Our latest eBulletin, sent out to subscribers on Friday, 02 May
The Supreme Court has issued an important judgment with implications for the criminal justice system.
The judgment relates to what will strike many as a rather trivial matter: what is meant, in law, by the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’? It has though, become something of a “vexed question”, to use the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood’s term, as she appeared before parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this week.
How one resolves the question of what makes a man or women – biology or social convention – does, though, have a significant bearing on practical questions in criminal justice.
Should a male prisoner who identifies as a women be housed in a men’s prison, or a women’s prison? If the police have to strip search a detainee whose birth-sex of female, but who identifies as a man, should the search be carried out by male officers or female officers?
In English law, only males can commit rape. Should the offences of a male-born defendant, who identifies as a women, be entered into the official statistics as having been committed by a man, or by a woman?
These are all real-world dilemmas and challenges that have emerged because of a lack of agreement of what it means, in law, to be a man or a woman. This is why last month's Supreme Court ruling – that for equality law purposes at least, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological, not social, basis – is significant. It could have a significant impact on the policies and practice of a range of criminal justice bodies, as well as charities, private sector organisations and others.
I have offered some thoughts and reflections on some of these implications here.
Court rulings, even from the Supreme Court, only get you so far. I was reminded of this while listening to the excellent ‘In it together’ podcast series, which we produced in partnership with JENGbA.
Nearly ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws on joint enterprise had taken a ‘wrong turn’ more than three decades earlier. It was a wrong turn that has probably seen many people wrongly convicted, on the basis of the wrong application of the law.
I was among many others, back in 2016, who thought that a major victory had been achieved. Yet nearly ten years on, and as our own work has demonstrated, little appears to have changed.
Faced with the prompt of a significant court ruling, criminal justice institutions can and do change. Their capacity to flex, bend, and ultimately absorb challenges they would rather not address, should also not be underestimated.
Richard Garside
Director
Release of In It Together: The Joint Enterprise Podcast
Last month saw the release of In It Together: The Joint Enterprise Podcast, which explores how joint enterprise works, who it affects, and why justice is not being served by these vague laws.
The four-part podcast is presented by actor and campaigner Maxine Peake and features powerful testimonies from those convicted under joint enterprise laws and their families, as well as interviews with legal experts. The episodes cover a number of themes including where these laws came from, race, neurodivergence, and the campaign for change.
We are delighted to see that the podcast was covered in The Guardian’s pick of the week, and the Great British Podcast newsletter.
One listener, Harriet, stated:
Totally eye-opening! Maxine Peake is a great, warm host and it's really moving hearing from real people who've been affected by joint enterprise laws - brings the injustices to life
You can listen to the podcast on Acast, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and all the usual podcast apps.
This podcast series has been produced by EarWorm Productions and edited by our Head of Programmes, Helen Mills, in collaboration with JENGbA. It has been funded by the Institute of Now and the Barry Amiel & Norman Melburn Trust.
IPP Bill at pre-committee stage
Lord Woodley’s Private Members’ Bill, Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-Sentencing) Bill has passed its second reading, progressing it onto the Committee Stage, which is expected to take place in early June.
In preparation for this, we held a briefing to discuss the various amendments of the Bill, which will be debated during the Committee Stage in the House of Lords.
While some of the the amendments are intended to tighten-up and improve the Bill, most are intended to break down and clarify the formal reasons for the government’s opposition to different aspects of IPP resentencing.
For instance, the government argues that resentencing all IPP prisoners will mean that some ‘dangerous’ prisoners will be released without being assessed as ‘safe’ for release by the Parole Board. One of the amendments seek to meet this objection, proposing a resentencing exercise only for those already living in the community (and who have therefore already gone through the Parole Board process).
Some will understandably see this parliamentary process as a bit of a distraction from the practical work of supporting those under the IPP sentence. The IPP mess was, though, created by parliament and this Bill is an opportunity to keep reminding parliamentarians of their responsibilities.
We will continue to update you as the process moves along.
In the meantime, if you would like to share your thoughts, please drop us a line.
Commentary and analysis
This month, adding to our series of comment pieces on the Independent Sentencing Review:
- Jon Collins argues the case for putting education at the heart of prison reform and, specifically, the potential benefits of a reformed approach to ‘earned release’.
- Tom Wheatley calls for sentencing reform to be evidence-based and avoid politicisation.
Meanwhile, Janet Carter gives her thoughts on the postponement of new sentencing guidelines for community orders and custody, regarding the prioritisation of pre-sentence reports for specific offender cohort.
Richard Sidebottom and Frank Easton, describe the work of local rural communities in Weathersfield who are resisting the proposal of two ‘mega prisons’.
Richard Garside discusses some of the potential implications of last month's Supreme Court ruling on the seemingly arcane matter of the meaning of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in law.
We are also pleased to announce that last month’s comment piece by Katelyn Owens caught the eye of the Crown Prosecution Service, who have invited her to speak as part of their ‘Analysis in Government’ month in May.
Interested in submitting a comment piece? Drop us a line.
Prison Service Journal
The next issue of the PSJ should be out later this month, and, if you haven’t had a chance already, the March issue is available to read and download here.
In light of last week’s announcement that the government has authorised the use of PAVA spray in three Youth Offender Institutions, we want to highlight the 2022 Prison Service Journal 260, which includes pieces on preventing prison staff assaults, and recognising good practice in prisons.
News from our partners
This month, our friends at StopWatch held an event to launch their latest report #GIRLSMATTERTOO, which looks at women and girls’ experiences with the police.
The research team comprised of girls and young women, who conducted semi-structured interviews of 25 Black, Asian and Mixed-race girls and young women in London and Manchester. The respondents’ testimonies unveil recurring patterns of police misconduct on a systemic scale.
You can read more about the project here.
Support our work
In the last 12 months, around one pound in every ten we received in income came from individual donations. We are so appreciative of the vital support we receive from our donors and supporters.
If you like what we do, and can afford to make a donation to support our important work, we would be very grateful.
You can also spread the word about our work by forwarding on this bulletin to others and encouraging them to sign up.
