Yesterday the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, gave a speech to the Oxford University Centre for Criminology. It was entitled "Alternatives to Custody-The Case for Community Sentencing. It's unlikely to be published widely.
This morning, the Human Rights Act is under a further sustained attack by the tabloids as the result of the decision on the Afghans-no they are not hijackers they were all aquitted of those offences-by Mr Justice Sullivan. Added to that was the report by the Chief Inspector of Probation, Andrew Bridges, into the release by the Parole Board of Anthony Rice.
The Parole Board have an immensely difficult task. But it has been suggested that the decision was
" exacerbated by two instances where parole and probation staff had allowed human rights considerations to undermine the importance of public protection."
Balancing individual Human Rights against public protection has always been, even before the introduction of the Human Rights Act, a difficult exercise. And clearly something went wrong with the decision to release Rice, but to put this forward as Bridges did, as part of the Board's error, is incomprehensible.
"He particularly criticised the presence of a barrister pressing for the prisoner's release at the parole board hearing" (source)
I wonder just what Rice's legal representative was supposed to be doing if not advocating his client's case. Not to do so would have been a most serious breach of a barrister's professional duty to a client.
Anyway, back to the Lord Chief Justice.
He concluded his lecture with this;
"My first ten years at the Bar were spent in Admiralty practice, where my staple diet was salvage. Alternatives to custody involve another kind of salvage.
I believe that the exercise is enormously worth while in the interests of all of us and I commend it to you.
This is a public lecture. It may be reported. If so, I would like to think that it will be reported fairly. That would, I must accept, be something of a novelty.
Last autumn the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which I chair, published draft guidelines in respect of robbery. These stated that the starting point in relation to robbery should almost always be a custodial sentence – a long one where serious violence or injury was involved. There was one exception to this, in the case of young first offenders using minimal force or threat of force. This earned me the headline in one tabloid, in letters an inch high, RIDICULOUS followed by ‘Muggers must not be sent to prison says our new Lord Chief Justice’
This evening I have not been talking about serious or violent criminals.
I have been talking about the large number of inadequate or damaged members of society for whom minor criminality is the only way of life they know. Short spells of imprisonment followed by re-offending is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with these. Meaningful punishment in the community, coupled with a proper programme of rehabilitation, properly resourced and managed, must be the better option."
Andrew Keogh, a most experienced criminal defence solicitor commented on the speech:
"Anyone experienced in the daily diet of misery that comes before the lower courts day in, day out, will take some comfort from the sentiments expressed; one can only hope that magistrates' (and some Judges), still often obsessed with the preceived effectiveness of short custodial sentences, will take note. It would appear that the failings of community sentences are probable due to inadequate resources - if that is correct it seems a folly to try and correct the situation with a more expensive prison option."
Even though Home Office research has shown this to be true, I somehow can't see "Dr" John Reid, our new Home Secretary, expressing these sentiments.
Comments