Mean-spirited and unjust: why the MoJ’s new rules risk undermining rehabilitation
It’s all a mess! Who knows what will have happened by the time this appears in print, but at the time of writing, the planned 2 September introduction of the new ‘progression model’ has been suspended pending a review.
I’ve been in several prisons over the past week, speaking to professionals who are unsure at how to proceed, and prisoners who are upset that their upcoming, earlier release is now in doubt.
But it’s not just a question of what is happening with the earlier release points. In June, the Ministry of Justice published a Statutory Instrument (SI) setting out changes to additional days and other unpleasant surprises. The changes are due to come in on 2 September.
The Howard League has serious concerns about the use of additional days, and we are deeply concerned that the maximum number of additional days has been doubled from 42 to 84 days for adults aged 21 and over (children and young people under 21 are excluded). The increase in additional days was originally announced alongside the change in release dates, to delay earlier release for those who break prison rules. However, it will also apply to some people who aren’t going to benefit from the one-third release or any reduced custodial period, most notably those serving an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS). The Gauke Review recommended that people serving EDS should be able to go to the Parole Board at 50 per cent rather than two-thirds; a recommendation that was rejected by the government. But this group still get their additional days doubled? Extraordinary.
The measure which concerns me most is the restriction on social visits.
But it’s not just additional days. It will now be possible to extend the forfeiture of privileges such as enhanced gym access from 42 to 84 days for adults. I know how important such privileges are, and that their absence is keenly felt.
And it gets worse. The measure which concerns me most is the restriction on social visits. The SI has introduced two new punishments restricting social visits for adults who have been convicted – a restriction on all visits for up to 27 days and/or a limit to one visit per 28 days for up to 84 days. It is also possible to receive both punishments (though, thankfully, visits from people’s children are exempt).
I know from the letters I receive and from meeting you on wings that family ties and social visits are a lifeline, and the government’s own evidence highlights their importance to successful resettlement. These new measures are about punishment and punishment alone.
We have written to ministers about this mean-spirited change. And in light of the suspension, pending review, of the 2 September releases, we have also sought clarification about whether additional days and additional punishments have also been suspended.
We also understand that Home Detention Curfew (HDC) applications made after 25 June are not being processed, contrary to the published policy. We have written to the new Lord Chancellor urging him to reinstate consideration of HDC applications. Given the government’s stated objective of freeing up prison beds, this policy change didn’t make sense in the first place; but now it simply must return. We have prepared an explainer on the HDC changes, so get in touch if you want to know how this is operating and your options.
The Sentencing Act was meant to free up desperately needed prison spaces, and yet we face a situation where HDC isn’t available to those otherwise eligible, and additional days will be doubled – increasing the number of people in prison. It’s the worst of all worlds.
While it has little room to manoeuvre, the government has options. It could decide to release people recalled without further charges, release people on remand (particularly for non-violent offences), or finally accelerate the release of people who have more than served their specified tariff: those serving the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence and pre-IPP two-strikers. It will need to do something.
If you have been or might be affected by these or similar measures and would like to share your thoughts, do write to me at the Howard League for Penal Reform, 75-77 St John Street, London, EC1M 4NN.
The Howard League is arguably not in the business of commending anything, – but diplomacy is usually a bit kinder than this. It certainly seems strange that having imprisoned people, we seek to double the punishments available inside. Presumably the thought is, to reduce prisoner violence : nothing has seemed terribly effective at that, so far. What does the good Howard League propose, as an alternative for reducing prisoner violence? We now have Tasers and anti-stab armour, but this mostly protect the Staff. The underlying problem might be the drugs, and underlying that the 22-hour bang-up’s, the lack of exercise and education.
What seems important but not mentioned, is whether these extended ‘additional days’ can only be awarded by the outside independent adjudicator?