header-logo header-logo

Probation reforms were ‘disastrous’

07 May 2019
Issue: 7839 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

2013 reforms saw offenders supplied with tents upon leaving prison

Mismanaged reforms have left probation services ‘underfunded, fragile and lacking the confidence of courts’, MPs have said in a devastating critique.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warned Ministry of Justice reforms to probation services in 2013 had been rushed through ‘at breakneck speed’, in a report published last week, ‘Transforming rehabilitation: progress review’,

In some cases, offenders leaving prison with no fixed address were issued with tents. Support offered to offenders had not improved and reoffending rates had actually increased, the report found. Small charities were excluded as private-sector suppliers found it easier to work with large organisations.

Community Rehabilitation Companies, which were created in 2015 to manage low- and medium-risk offenders, were ‘too dependent on volumes of work which did not materialise and their exposure to payment by results worsened the subsequent financial pressure’. Subsequent attempts by ministers to stabilise the contracts and then to terminate them early cost the public purse an extra £467m.

‘Inexcusably, probation services have been left in a worse position than they were in before’ the reforms, the report concluded.

Bob Neill MP, chair of the Justice Committee, said the report ‘backs up the findings of our own inquiry that it is doubtful the government’s disastrous reforms can ever deliver an effective or viable probation service.

‘As well as laying bare the eyewatering cost of terminating contracts which should never have been entered into in the first place, the report also highlights the failure to improve support or reduce reoffending. This has a real human impact: more victims of crime and more wasted lives as offenders ricochet in and out of custody.

‘We are also seriously concerned about the decline in judge and magistrate confidence in community sentences―even though these sentences generally lead to better outcomes.’

O’Neill urged the government to review how probation services are delivered and set out ‘a new, clear strategy for the future’.

Issue: 7839 / 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