INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO ALTERNATIVES TO CUSTODY SPONSORED BY THE ESMÉE FAIRBAIRN FOUNDATION
Summary: the Chairman and Commissioners invite you to submit evidence to the Inquiry by 30 September 2003.
Background
The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is one of the largest independent grant making foundations in the UK. It provides grants supporting activities in four main programme areas: arts and heritage; education; environment and social development.
In 2001the Foundation became concerned at the continuing increase in the number of persons in custody and set up a three year project "Rethinking Crime and Punishment" with the objective of promoting a wide-ranging debate about the role and impact of imprisonment and other forms of punishment among the public, the media and policy-makers. The Foundation hopes this will contribute to more rational and evidence based policy-making.
As part of this project, the Foundation has set up an independent inquiry to examine alternatives to imprisonment. The Inquiry will be undertaken by me, as chairman together with five commissioners - details of whom are attached to this letter at Annex A. It is important to say that the Foundation intends that the inquiry should be independent and should not approach the subject with any pre-conceived attitudes or assumptions.
Terms of reference
Our terms of reference are as follows.
"The Inquiry will examine, against the background of continuing increases in the prison population in the U.K, the adequacy and limitations of the current provision of alternatives to prison for adults and children convicted of crimes in the U.K., and the administration and levels of effectiveness of such alternatives, and make recommendations.
The Inquiry will examine in particular: -
the specific provision of alternative sentencing options available to the courts;
the factors which influence the use of alternatives in particular situations;
the success of alternatives in protecting the public, reducing offending and punishing offenders;
the current responsibilities for making alternative provisions available;
the adequacy of the resourcing of alternative provisions;
public confidence in alternatives;
the adequacy of current data on alternatives and their outcome; and
any other matters the Inquiry may think fit."
The Inquiry aims to report within 12 months of being established.
Scope
For obvious practical reasons, an inquiry of this sort cannot attempt to deal with all aspects of the criminal justice system or of sentencing policy. It will therefore focus on alternatives to custody or, as they are often now called, community penalties: in particular, upon cases in which a custodial sentence might be imposed but which are not so serious as to make such a sentence inevitable.
At this stage, it is not envisaged that the Inquiry will deal with the management of offenders in prison, except in so far as that may arise incidentally, for example where custodial and non-custodial elements may be combined in part-time custody or "custody plus" sentences. Similarly, we do not anticipate that it will deal with the length of sentences in cases for which some substantial period of imprisonment is inevitable.
Consultation
Annex B sets out questions in a number of areas we have identified as relevant to our task. You may find these helpful in framing your response, but we are anxious not to restrict the material which is submitted to us and would therefore welcome any comments which are, in your opinion, in any way related to the terms of reference.
Because of our tight timetable we need to ask for responses by Tuesday 30 September 2003. Details of how these can be submitted are included in Annex B.
Please address any queries about the Inquiry to the secretary:
Valerie Keating
C/o The Police Foundation
First Floor
Park Place
12 Lawn Lane
London SW8 1UD
Telephone 020 7582 3744
Fax 020 7587 0671
e mail [email protected]
Yours sincerely
Lord Coulsfield
Chairman of the Inquiry
Annex A
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO ALTERNATIVES TO CUSTODY SPONSORED BY THE ESME FAIRBAIRN FOUNDATION
Chairman
The Right Honourable John Cameron, Lord Coulsfield
Lord Coulsfield served as a judge in Scotland from 1987-2002. He previously practised at the Scottish Bar, taking silk in 1973. He has chaired a number of committees connected with the reform of court procedure and legal education. He was a member of the Scottish Court in the Netherlands which dealt with the Lockerbie air crash.
Commissioners
Marcel Berlins
Marcel Berlins is a broadcaster and legal journalist: Legal Columnist, The Guardian; Presenter, Law in Action (BBC Radio 4). Books include; (co-author) Caught in the Act, a critique of the law on young offenders.
