must always be space in prison for the most dangerous offenders.
- Second, sentences must encourage offenders to turn their backs on a life of crime, cutting crime by reducing reoffending.
- Third, we must expand and make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
The review concludes with a series of recommendations for the Government’s consideration, which are “a holistic package of measures that will work best in conjunction with each other” to address the issues with the current system. Considering the short timescale within which the report had to be delivered, the review gives broad recommendations focused on the majority of sentences, rather than an examination of minimum and maximum sentences for individual offences.
What does the report say?
The report begins with sharing the five purposes of sentencing as stated in legislation, which are “punishment, reduction of crime, reparation, rehabilitation and public protection”.
“Over the last two decades, sentencing has focused disproportionately on punishment with a view from politicians and the media that “the only form of punishment that counts is imprisonment.”” The report suggests ways that the court can balance this with the other purposes of sentencing too, rather than an over-reliance on punishment which is “fiscally unsustainable, but it is also not keeping the public safe.”
“The overwhelming consensus from the evidence the Review has gathered is that rehabilitative support in the community is, in many cases, the most effective way to reduce reoffending.”
Why me? welcome a move away from a focus on only punishment, and a narrative that punishment equals imprisonment. We are concerned, however, that despite the evidence that rehabilitative support is far more effective than pure reliance on custodial sentences, there is currently limited provision of rehabilitation programmes in prisons and prison overcrowding is only making the problem worse. “Any prison overcrowding as a result of capacity pressures can limit the amount of purposeful, rehabilitative activity on offer. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons’ annual report for 2022-2023 found that standards of purposeful activity were rated poor or insufficiently good in all but one of the adult male prisons inspected.”
Ultimately the Review concludes that “custodial sentencing is not the most effective way to reduce reoffending and cut crime”.
As a result of their conclusions, the review has “identified a package of measures which not only aim to address the prison capacity gap but which will also create a more supportive, effective system for both offenders and their victims.” The recommendations are structured under the following headings:
- Revisiting the statutory purposes of sentencing
- Strengthening alternatives to custody in the community
- Reducing reliance on custody
- Incentivising progression from custody to community
- Taking a victim centred approach
- Targeted approaches to different groups
- The role of the Probation Service
- The role of technology
- Longer-term considerations for a sustainable prison system
You can read a summary of the recommendations they have made on page 14 of the review.
Where does Restorative Justice come in?
Why me? submitted a response to the Sentencing Review, and also attended a roundtable with David Gauke looking at how victims’ needs can and should be met through the sentencing framework. In our response we argued that Restorative Justice is a powerful and underutilized tool that can play a crucial role in reducing reoffending, repairing harm and increasing victims’ feelings of safety and recovery.
We are therefore disappointed that there are only two mentions of the word ‘restorative’, in the entire 192 page document. They are as follows:
In a segment on deferred sentences, it says “The Sentencing Code provides examples of the sorts of conditions the court can impose, including conditions related to the “residence of the offender” or “restorative justice requirements””.
Secondly, a box in the segment on ‘young adult offenders’ says the following:
The omission of Restorative Justice in any meaningful way in the review is a huge missed opportunity to strengthen sentencing provision, ease the prison crisis and rehabilitate people affected by crime, particularly considering that one of the stated aims of sentencing is ‘reparation’.
Restorative Justice by its nature supports harmers to make amends.
Restorative Justice could also play a key role in strengthening alternatives to custody in the community, particularly with the abolition of RAR days and the introduction of broader probation orders which will have greater flexibility and could be mandated to include the consideration of Restorative Justice.
Going through a Restorative Justice process can help harmers take responsibility for the harm they have caused, help them deal with feelings of shame, rebuild positive relationships and can play a role in supporting progression from custody to community.
Restorative Justice is inherently victim centred, and often provides victims with the information and answers that no other element of the criminal justice system does, playing a key role in their recovery.
Ultimately, we hope that the sentencing review will help to tackle the prison crisis swiftly and effectively, to ensure that crime is dealt with in a way that will truly make a difference. We look forward to seeing which of the recommendations the Government decides to take forward, and how they progress. We will continue to advocate for wider use of Restorative Justice as a part of this new approach.