It never fails to amuse
this blogger when those with but faint knowledge of what they`re discussing
proceed to tell the we plebs just how we should tackle some problem or
other. When that subject is connected
however closely or remotely to the justice system and those opining in all
their smugness from secretary of state to intellectual so called policy
advisors or think tank operatives I must admit that despair soon overtakes an
urge to laugh out loud.
Kevin Lockyer
in the cloak of PolicyExchange is a fair example in his essay on a proposal for conditional behaviour
orders. He writes inter alia:-
·
"Punishment for breaching probation is not handed out
until 5 weeks after the breach has taken place and the average time elapsed
from committing the breach to completion can take up to 53 working days.
·
Currently first time breaches of Orders usually result
in a warning from a probation officer, and further breaches are left to their
discretion. Only after multiple breaches and significant time delays is an
offender likely to be brought before the court and receive a punishment. "
My own experience does not bear out his
comments above. My impression is that
offenders appear within a week or two at the most after an alleged breach and
punishment is immediate whether it is an increase in the severity of a community
requirement or an additional disposal.
In my area there is no tolerance subsequent to a second breach. He continues, “Under the new
swift and certain system, between 6,000 and 8,500 could receive short prison
sentences over the course of a year. Under current guidelines courts in
England and Wales are discouraged from handing out custodial sentences.”
Guidelines do
not discourage custodial sentences. They
direct sentencers to follow a fairly detailed structure to arrive at their
disposal but there is well recognised provision for judges and magistrates to
deviate from said structural result provided they make their reasons plain in
open court. From day one of this
government Kenneth Clarke made it abundantly clear that prison was to be used
as punishment only for those most deserving.
The prison population is and has been for some time at near maximum
capacity. It seems perverse to think
that this or any other government is going to sanction any increase in the
prison population in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population and
Capacity Briefing for Friday 02/01/2015
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Prisons
|
NOMS Operated IRCs
|
|
|
Population
|
84,628
|
|
83,287
|
1,341
|
|
|
Male population
|
80,822
|
|
79,481
|
1,341
|
|
|
Female population
|
|
3,806
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useable Operational
Capacity
|
88,116
|
|
86,556
|
1,560
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home Detention Curfew
caseload
|
2,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 - The Operational Capacity of a Prison /
Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) is the total number of prisoners that an
establishment can hold taking into account control, security and the proper
operation of the planned regime. It is determined by Deputy Directors of
Custody on the basis of operational judgement and experience.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 - Useable Operational Capacity of the estate
is the sum of all establishments’ operational capacity less 2,000 places.
This is known as the operating margin and reflects the constraints imposed by
the need to provide separate accommodation for different classes of prisoner
i.e. by sex, age, security category, conviction status, single cell risk
assessment and also due to geographical distribution.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population and
Capacity on previous Fridays
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last week
|
|
12 months ago
|
|
|
|
Population
|
Data not available
|
|
83,962
|
|
|
|
Male population
|
Data not available
|
|
80,176
|
|
|
|
Female population
|
Data not available
|
|
3,786
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Useable Operational
Capacity
|
Data not available
|
|
85,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home Detention Curfew
caseload
|
Data not available
|
|
2,438
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|