Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Newlove

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this order, I thank members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this statutory instrument. The Government laid this draft order on 13 November. I hope that has given noble Lords an opportunity to scrutinise the order and its accompanying explanatory documents. I welcome this further opportunity today to be clear about what the order will do and the Government’s reasons for taking these measures.

The draft order is a key part of our continuing efforts to resolve the capacity crisis in our prisons. After inheriting from the previous Government a prison system on the verge of collapse, on 12 July the Lord Chancellor was forced to announce a measure to address the immediate risk of running out of prison places. This was a change to modify the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%. Specified offences were excluded from this modification. The draft order before us now makes further important changes to that original measure by excluding further offences from this modification.

As part of our continuing efforts to avoid running out of prison spaces, the order amends the provisions relating to the home detention curfew—HDC—by extending the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC in the community. HDC enables eligible, risk-assessed offenders to be released from prison six months early, subject to an electronically monitored curfew. We are proposing to extend the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC from six months to 12 months. To be clear, the eligibility and suitability criteria remain the same—for example, sex offenders are still excluded in statute and those serving sentences linked to domestic abuse are presumed unsuitable under the policy.

It is right that the sentencing review is given time to do its work, but the capacity crisis in our prisons has not gone away. When we introduced emergency measures in July, we believed that they had bought us about a year. However, after the summer of disorder, the next crisis could be just nine months away. For that reason, we must implement further measures urgently to ensure that we do not face running out of places again. This change to HDC will help to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to function as it should, helping to prevent further acute capacity pressures and avoid running out of prison places, which would cause criminal justice gridlock.

As to the purpose of this draft order, it relates to release measures within the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The first part of the draft order deals with HDC. HDC has been in operation since 1999. The scheme enables certain prisoners to be released from prison early while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty. Offenders who are released from custody on this basis are tagged and placed on a curfew. This curfew must be for at least nine hours per day, by law, but is generally around 12 hours per day as a matter of policy. The curfew requirement must remain in force until they reach their conditional or automatic release date. Those released on HDC are subject to probation supervision and other restrictions as necessary. These may include GPS location and alcohol monitoring, exclusion zones, non-contact conditions and travel restrictions. If offenders breach the terms of their conditions, they can be recalled to custody to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence.

The rules on eligibility will not change as a result of this draft order. Offenders must complete half of the custodial part of their sentence before they can be considered eligible for HDC. Release on HDC is also entirely discretionary. There are a number of offences that are excluded from its scope by statute—for example, serious violent offences and all sexual offences. Other types of offending are presumed unsuitable as a matter of policy, including those often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control. Offenders serving sentences for any of the presumed unsuitable offences will not be considered for release unless the prison governor is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying this. Any offenders who meet this test will still be subject to a rigorous risk- assessment process before release on HDC is approved.

We are proposing to change the maximum period that an eligible prisoner may spend on HDC. We plan to extend it to 12 months from the current maximum of six months. Offenders eligible for HDC will continue to be risk-assessed and will still be subject to strict licence conditions and an electronically monitored curfew. As the previous Prisons Minister stated in February, the reoffending rate for prisoners released directly from custody was close to 50%, but for the types of offenders released on to HDC it was 23%.

The previous Administration committed to doing a review when HDC was extended from four and a half months to six months. That review did not take place, and the growing crisis in our prisons has meant that we need to take further action. HDC is closely monitored by HMPPS and the MoJ, and data on releases and recalls is regularly published. That will continue. I must be clear that this measure is urgently needed to reduce the pressure on the prison system. The challenges facing us across the prison estate are such that we must take urgent action to allow the sentencing review to take place. By extending HDC, we are using a long-standing mechanism that has robust safeguards built into it.

The order will also amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which established the SDS40 early release measure by modifying the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences for eligible offences from 50% to 40%. The SI seeks to exclude six further offences from the early release measure.

SDS40 was delivered extremely effectively, but there was a problem with 37 prisoners who were released in error. Those offenders had been prosecuted under a repealed law that we had not excluded from SDS40. The Court of Appeal had ruled that we should treat the offenders who had been prosecuted under this offence after it had been repealed as if they had been prosecuted under the new offence, which was already excluded from SDS40. That ultimately meant that those prisoners were not identified as being ineligible for early release under SDS40. All the offenders released in error were returned to custody.

Subsequently, a thorough search uncovered similar anomalies where legislation creating criminal offences has been repealed and replaced. We had already taken the decision to exclude such offending, which relates to stalking, harassment, sexual harm and so-called revenge pornography, from the scope of emergency early release.

We are therefore acting quickly to exclude five further offences from SDS40 to ensure that the spirit of the original exclusions is delivered. This will ensure that anyone convicted of any of these offences cannot be released early under SDS40.

The draft order also excludes murder from SDS40. Anyone convicted of murder in the UK would have received a mandatory life sentence so would not be eligible for release under SDS40. However, some jurisdictions do not have life sentences so it is possible that in a small number of cases a UK national convicted of murder in a foreign jurisdiction may be given a determinate sentence for murder by that foreign court and may then be repatriated to the UK to serve that sentence in a prison in England and Wales. We want to ensure that no offender in this position could be released under SDS40.