Andrew Fleming-Williams
Andrew Fleming-Williams is Treasurer of the Prison Reform Trust and an external member of the senior management team at HMP Wandsworth. He retired at the end of 2002 from a career in insurance, and was a Justice of the Peace 1988-1993
Cedric Fullwood
Cedric Fullwood is Chair of the Cheshire Area of the National Probation Service, a member of the Youth Justice Board and a Vice-President of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. He was Chair of the Penal Affairs Consortium from 2000-2003. He was Chief Probation Officer for Greater Manchester from 1982 to 1998. In 1999, he was a member of the Department of Health review of social work services in high security hospitals. He chairs the Audit Committee, Practice and Performance Committee, Asset Steering Group, ISSP Steering Group and the Research Sub-Group at the Board.
Angela Sarkis CBE
Management Consultant, Non Executive Director on the Correctional Service Board at the Home Office, BBC Governor, Trustee of the Kings Fund, Adviser to DFES and the Home Office Active Community Unit. Former Chief Executive of the DIVERT Trust and Church Urban Fund and Adviser to the Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit. Has ten years experience working in the Probation Service. Former Trustee of BBC Children in Need and Council member Howard League for Penal Reform.
Annabella Scott
Annabella Scott is a magistrate: she was appointed to the Inner London Juvenile Panel in 1975 and currently sits in youth, family proceedings and adult courts in Inner London. She was chairman of the Inner London Youth Panel of some 200 magistrates from 1994 – 97. Annabella has been a member of the Youth Justice Board since its inception in 1998. She worked in the Citizen’s Advice Bureau for about 15 years and has been a trustee of a range of small charities,
Annex B
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO ALTERNATIVES TO CUSTODY SPONSORED BY THE ESME FAIRBAIRN FOUNDATION
The following questions are intended to be pointers to the issues which we think will be most relevant to the Inquiry. You do not need to respond to all the issues - only those which you feel are relevant to you or your organisation. We would also welcome views on any other issues which you feel are relevant to the Inquiry.
Please send responses by 30 September 2003 to:
Valerie Keating
C/o the Police Foundation
First Floor
Park Place
12 Lawn Lane
London SW8 1UD
or e mail [email protected]
The Prison Population
Who are the persons who make up the prison population?
Why are these persons being sent to prison?
What group of prisoners might be considered suitable for some other disposal?
Factors relevant to acceptable sentencing
What are these factors?
Are there different perspectives as to the relative importance of the factors?
Is there underlying divergence of opinion as to the objectives of sentencing?
If so, what scope is there for modification?
What information is available to sentencers?
Is it adequate in quality?
What is the effect of sentencing guidelines issued by the higher courts?
Might there be a place for advice and assistance to judges and magistrates generally or in particular cases?
The efficiency, effectiveness and adequacy of alternative disposals.
What are the available alternatives and how are they used?
Are they more or less effective in limiting re-offending than custodial sentences?
In what sort of cases may the alternatives be expected to be effective and acceptable? Is effectiveness a function of the quality of sentencing decisions?
Are there alternative disposals which have not been worked out or put into operation?
Are all of the possible alternatives in practice available in every part of the country?
Is what is available adequate to do the job?
What is the effect of differences in the availability of support for different non-custodial disposals in different areas?
Who is responsible for the provision of alternatives?
Back-up/enforcement mechanisms for non-custodial sentences
Failure to comply with community penalties may lead to imprisonment and it has been suggested this may be increase pressure on the prison system. Should failure to perform in accordance with the requirements of a community penalty lead to escalation?
If not, how are non-performers to be dealt with?
Public attitudes and the role of the media
. Does the public have an accurate understanding of the levels of crime in Britain and the sentences actually imposed?
Do they have an accurate picture of the nature and operation of community sentences?
Do the media provide a balanced impression of the levels of crime and of sentences?
What part is played by the experiences of victims? Is the contribution of victims too great or too little?
How far are sentencers influenced by media criticisms and public opinion?
If the public, through the media, do in fact have an unbalanced view of crime
and sentencing, what can be done to promote more accurate perceptions?What can be done to raise the public level of awareness of alternatives to custodial sentences and their confidence in them?