26 March 2008
Royal Society of Arts, London
Jack Straw has given a lecture at the Royal Society of Arts on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Right Honourable Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:
In 1754, when this Society was founded, 60% of those in gaol were debtors. Many of the remainder were awaiting trial, with the sentences available split largely between transportation to the colonies, flogging and branding, hard labour or the gallows. Until the late eighteenth century, the justice system centred around crimes against property rather than the person. Beyond the maintenance of the King's Peace, there was little regard either to the wrongs committed against wider society or for the punishment handed down to act as anything other than a deterrent for the offender and other potential criminals.
It was not until 1779 with the passing of the Penitentiary Act that incarceration was made the main form of punishment, and rehabilitation began to be a function of all prisons. From this base, aided by the vision and dedication of great penal reformers, the prisons system has experienced a gradual move towards 'correction' as well as punishment, developing institutions to help turn lives around, for the well-being not just of the offender but of society as a whole.
From its inception 250 years ago to the launch of the Prison Learning Network today, the Royal Society of Arts has been a champion of the values of the Enlightenment as well as of enlightened values. It is a history of working for the common good, for the benefit of society. Indeed, there is a somewhat eerie prescience about the RSA's early commitment to what we would now call carbon offsetting which dates back to 1770. Back in 1770 the RSA had twin projects to encourage the reduction of smoke emissions on the one hand and the promotion of tree planting on the other, a little bit of history that could come as an inconvenient truth to Al Gore espousing the exact same thing nearly 250 years later.
In essence my theme for this morning is the 'common good', and specifically how the criminal justice system can better work to this end. We're going to look at how the courts, prisons and probation services operate and discuss how I believe that the system should better match public expectations of it.
Lord Denning once said that 'justice is rooted in confidence'. Justice may indeed be administered by the courts, in prisons, through community punishments, through probation - but unless people can see and experience for themselves that justice is being done in their interests confidence will be that much lower. That most famous dictum that 'justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done' is fundamental to the public's confidence in the system. Over the past decade there has been substantial and successful reform to the criminal justice system, but much of what has been done, whilst invaluable, has been structural or institutional.
For instance, as Home Secretary I created the Youth Justice Board to provide substantial reforms to the youth justice system. Similarly, we have invested in record numbers of police. 14,000 more now than in 1997, deployed more effectively in local communities alongside 16,000 police community support officers, in neighbourhood police teams.
Likewise, the court system has undergone a prolonged period of change. This has seen the creation of Her Majesty's Courts Service, and the introduction of much improved court processes; particularly making the experience quicker and simpler with improved services for victims and witnesses. So victim's impact statements are now routinely submitted to the court. There are now special areas for victims in all crown and major magistrates' courts. Well-trained police family liaison officers have provided an invaluable support to families in murder and cases of serious violence. The Crown Prosecution Service has undergone a quiet revolution and now has the interests of the victim centre stage and prosecutors make it their business to speak to prosecution witnesses, not to coach them but to reassure them.
The nature of regimes in prison is a great deal better than even a decade ago - more decent, more humane, more constructive - whilst probation has become much more focused on getting the offender to mend his or her ways.
Such widespread reform has greatly improved the administration and operation of the justice system, and has contributed in no small part to the 30% drop in crime which has taken place over the last 11 years, and the lowest chances of becoming a victim since accurate recording began in 1981.
But, as I argued in a recent speech at The Guardian there remains a significant gap between the reality of crime and how it is perceived. The result is that the substantial progress which has been made, by almost any objective measure, has not been translated into a corresponding increase in community confidence.
The challenge for the next stage of criminal justice reform is not simply to narrow this gap. Much more is required. What is needed is to continue the momentum of reform in the culture of public services which we have seen, for example in education and health, to the entire criminal justice system - including the courts, the prisons and the probation services. Public confidence will rise when local people can see justice in action in their streets, their towns, their communities; when local people feel that the justice system is working more effectively for them.
This morning I want to go into more detail about how we intend to bring about this change, looking at the courts, prisons and probation and finally at how the different parts of the criminal justice system can work better together, and with the public, as part of a 'community justice coalition'.
From my brief experience at the criminal Bar in the 1970s, and from my mail bag and constituency meetings as an MP, it was very clear in the 1970s and 1980s that the operation of the courts was a frustration to many who came across it, be that as a witness, defendant, magistrate or prosecutor. There was a widespread belief that the processes and procedures were convoluted, inefficient and slow. Whilst the court itself seemed remote and isolated; somewhere where justice was done unto a community, and not necessarily for a community. It sounds like a semantic point, but I think the distinction is very important. Indeed, some described the courts, particularly here the criminal courts, as a 'secret garden', publicly accessible but a mystery to many.
