​Custodial sentencing treats women harshly

It is a decade since Baroness Corston reported that, 'the nature of women’s custody in many of our prisons needs to be radically rethought'. At the time, she found ample evidence of the abject failure inherent in sending women to prison for short periods.

Reoffending rates of nearly two-thirds are an argument against it in themselves, let alone the levels of self-harm, mental ill-health and the thousands of children who find themselves without their mum at home each year.

A parliamentary review of progress in 2013 found things have 'not progressed at a sufficiently fast pace since 2007, and we have not found evidence of the systematic change in approach that Baroness Corston advocated'. The prime minister has talked recently about making 'chances for change' so that women who have been disproportionately impacted by current sentencing policy and practice, have the opportunity to shine.

There is little to suggest he has any real idea how to achieve this.  

To mark International Women’s Day this year, we are adding our voice to the #HerVoiceCounts campaign. There is overwhelming evidence to support Baroness Corston’s assertion that, 'custody as it exists today is disproportionately harsher for women than men'. And yet, sentencing practice is not improving, alternatives to custody are still underfunded, and the suggestions emanating from Westminster bear few concrete details about how they plan to achieve change.

The Centre for Criminal Appeals, supported by the Lankelly Chase Foundation, has launched a strategic programme to identify opportunities for lawyers, women’s advocates and women themselves to use the legal system differently to achieve better outcomes. We are applying our US death row-inspired, defence-initiated, investigation-led strategic approach to sentencing appeals for women in the UK.

We represent women appealing a custodial sentence for a minor, non-violent crime. The CCA’s structure lets us conduct cases the way that we know works to get the best outcome for our clients. Using mitigation, pre-sentence reports, existing legislation and treaties, from the Human Rights Act to the Bangkok Rules, and the case law, such as R v Rosie Lee Petherick that already provides sound guidance, we aim to bring the evidence and the experiences of individual women to bear in court.

One of the major barriers to non-custodial sentences is the patchy resourcing of community-based sentencing provision. We are working with organisations, such as Anawim in the West Midlands, which have a holistic approach to supporting women that has been proven to reduce re-offending. We plan to highlight their successes to the courts to reinforce the importance of effective community sentencing options.

In this way, we aim to forge a path that demonstrates how to utilise existing legal provisions more effectively. Where things aren’t working, we will work with our clients to highlight the reforms that need to be made.

Baroness Corston’s damning findings are sadly still the norm for the many women who find themselves sentenced to prison for minor, non-violent criminal or civil offences. Many dedicated campaigners and activists are working assiduously to draw attention to the issues. We all know that if we are to see re-offending rates drop and the cycle of offending that has trapped generations broken, we need to try something different.

The Centre for Criminal Appeals is a not-for-profit solution to the shortage of investigation and legal representation for criminal appeals.

Rachael Marsh is a human rights and criminal justice consultant working with the Centre for Criminal Appeals.