Howard League youth justice reform proposals would close some prisons and increase funding

The Howard League for Penal Reform has today written to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice, recommending a raft of radical youth justice reforms that would help children and save the taxpayer millions.

The letter, written by the Howard League’s Chief Executive, Frances Crook, sets out a strategy for reducing the number of children in custody, which would enable the government to close prisons and provide more funding for services that tackle the causes of reoffending.

It recommends the closure of two secure training centres – Rainsbrook, in Northamptonshire, and Medway, in Kent – whose contracts are due for renewal. This would bring savings worth up to £181million over the next seven years.

It also calls for the abolition of detention and training orders, reform of youth courts, a new role for the Youth Justice Board, and measures to address the disproportionately high number of black and minority ethnic children in custody.

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “Although significant challenges arise in times of strained public resources, they also present an opportunity for radical reform.

“We are all so much more than the worst thing we have done. All children deserve the possibility of redemption and hope for a positive future. Communities deserve to feel safe. Taxpayers deserve to see their money well spent.

“Only by taking a radical approach can a lasting solution be found.”

The letter to Mr Gove makes 11 recommendations. They are:

Recommendations for immediate action

Do not renew contracts for Medway and Rainsbrook secure training centres.

There is an opportunity to close these centres, which would generate considerable savings, and invest the money into evidence-based interventions and preventing children from coming into contact with the youth justice system in the first place.

Recommendations for action within the next three to six months

Introduce legislation to abolish the Detention and Training Order.

In the last year, almost 2,000 children were sentenced to a Detention and Training Order (DTO). The average length of a DTO was 15 weeks. Research published by the Youth Justice Board raised serious concerns about short-term prison sentences, concluding that they provide “insufficient time for staff to build strong relationships with young people or to provide appropriate and effective interventions which could be carried forward upon release”.

Address the over-representation of black and minority ethnic (BAME) children in prison.

BAME children now account for 41 per cent of the total child prison population. A cross-governmental board should be established to review the reasons for this over-representation and to devise a strategy to reduce the number of BAME children in prison.

Devolve the custody budget to local authorities.

Making local authorities financially responsible for children in custody would increase accountability and allow them to invest in prevention and alternatives to custody.

Review the use of remand.

Almost 2,000 children were remanded to custody in 2013-14. Of these, 62 per cent were either acquitted or not given a custodial sentence.

Issue guidance that encourages a flexible and proportionate response to breaches of statutory orders.

Children on licence can be recalled to custody, without first appearing in court, for missing appointments, being late home or not going to school. Many children who breach their sentence conditions do it because of their chaotic lives and lack of family support. The period on licence should be one focused on support rather than compliance.

Build on and promote evidence-based good practice and interventions that work.

As gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, police forces across the country have reduced the number of child arrests they make by almost 60 per cent in six years. The Howard League will continue to work with police to strive for further reductions. Further investment should be made in evidence-based community interventions, such as multi-systemic therapy and intensive fostering, which are considerably cheaper and more effective than custodial disposals.

Recommendations for action within the next six to 18 months

Close prison places for children.

Implementing the recommendations above would reduce the number of children in prison by 700. This would allow for the closure of the remaining young offender institutions, saving at least £63million per year and almost certainly much more.

Revise the role of the youth courts.

With fewer children coming into contact with the criminal justice system, there would be less demand on youth courts processing children day-to-day. This would allow them to concentrate on the few serious cases brought before them and develop expertise. Youth courts should be given wider powers to ensure that welfare needs are met.

Address the shortage of suitable secure accommodation in London.

In 2009 the Youth Justice Board decided to close the only secure children’s home in the capital. There are now four beds in a secure children’s home in Southampton for the whole of London and the South East. Unless investment in a small local unit is made, the few children from these areas who require a period in a suitable placement in custody face being hundreds of miles from their families.

Transform the Youth Justice Board.

The Youth Justice Board could be transformed into an independent expert body, operating as a centre for best practice and scrutinising and sharing what works with children in trouble with the law. It should also establish an independent scrutiny panel to review the case of each child who is imprisoned, so that lessons can be learnt. The purpose would be to ensure that custody is only used as a last resort, for the shortest period of time, and to highlight where children have been failed by other services, such as education, health and social care.