Shortly after coming to power, the Government took decisive action to stop our prisons from collapsing. SDS40 was an emergency response to the crisis that we were faced with. We worked at pace to ensure that the scheme was as effective as possible while protecting the public by excluding the most serious offenders and providing specific protections for victims of certain domestic abuse offences.

We have kept SDS40 under constant review and are now acting quickly to address a small number of anomalies in the original legislation. The draft order extends to England and Wales only, and there should be no direct effect on the devolved Administrations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, both as Victims’ Commissioner and a victim going through the criminal justice system, I was horrified to read the NAO report published week which assessed government plans to expand the prison population. The report told us that on current forecasts the population would exceed prison capacity by 12,400 by the end of 2027. It is impossible to see how this can be absorbed by any building programme, let alone one that can be completed in just three years. It leaves the Government in an impossible position of having to explore all alternatives and it is against this backdrop that we find ourselves here today.

I am told that the home detention curfew scheme is hugely effective. Other than in the context of reducing the prison population, I am not sure how this statement can be made. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent evaluation of the scheme, but I would be interested to hear on this point from the Minister. Prison governors are responsible for selecting offenders who are suitable for the scheme. It is to their credit that compliance levels are relatively high. However, can we really be confident that current compliance levels will remain if the scheme is, in effect, doubled in length? Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.

It will come as no surprise when I say I come to this debate from the perspective of the victim. As I have said before, most victims seek justice, not vengeance. On hearing a sentence being delivered, the victims expect the sentence handed down to be served in full. This is not unreasonable; surely it is what we mean by justice. Victims listen to the remand time that has been deducted from the sentence; they know that part of the sentence will be served on licence, but they struggle to accept a prison sentence being reduced—by up to 12 months—through one or other early release scheme simply to reduce prison population pressures.

I fear that retrospective pruning of sentences by all successive Governments over the years has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in our justice system. How can you trust a justice system if all Governments keep moving the goal posts? It also adds an extra layer of complexity on sentencing and, heaven knows, sentencing is already complicated in the first place.

I make a plea to this Government and future Governments: let this be the very last time we have to extend an early release scheme to bail us out of another prison crisis. We need a sustainable sentencing regime where the sentence handed down is the same as that victims hear and the same as that the offender will serve, and we need a prison system that has the resilience and the means to meet the challenge.

Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Newlove

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I am here listening because I may shortly be on the Woolsack—although hopefully not—after my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. However, I declare an interest. I am a victim, and so are my daughters, of the murder of my late husband, Garry Newlove. Having listened to Members, and with no disrespect, I cannot agree with this regret Motion.

For the last 15 years, I have attended every parole hearing and tariff review hearing and, in my role as Victims Commissioner, I have shadowed parole hearings. I also worked on the review of the Worboys case. Although an appeal system is in place, the bar is so high that it feels like a waste of time. I have been through an appeal. I have been through exactly what anybody else would have to go through, with no favours. That appeal route is not easy. You must explain why you want to do this and why you disagree with the result of the parole hearing. My appeal was sent to the then Secretary of State, Robert Buckland. His team looked at it and worked on it without knowing any of my views, except for what I had written through my victim liaison officer. His office then recommended that it be reviewed.

I want to draw the Chamber’s attention to the information victims receive. In bold letters, the Parole Board says that no matter what goes through, it does not change its mind. For a victim, it is absolutely appalling to see that in bold, even though there is a process for victims to go through. This is not to be disrespectful to the qualified people in this room, but I am speaking up for the many victims who go through a system that says one thing and delivers another. I speak as the mother of three daughters, who witnessed every kick and punch to their father, when I say that the system is broken. I totally agree that the public has no confidence in the criminal justice system where victims are concerned. I am very grateful that the media pick up these stories, because that means that I find out more information about my case than I would have been told personally by the system.

I disagree with this regret Motion. The system needs a good overhaul, and we need transparency. I hear from Parole Board members that it is a courtroom. Well, if it is a courtroom then there should be transparency, so that victims can fully understand why the decision was made. In one of the parole hearings, the Parole Board disagreed with a psychologist from the prison, a representative who knew the situation and went against that decision.

I welcome that we are discussing this, but I cannot agree with the regret Motion. We need transparency and we need public confidence. Victims have a right to know, to understand and to be treated with dignity, as I have for 15 years. They have a right to understand, to be there, to listen. More importantly, this is an opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister: when will a draft victims Bill be presented, so that our voices can be listened to?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion, which I support. She made a powerful case. I will not repeat the points she made but, in opening, I put six questions to the Minister.

First, why was removing probation recommendations not included in the root and branch review and why was there no prior consultation with all the stakeholders before the changes were implemented? Secondly, on the removal of probation recommendations, what impact assessments have been carried out regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP prisoners?

Thirdly, the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Therefore, what impact assessment has been carried out on this issue, and did the Government seek the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?

Fourthly, under the changes, what protections are in place for probation staff who are required to attend a public parole hearing? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness that these hearings should be public, but the question is specifically about the protection of parole officers—and, potentially, expert witnesses—when they are taking part in these hearings.