And there are two issues here, both of which have a bearing on community confidence. First, a perception that slow and complex practices sent out a strong signal that justice was being done in the name of the professionals and not the public. Second, that there was attitudinally a separation; the sense that whilst the criminal justice system had, above all, to be alive to the fundamental values of the rule of law, it did not have to do so in a way which diminished the interests of the law-abiding public, the taxpayer whom it is there to serve, and who pays for it.
We have gone quite some way to address the first problem with the introduction of better court administration, faster trials, fewer redundant hearings, more explanations of what's going on for victims and witnesses. The principles of simple, speedy, summary justice (CJSSS) have now been adopted in every magistrates' court in the country, and the results are already very positive: a 30% increase in guilty pleas at first hearing, with 60% of guilty pleas dealt with on that day, and a 70% reduction in adjournments at the first hearing. For this magistrates, district judges and court staff deserve and should receive great thanks.
The second issue however necessitates an even greater change. It is about a change in attitude which requires the criminal justice system to see itself as a public service, and to see itself more clearly working for the local community and for the taxpayer. In this sense the local court, or the prison for that matter, should be no different from the local school or hospital or health centre. Public sector reform allied with record investment has transformed the provision of health and education. There is more choice, greater personalisation, shorter waiting times, better results, more localism. These are benefits in which everyone can share.
Community justice
Regular polling of public confidence in the courts system is not currently undertaken. But community confidence in the police is routinely measured. This shows some significant differences between police forces, and more importantly between otherwise similar local police areas - so-called families of 'Basic Command Units'. Blackburn in East Lancashire can be compared with Rochdale; they are Basic Command Units of a similar size and receive the same funding but have very different performance levels.
What this tells us is that the big ingredient is not additional resources per se but attitude, approach, process.
It was a profound commitment by my predecessor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to see what improvements could be achieved in public services and public confidence by changing attitudes, approach and process which led him, with the then Home Secretary and Attorney General to establish some pioneering projects in community justice.
In Liverpool and Salford, community courts were established. In Liverpool, the most developed model, the court and all criminal justice agencies from the police and Crown Prosecution Service to probation and drug teams are housed in a single building, a converted school. The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre is led by a single full time judge, actually a circuit judge combined with the work of a district judge, who manages criminal proceedings and sentences end-to-end in the youth and adult courts, but who works in partnership with local magistrates who take the contested trials. The judge deals with early pleas and legal evidence, which leads to fewer trials. The trials are heard by a panel of the three magistrates who can sit with the judge when he determines sentence. The judge is also able to manage the sentence as the offender will return to see him. In Salford, the lead is taken by panels of specially trained magistrates working with the district judge. Eleven other pilots are now operating across the country, from Middlesbrough to Plymouth. Last month on a visit to the United States I saw the inspiration for these courts in action - Red Hook community court in Brooklyn, New York.
Charlie Falconer also established two Drug Courts - in west London and Leeds. Both are there primarily to manage community orders, which have attached to them a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement. Again, and rightly if we are to get clear leads on what works best, they use different models. In west London it is a partnership between the district judge and the magistrates, in Leeds the focus is on magistrates being in the lead.
An evaluation of these two drugs courts, which will be published next week, reveals an issue of huge importance, in my view, for the whole of the court system. This is that 'continuity of judiciary', i.e. having the same district judges or magistrates panel supervising the offender's progress, can have a statistically significant impact on several drug court outcomes, with a lower likelihood of missed court appearances, a higher likelihood of sentence completion and crucially for the public, a lower likelihood of reconviction. As a result of these successful pilots, I have asked HMCS to establish a further four drugs courts for a start.
If we think about it, the importance of continuity is fundamental to all relationships, professional as well as personal. Particular bonds for instance, develop between pupil and teacher, between doctor, nurse and patient. Knowing who you are dealing with, and will continue to deal with, sustains confidence in almost any situation. I often see constituents who are frustrated with the people they are dealing with in public services because they are never given the name of the person they are talking to and they never talk to the same person twice. This continuity is especially important where the individuals concerned come from chaotic backgrounds where continuity and stability themselves have been lacking in their lives.
When we do have continuity it enhances confidence in another way - the confidence of the judiciary - whether district judges or magistrates - both in what they are doing, and then in their ability and authority to explain to the public how they are better serving the public.
And the success of its approach is rooted in the belief that the courts need to understand better the problems of that community. They need to have contact with the community. They need to respond to the community.
Over time, and following from the success of where it is already common practice, I would like to see many more district judges and magistrates playing an active role in community discussions. 'Community engagement' is what the Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice has called for, and something for which he has my full support.