No return to Debtors' Prisons through unfair Criminal Courts Charge

From the Howard League for Penal Reform

A teenager who stole sweets and ice cream worth £5, a woman found begging in a car park and a man who kicked a flower pot after being stabbed are among thousands of people who have been ordered to pay a controversial new charge which penalises the poor and encourages the innocent to plead guilty.

Since April, magistrates and judges have been told that they must impose a mandatory Criminal Courts Charge of up to £1,200 on anyone convicted of an offence – whatever the defendant’s circumstances might be – on top of other levies such as fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges and costs. Defendants who fail to find the money risk being sent to prison.

The government has said it will review the charge after three years, but today the Howard League for Penal Reform has begun a campaign calling for the review to be brought forward to this autumn.

The charge puts pressure on people to plead guilty, as it rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates’ court to £520 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. The charge at crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. There are even plans to charge interest.

The charge removes discretion from magistrates, some of whom are reported to be resigning in despair. In many cases, money will be wasted on pursuing debts that people simply cannot pay.

The Howard League has compiled a list of more than 30 cases, all reported by local media, which show why the Criminal Courts Charge is unfair and unrealistic. They include:

·         A 26-year-old homeless man who stole a can of Red Bull worth 99p from a supermarket in South Shields, Tyne and Wear, was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 30-year-old homeless woman was convicted in her absence of begging in a car park in Coventry, West Midlands. She was ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £30 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

·         A 20-year-old man who was living in a hostel in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, kicked out at a flower pot after being stabbed with a needle by a fellow resident. He became homeless. He admitted criminal damage, which placed him in breach of two conditional discharges that were imposed on him for thefts. He was fined £70 and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.

·         A 37-year-old woman who stole shampoo worth £2.39 from a shop in Banbury, Oxfordshire, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £35 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 41-year-old man who stole two tubs of ice cream worth £9.58 from a shop in Coventry, West Midlands, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

·         A 27-year-old man who “trespassed” at a shop in Poole, Dorset, and stole three cans of drink to a value of £6.64 was ordered to pay £6.64 in compensation, a £15 victim surcharge and a £180 criminal courts charge.

·         A 26-year-old homeless man who admitted stealing drinks and chocolate worth £4.80 from a shop in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, was jailed for four weeks because of his lengthy record and made to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and an £80 victim surcharge.

·         A 19-year-old man admitted stealing sweets and ice cream to the value of £5 from a supermarket in Torquay, Devon, whilst subject to a conditional discharge imposed for two thefts. He was ordered to pay a £35 fine, a £180 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs.

·         A 38-year-old homeless man admitted persistently begging in Oxford, Oxfordshire, and breached an Asbo prohibiting him from sitting within 10 metres of a cash machine. He was jailed for 30 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge.

·         A 31-year-old woman from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, admitted stealing shower gel worth £2.39 from a pharmacy. She was jailed for 14 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £2.39 in compensation.

One of the most troubling cases is that of a person who wrote to their local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, for advice about the charge.

In a letter published on the newspaper’s website in July, the person wrote: “I am due to appear at Newcastle Crown Court in two weeks for an offence that I did not commit. I had planned on pleading not guilty, however I have been told that if I am found guilty I will have over £1,000 in costs to pay. Is this true?”

In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was required to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted shoplifting.

The newspaper reported that, as the defendant was led away, the judge asked the courtroom: 

“He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?”

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:  

“These cases are a snapshot of a failing criminal justice system. Up and down the country, people are being brought to court for minor misdemeanours and being ordered to pay a mandatory charge regardless of their circumstances.

“Some are homeless. Some have addictions. Many will be unable to pay. But the Ministry of Justice is poised to waste money it does not have on pursuing the debts. With more budget cuts on the way, ministers should be looking to shrink the system, not trapping more people in it for absurd offences.

“It was the French writer Anatole France, more than 100 years ago, who wrote that ‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread’. Now the law seems hell-bent on exacting charges from rich and poor alike for the privilege – but it is the poor who will find themselves entrenched in their poverty by these criminal charges.

“We do not want to see the return of debtors’ prisons. It is time for an urgent review of this unfair and unrealistic sanction, which is doing nothing to tackle crime and, in all likelihood, is making matters worse.”