Fifthly, how many responses were there to the root-and-branch review, and how many of those were in favour of the public parole hearings? I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether anyone at all supported the Government’s proposals.

Sixthly, will the Government withdraw these changes if the judicial review finds against them?

In July’s Justice Questions in the other place, Kate Green MP challenged Dominic Raab on the proposed changes. He argued that

“there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/22; col. 711.]

Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, added in September’s committee session that differing recommendations would seem

“quite confusing, given that we are one HMPPS”,

and that the new change

“kind of tidies”

that up. That was the justification.

I must say that I find that explanation very surprising. I am absolutely sure that Parole Board members are well used to assessing conflicting sources of information; it is what people who sit as judges, or in a quasi-judicial capacity, do all the time. In other contexts, such as criminal courts or family courts, it is absolutely routine to get recommendations from probation officers—or in the context of family courts, recommendations from experts—which can indeed be contradictory. That is what the judges or magistrates do when they decide the merits of a case.

I hope that the Minister, who is exceptionally experienced, will bring an open mind to this situation. There have been a lot of changes on the Government and Treasury Benches over the last few months—or days. He is in a position where he can bring an open mind to this, and I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness’s regret Motion in that spirit.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Baroness Newlove

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to Amendment 214A, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because we care about protecting vulnerable victims of crime from harm and repeat victimisation.

Home detention curfew, or HDC, is a valuable scheme allowing certain offenders to be released early from their custodial sentence if they have a suitable address to go to. We all recognise the value that this brings in providing a managed way of releasing offenders back into the community. However, there are, rightly, a number of exclusions to eligibility for the scheme based upon the offender’s history of compliance as well as the offences for which they have been convicted. For example, sex offenders required to register, those sentenced for breach of curfew and those serving sentences for cruelty to children or racially aggravated offences are ineligible for HDC. These are just some of the criteria that currently can preclude someone. I believe, as do some colleagues around the Chamber with whom I speak, that the safety of the victim and the risk presented to them by the offender are of the utmost importance when considering suitability for release under HDC.

Amendment 214A seeks to add two new criteria to the framework governing home detention curfews: first, that offenders who have previously breached protective orders such as restraining orders are deemed ineligible; secondly, that those with a history of offences related to stalking, harassment, coercive control and domestic abuse are also deemed ineligible. Victims of these crimes are at high risk of repeat victimisation and are in desperate need of respite from their abuse to help them recover. Under HDC, that respite can be as little as 28 days, allowing no time to address the behaviours that characterise these offences.

Fifty-five per cent of stalking perpetrators go on to reoffend because of the fixated and obsessive nature that defines stalking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just said. Therefore, granting HDC in stalking cases is highly inappropriate and of grave concern, as these offenders regularly breach orders and bail conditions. Home detention curfew for these offenders poses a significant risk, catching victims as they let down their guard. To see an offender released so quickly can be highly distressing, retraumatising and risky; and it impacts trust and confidence in our justice system.

HDC can allow offenders to leave prison so quickly that the victim is entirely unaware. I am aware of multiple cases where a victim has been harassed by an offender following release on HDC, including the victim of a brutal assault, whose father told me what happened: “My daughter was convinced she saw the perpetrator within yards of her new flat. She had to walk around him on the pavement. I assured her that this couldn’t be possible, even with only serving half his sentence. Nevertheless, I checked with the prosecuting officer. He knew nothing of any early release, nor had the police been consulted. In fact, we discovered to our horror that my daughter’s assailant had been released barely three months into his sentence.”

This woman saw the man who assaulted her just yards from her new address—an address she moved to for safety, which was secret for a reason. Her father told me of the enormous distress and anxiety this caused as she relived her assault and felt constantly in fear. In this instance, she had signed up for the victim contact scheme, but a HDC decision had been made before she had been allocated a victim liaison officer contact. As such, the decision was made without any opportunity to input licence conditions and set an exclusion zone for her offender, or for her to contribute in any way by raising highly relevant issues. The relevant issues included the fact that the offender had been given a 10-year restraining order—an unusual intervention signalling the judge’s belief that he posed an ongoing risk. Relevant issues such as that he had previously contacted the victim on bail, showing that he had a history of not complying with orders, should have raised red flags and, under this amendment, would have precluded him from HDC.

The use of home detention curfews in these contexts presents an ongoing problem. If the nature of the offence relates to ongoing harm or risk to a particular individual, as detailed in this amendment, HDC should not be considered a suitable intervention. Those are the words of a father who is so worried for his daughter.

I know it is drawing late, but I would like to thank the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, and her office for bringing these concerning cases to my attention. We need to protect our vulnerable victims of crime.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment as well. I have the same briefing as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, so I do not have anything additional to say, other than that obsessional behaviour is a problem that one sees throughout the court system. While of course I support home detention curfews, it needs to be recognised that obsessional, fixated behaviour is a source of very serious risk—mainly to women, but not exclusively to women. I have seen, relatively recently, obsessional people in breach of a restraining order, a non-molestation order, bail conditions and licence conditions all at the same time. So I support the amendment in my name.