It is of fundamental importance to the rule of law that those acting in a judicial capacity should be able to make their often difficult decisions based on the law, and the facts of the case before them, and should not be put under inappropriate external pressure before, during, or after a case in respect of those decisions. But it is perfectly possible to sustain this integrity and independence, and at the same time, for judges and magistrates to listen in general terms to community concerns, and to explain, again in general terms, the approach which they intend to adopt.
This is what those involved in these pilots have successfully achieved without any erosion of their judicial independence.
There is a further point here. On 5 December, when I made a statement on the Carter Review, I published a detailed analysis from our statisticians of sentencing patterns by court area, for both the magistrates' and Crown Courts. This showed a wide variation in the use of custody - 'the custody rate' - but this was only weakly correlated to levels of acquisitive crime, and not correlated at all with trends in violent crime, or with trends in all crime in these areas. I am surprised at how little attention these statistics got. This suggests that courts may have distinctive approaches, however unspoken. Given this, is there any good reason why the approaches should not be better articulated and shared with the public? For we also know that when the public are taken into the confidence of the criminal justice system and are able to consider the law and the facts beyond what they learn from the media, the public's reaction is instructive. Typically they arrive at measured 'decisions' very similar to real courts. It is not that the public's view is that of some kind of lynch mob, they are actually, in some cases, much more lenient, something that might surprise the media.
Engendering public confidence should be every bit as important as the fair dispensation of justice. It is a principle which applies as much to courts as it does and should do to our prisons.
Prisons
Let me come to prisons. The population reached a record high of 82,000 in February, but through the huge efforts of all those working in the prison system and the cooperation of the police, this short-term increase in demand is being managed. Prisons will continue to operate at or near capacity until our building programme puts us in a position by which supply outstrips demand. Over the last 10 years we have increased the prison population at twice the rate of the previous period. We have committed to providing a further 20,000 places gross, 16,000 net, which will bring total capacity up to 96,000 by 2014.
This includes plans for large so-called 'Titan prisons' which have of late attracted some criticism. It suggests that they will be little more than warehouses, with scant regard for providing education, health and training facilities, and that more smaller local prisons are better. Let me address both these points.
A great achievement of the past decade has been to make prisons far more constructive institutions - and they continue to be so in spite of the current pressures - by investing great amounts in rehabilitation; in drug treatment, training and education.
Rehabilitation is obviously integral to the purpose of prison, we continue to look for ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of the courses available, and new ways of helping those on the inside turn around their lives on the outside. The building of these large prisons, and closure the older and more inefficient parts of the estate will allow us to take the best examples of what we know works from around the country and put it into practice. We will be able then to combine the best aspects of smaller prisons with the efficiencies of having several units in one location sharing improved facilities. And we'll be locating those prisons so that prisoners are much closer to home. We have to recognise the interests of the taxpayer. Building one large establishment is cheaper than a number of smaller establishments. The planning permission process is the same whatever the size of the prison. I commissioned a study when I was Home Secretary that revealed that having a prison at the end of your street has no effect on house prices. In fact the prices actually went up because people felt safer.
Escapes from prison have also fallen significantly. I was able to inform the House recently that there were fewer escapes in the whole of 2006 than there were in just one week in 1992.
But if prison is to work in the interests of the community it needs to help deal with the problems which lead to reoffending. We know that most offenders have low levels of literacy and numeracy, often with few or poor skills and training. I received a letter from a prisoner in Preston prison which said that if I wanted to rehabilitate prisoners in Preston I had to get all of them to read and write. The levels of education and training of those in prison is pathetic. Around half are also serious drug users. I am therefore delighted that the RSA is today launching the Prison Learning Network. Improving the skills and educational attainment of offenders is essential for reducing reoffending. I am particularly pleased that the RSA is working directly with prison governors. I know of the importance of governors on the bearing of the regime and the difference that individual prison governors can make.
When I hear the Conservative plans to start the 'rehabilitation revolution', I can only congratulate them on finally seeing the light. At long last they see prisons as more than punitive institutions which breed little but resentment. One of the most astonishing things that the last administration did was to abolish the training of probation officers. I hope that they will now join with us in having a rational, sensible debate around how best the penal system can serve the interests of the public. We both now seem in agreement that the essential component is dealing with reoffending.
Prison work
Last year almost 40,000 prisoners went into training and employment at the end of their sentence, something we know is a critical factor in reducing reoffending. Meanwhile prison industries provide around 12 million hours of activity per year, to the value of around £30 million. We already have an existing alliance with more than 70 employers, but we can push this further, and David Hanson, the Prisons Minister, is chairing a forum of leading figures from business and the third sector to see how we can better bring in more partners to provide even more opportunities for training.
