Shortly before he became Prime Minister, Andy Burnham’s team spoke to The Sunday Times about the prisoner early release scheme.
Under the scheme, most prisoners serving fixed-length sentences were, from September, due to be released at the one third point of their sentence, down from the current 40 per cent point. With prisons due to run out of space later this year, the scheme was sold as a necessary step to prevent prisons, and by extension the entire justice system, from seizing up.
Burnham was “understood to be alarmed”, his team told the newspaper on 4 July, by some aspect of the plans, “under which child groomers and rapists could be among more than 5,000 prisoners eligible for early release”.
A few days later, the Conservative opposition initiated a parliamentary debate, which called on the Government “to exempt from automatic early release… any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences”.
Few Labour MPs spoke in support of the early release scheme; a number spoke against it. When Burnham became Prime Minister a few weeks later, he quickly paused the early release scheme “until we have conducted an urgent review and done everything we can to minimise risk to the public”.
For me, one of the most interesting interventions in the debate came from the Liberal Democrat MP, Jess Brown-Fuller. “When a sentence is handed down,” she said, “victims deserve the certainty of knowing where they stand and how long their perpetrator will remain behind bars”.
New laws and sentences, she added, are not applied retrospectively. “The same should apply to sentencing after the fact”.
Another MP, the Conservative John Cooper, argued that the wool was being pulled over the public’s eyes, “because what may sound like a hefty sentence is automatically subject to a craven rolling back or to early release”.
These are versions of the so-called ‘truth in sentencing’ argument, which, at its most uncompromising, would hold that a person sentenced, say, to six years should serve all six of those years in prison before being released.
In practice, prisoners on fixed sentences serve some of their prison sentence under post-release supervision in the community, rather than all of it in a cell. And while there are good resettlement and rehabilitation arguments for doing this, it does become a more difficult sell when only a minority of a prison sentence is actually served in prison.
Successive governments and parliaments have driven up sentence lengths through legislation over many years, contributing to the prison capacity crisis we currently have. Successive governments and parliaments have then sought to undo, administratively, the effects of this legislation through early release schemes.
Something will eventually have to give. The declared sentences, for a whole range of offences, are far too long. Addressing this through ad hoc administrative measures is no way to run a justice system.
What should not survive indefinitely is the current arrangement, in which Parliament promises punishment that cannot be delivered, and the gap is closed administratively, out of sight, until a letter lands on a victim’s doormat.
Truth in sentencing need not mean every day served behind bars. But it ought at least to mean that the sentence announced in court is proportionate, and bears a stable, knowable relationship to the sentence actually served.
Richard Garside
Director
Upcoming event: Violence Reduction: Promise, practice and the gaps in between
Monday 22 September | 1.00pm to 4.00pm | Online
Six years on from the introduction of Violence Reduction Units (VRUs), what have we learned? Join us on Monday 22 September for this online workshop, where we'll examine the evidence on one of the most significant recent developments in violence prevention policy.
Drawing on local evaluations, collaborative research and national evidence, the workshop will explore the impact of VRUs on violence, examine the challenges of implementation, and identify where the evidence is strongest, and where important gaps remain.
Speaker details will be announced shortly. Registration is now open via our website.
Comment piece: A call for just outcomes through equal treatment
In a new comment piece for the Centre, Liat Tuv explores the structural drivers of ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system ahead of the publication of her forthcoming report, Behind the decline.
Drawing on research, data and evidence from across the sector, Liat argues that unequal outcomes are shaped by the cumulative effect of decisions made at successive stages of the justice process, alongside procedures that can reinforce rather than reduce disparity. Using the example of how remorse is assessed in sentencing, she examines how subjective decision-making can unintentionally disadvantage some groups and considers what this means for meaningful reform.
Rather than advocating different treatment for different groups, the article makes the case for fairer procedures and greater scrutiny to ensure equal treatment for everyone.
Read the full comment piece on our website.
Comment piece: Working with Young People to Prevent Serious Violence: The Voices of Practitioners with Lived Experience
Serious youth violence is often reduced to the shorthand of 'knife crime', a term that can conceal more than it explains. In a new comment piece for the Centre, Burak Batuhan Karakus and Roger Grimshaw draw on a roundtable of practitioners, many of whom came to community work by way of street life and prison.
Their central argument is that lived experience is the most undervalued resource in violence prevention. Practitioners who have been through the system carry not only empathy but credibility, and a form of authority that cannot be acquired in a classroom. Young people, they note, are unlikely to listen to those two generations removed from their circumstances.
Recent policy commitments are welcome, the authors conclude, but the quality of any relationship depends on who is in it. Until lived experience is treated as a qualification, and those who hold it are placed in decision-making roles rather than advisory ones, the most resonant voices will remain the least heard.
Read the full piece here.
New working paper: The Case for a Resentencing Review of Extant IPP Prisoners
Fourteen years after IPP was abolished, thousands of people are still held indeterminately or living under licence conditions with no end date. In a new working paper for the Centre, Sarah Markham sets out a mechanism for reviewing every remaining IPP sentence.
Drawing on legal, psychological and criminological evidence, she describes a system that has become disproportionate and procedurally unjust, and which now works against the aims it was designed to serve. Years of indeterminate detention can cause lasting psychological harm and deepen institutionalisation, while also distorting how risk is assessed. Where risk produced by the prison environment is mistaken for risk posed by the individual, release becomes harder to secure the longer someone remains inside.
