Nick Herbert has, today, published details about his vision for the future of the criminal justice system. I have read, of course, this document with great interest.
I guess I was being a little naive when I thought to myself, ‘there couldn’t possibly be anything more for the Government to throw at Policing than Winsor’s reviews and his subsequent recommendation for HMCIC’. Describing himself as the jam in the sandwich between Ken Clarke and Teresa May (not a mental image that I would have chosen to inflict upon myself) Herbert began leading up to the main announcement with yet another defence of the current Police Review process coupled with the usual mud-slinging, directed at the Police Federation. He repeated, yet again, his suggestion that the Federation was resistant to change and, yet again, tried to discredit them by suggesting that they had actively opposed female Police Officers, traffic wardens and Community Support Officers.
How the Police Federation could have objected to the employment of female Police Officers when the first WPC was in post a year before the Federation was even created is a mystery to me…
Herbert went on to accuse the Federation of mounting a personal campaign against Tom Winsor and stated that ‘it wasn’t right to reward that campaign’ which to me sounds like Winsor’s proposed appointment as HMCIC is nothing more than a punishment for the perceived misbehaviour of the Federation, adding further weight to the comments of those that referred to the announcement as deliberately provocative.
Before moving the conversation to the future, Herbert had one final dig at events in the recent past. He states that when rioting spiralled out of control across many towns and cities the Police were capable of an effective response, but were simply too slow to do anything about it. He fails to acknowledge that, at very short notice, massive numbers of officers were moved across many counties to provide a barely-adequate defence to the ongoing mass disorder in our cities. This was not a failure of Police Forces involved, this was a direct result of having an already under-resourced Police service that will only be further hampered by the loss of another 16,000 officers over the three-year period of the reforms his Government initiated.
Now we get to the interesting part…
Nick Herbert has announced that he will shortly be putting forward proposals for a new kind of judiciary in the form of a White Paper. Neighbourhood Justice Panels will utilise members of the public and will deal with those who commit offences deemed appropriate for punishment by way of community orders and other such sentences. Offenders, in Herbert’s vision, will be brought face to face with their victims in some cases, so that they can apologize in person or make amends in other ways such as repairing damage.
I am sure that there will be literally several victims of crime who will volunteer to sit across a table from those who have offended against them! In my experience, most do not want to look into the eyes of an offender who is locked safely in the dock. I am pretty sure that most will be reluctant to sign up to a process that ensures they are easily recognised by those that have been prosecuted next time their paths cross in the High Street…
What ever next – being sentenced to three minutes of hugging?
If all this wasn’t enough cause for concern, proposals for further reform in the Magistrates Court add another dimension to his plan. Herbert seems to suggest that untrained Magistrates should be able to sit alone rather than on a bench of three – a system that has been in place since the late 1700′s. These revised courts, says Herbert, could be set up not only in the current courthouses but anywhere from Police Stations to Community Centres!
Our courts, and more specifically their sentencing powers, are already considered by many to be a weak link in the criminal justice system. A further dissolution of their powers, and the inevitable drive to shove as many cases as possible through their doors, can only serve to weaken a system that already has its wrists bound by red tape and case-law.
Finally, and on a briefly positive note, Herbert suggests that Courts should sit for longer each day, hearing cases into the evenings and at weekends. If correctly serviced by the judiciary this could bring some welcome relief to the clogged prosecution pipeline. If not and, in the worst case scenario, a new and even lower level of sentencing is created to provide punitive options for the new Neighbourhood Justice Panels, the slightly higher volume of cases being heard will undoubtedly produce little or no improvement in the quality of the results achieved post conviction.
‘forget community orders and other pointless wrist slapping’
My suggestion for Nick Herbert would be to resist the urge to further complicate the judicial system by adding another tier to the cake. Instead, perhaps he could consider a proposal that did something to reduce the opportunity for offenders to become prolific without fear of any real penalty. Far too many criminals are released again and again, committing more and more offences and creating more and more victims. The sentencing powers of the courts and the willingness to lock people up for significant periods of time have to be increased if we are to stand any chance of reversing the tide of criminality that is sweeping across the country. Forget community orders and other pointless wrist slapping. Take fines from benefits, remove some of the luxuries from their lives and if they keep coming back – LOCK THEM UP!
If, as we see all too often with the present system, a 20-year-old offender has been locked up half a dozen times in three years, committed a couple of hundred offences and shows absolutely no desire or ability to change his or her behavior - why on earth should they be allowed to remain in free society?
These are reforms that would get my support.