Contract
But access to enhanced training and education in prison is not simply a hand out. It needs to be earned. It is part of a new 'contract' which David Hanson is developing. The idea behind this 'contract' is to balance the opportunities we give to offenders to turn away from a life of crime with what the community is going to expect of them in return. That means meeting certain standards of behaviour whilst in prison and on release - getting off, and staying off drugs, for example. It also means giving the community a greater role in setting out what it expects of those offenders who are given the chance to repay their debt to society. There will be incentives for those who take the chances offered to them, as well as penalties for those who do not.
I mentioned costs a moment ago. Locking someone up costs around £37,000 a year. That is £37,000 of taxpayers' money, who I believe can legitimately ask 'what is in it for me'. The answer I think comes in two parts - first, that prison works not only to keep the public safe but also to reduce reoffending; and second, that the prison itself becomes a constructive part of the community. In other words, it can work for everyone - first and foremost for the law-abiding, taxpaying majority, but also for those offenders who take the opportunities available to turn away from crime.
Prisons connecting with communities
Many prisons already recognise that they influence that goes beyond the prison gates. They are major local employers, and are the focus of much charitable work and for volunteering. But I believe that prisons can and should play an even more active role to help build community confidence in the justice system. One prison, for instance, has been running a scheme whereby the hours of prison work clocked up contributes to a community wide 'timebank'. This 'timebank' is essentially a store of pledged hours of volunteering. In this way the work done in prison - for example, at Gloucester this is repairing bicycles to be sent to developing countries - can benefit the local community. An hour's work from a prisoner on the inside could mean a lift to the shops for an elderly person on the outside, or a hospital visit or time spent by volunteers to clean up the local park. It is a contract between volunteers on the outside and prisoners on the inside.
What I am particularly drawn to with this scheme is the potential for prisoners to make reparation to the victim and the community. This is easily done as part of a community punishment, but less so when the sentence is custodial. I am asking officials at the Ministry of Justice to look at ways we can develop these timebank schemes and whether they can be extended so that work, skills and training accessed in prison translates into volunteering-time that can be accessed directly by victims. Through projects like that at HMP Gloucester the prison becomes an active part of the community, constructive for the offender and for the community they have wronged.
More widely, I would like to see prison governors strengthening links with local employers, voluntary organisations, schools and community groups and being a more visible local presence.
Probation
Next probation. The range and effectiveness of non-custodial sentences has expanded and improved. Again the central issue is confidence. When the public and sentencers are convinced of their effectiveness they can become an even greater feature of our justice system. Obviously prison is and must remain the only option for offenders who pose a threat or danger to our society. However, the evidence shows that for short sentences community punishments can be more effective at reducing reoffending than a commensurate time in prison.
Community punishments can include intensive supervision, mandatory drug or alcohol treatment, behavioural classes, educational requirements along with physical labour. For many offenders this can require more of them than a short spell in prison. More importantly it provides the opportunity to get to the bottom of the cause of offending. And even in the United States, with a rate of incarceration five times that of the UK (even though we are among the highest in Europe), they are focusing on effective community punishments as an alternative to custody.
We need a range of types of sentences, and courts who are confident in the use of each one.
Non-custodial punishments can also, I am convinced, help grow community confidence, as local people can see and benefit from justice being done. Here in London alone each week there are 265 community payback projects running, last year this amounted to 330,000 hours of unpaid work.
Community justice coalition
A common theme throughout my speech isthe importance of different groups and individuals working together with common purpose for common benefit. At an organisation level, the National Criminal Justice Board and their local counterparts are bringing greater coordination across the system. And the creation of the Ministry of Justice is another catalyst for change.
On a more practical level, Neighbourhood Policing is getting more police on to the streets where they are needed most. They are the visible faces of the criminal justice system, and the relationships they forge with local people and other public services go a long way to improving confidence in justice.
I know crime has come down by 30%. In just the past five years, in my own constituency in Blackburn both burglary and car crime have come down. Following two murders in one week in Blackburn, I agreed to hold a meeting with residents to which I invited the police and local authority. I have now chaired nearly 50 residents meetings on rota around the town and the head of the PCT also attends. We don't have anyone from the courts present so I will have to work on that. These meetings discuss and report back on the concerns of the residents of the area. Attendance is always good, and I have no doubt that the change in confidence in the police has been palpable. We need to be giving people confidence in the criminal justice system, including the courts.
Conclusion
This is how we will start further to narrow the gap between the justice system and the community, the perception of crime and the reality. Because, going back to Lord Denning - justice is rooted in confidence.
Thank you.