Markham proposes an automatic resentencing review conducted by an independent multidisciplinary panel, with transparent decisions, risk assessment that accounts for context, and non-adversarial hearings. She also calls for changes to licence and recall arrangements to prevent avoidable returns to custody. The case throughout is not for leniency, but for public protection that rests on better evidence.
Read the full working paper on our website.
New footage: Inaugural BJC Annual Lecture with Professor Robert Sampson
Footage from the inaugural Annual Lecture of The British Journal of Criminology, held last month at Oxford University Press, is now available to watch.
We were delighted to welcome Professor Robert Sampson of Harvard University, who drew on themes from his latest book, Marked by Time: Confronting the Challenge of Social Change in Crime and Punishment. His lecture considered how long-term social processes shape patterns of crime, justice and inequality, and what a clearer view of social change asks of criminal justice.
Thank you to everyone who joined us for a well-attended and engaging discussion. The full recording is now on our website.
In the news
The Centre has featured in several recent pieces from Inside Time.
Helen Mills on the need for joint enterprise reform
The Centre’s own Helen Mills was quoted in Inside Time following the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, which proposes new offences of first-degree and second-degree murder. While the review does not make recommendations on joint enterprise, it concludes that the law in this area requires reform. Helen highlights what should happen next, including the need to build on the Commission’s findings and maintain pressure for reform of joint enterprise.
IPP special edition featured in Prisoners’ Mailbag
The Centre's forthcoming special edition of the Prison Service Journal on IPP sentences was mentioned in Inside Time’s Prisoners’ Mailbag, alongside an interview with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Edwards. The piece reflects on the continuing debate around IPP sentences and the experiences of those affected.
Seventh IPP case referred to Court of Appeal
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred another IPP sentencing case to the Court of Appeal, bringing the number of IPP cases it has referred to seven. The latest referral comes amid continuing scrutiny of the use and consequences of imprisonment for public protection.
What's what in The British Journal of Criminology?
For more than sixty years, The British Journal of Criminology has published some of the most significant research in the field.
A number of open-access articles were published this month:
- Jennifer Galouzis and colleagues use data on more than 11,000 men released from 45 Australian prisons to show that reimprisonment rates differ significantly between institutions even after individual risk is accounted for, making the case that reoffending cannot be explained by the person alone.
- Dom Cox and colleagues analyse nearly 10,000 stop-and-search encounters in Staffordshire and find policing activity is highly concentrated, with a tenth of neighbourhoods accounting for over half of all stops and a small group of officers conducting nearly half, suggesting racial disparities are shaped by deployment patterns as much as individual bias.
- Fakhrul Islam and Suzanna Fay draw on interviews with officials and practitioners in Bangladesh to show how recognition as a trafficking victim is graded and reversible, with judgements about respectability and evidence built into the paperwork and pace of anti-trafficking bureaucracy.
Prison Service Journal archive
We are in the process of digitising and uploading the entire back catalogue of Prison Service Journal, from the first edition in 1960. A complete run from 1960 to 1995 is currently available, alongside a complete run from July 2010 to the present day.
This month, the editors have highlighted articles from editions 37, 38 and 39.
Edition 37
Punishment or Treatment: Prison or Hospital?, by P. D. Scott explores the historical tension between medically treating offenders and punishing them legally. It examines whether antisocial behaviour should be viewed as a mental health issue or a moral failing and discusses the limitations of therapeutic care versus traditional punitive measures within both hospital and prison settings.
Edition 38
This edition focusses on reflection on the May Committee Report (or May Report) on Prison Services published in 1979. In Unrealised Hopes, Vivien Stern critiques the May Report from NACRO’s perspective, arguing that its failure lies in not fully committing to reducing the prison population. Drawing on NACRO’s extensive experience with community-based alternatives, Stern contends that many people in prison—particularly for petty crimes, those with mental health difficulties, and those with addiction problems—are unnecessarily imprisoned, causing disproportionate harm to individuals and families while offering limited public benefit. She notes broad political consensus supporting alternatives to custody but criticises the Report for lacking firm proposals or targets, leaving longstanding hopes for meaningful decarceration largely unfulfilled.
Edition 39
Derek Perkins outlines the development of a behaviour therapy programme for sexual offenders at Birmingham Prison, arguing that carefully selected volunteers can benefit from structured psychological assessment, behavioural analysis, and targeted interventions such as social skills training and fantasy based techniques. He concludes that, while results must be interpreted cautiously, early evidence suggests that a limited, well designed treatment service delivered across custody and community settings can meaningfully reduce some offenders’ risk of reoffending.
Ground Floor Office Space Available
Looking for a bright, office in central London? We have a great ground floor office available now.
- 650 sq ft with excellent natural light.
- Raised floors, modern lighting, and air-conditioning.
- Less than five minutes from Vauxhall train, underground, and bus station.
What is more, you also get free use of a separate board meeting room at no additional cost.
All this from just £34 per sq ft—hard to beat in central London.
Find out more here or contact Jeanie Reid at info@crimeandjustice.org.uk.
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 this bulletin to others and encouraging them to sign up.
