header-logo header-logo

Judges must consider interests of child when sending mothers to prison

16 May 2021
Issue: 7933 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
MPs and peers have called for a statutory duty on judges to consider the interests of the child when sentencing mothers

The Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled five new clauses to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill last week, in its report, ‘Children of mothers in prison and the right to family life: The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’.

The new clauses would require judges to consider pre-sentence reports including information about any children concerned before sentencing a mother. Judges would be required to take into account the best interests of the child, consider the impact on a child of a custodial sentence, and consider the impact on a child of not granting bail.

There would also be a requirement on the Home Secretary to gather and publish data on how many children are born in prison and how many children are separated from their mother in prison.

The committee criticised the failure of government to capture basic data about primary carers in prison and their dependent children as a ‘blatant disregard’ for the rights of the child and their parents’ right to family life. It had called on the government repeatedly to collect this data yet the government did not have it.

Harriet Harman MP, chair of the committee, said: ‘A young child’s separation from its mother when she’s sent to prison risks lifelong damage to that crucial relationship.

‘Yet, too often, the child is invisible in the court process. This must change. Most mothers who are in prison have committed non-violent crimes. And it’s appalling that there’s so little concern for children that the government doesn’t even know how many children are suffering separation from their mother by imprisonment.

‘There will be much backing from MPs from all parties for these law changes proposed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.’

The committee highlighted that, when a parent with a dependent child is sentenced, the Art 8 rights of both parent and child is engaged therefore the court should ensure the child’s right to a family life is interfered with to the extent that is both necessary and proportionate. The committee said it failed to see how the bets interests of the child were being sufficiently considered if they were not prioritised when a parent was sentenced.

Issue: 7933 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll