Labour will ‘reform the justice system’, it says in its election manifesto, ‘to put the needs of victims first, tackle the prisons crisis and cut reoffending.’
Sounds good? Think again. Ask victims about their needs and many will say they need those who have harmed them to be locked up for as long as possible. That’s why parties such as the Conservatives and Reform are promising longer sentences. But the relentless increase in imprisonment is one of the reasons for the current criminal justice crisis.
Our system has never allowed victims of crime to choose punishments for those who have offended against them. Clearly, the impact of an offence must be taken into account. But why should the severity of a sentence depend on whether the victim chooses to discuss that impact in court? Why should punishment depend on whether the victim is particularly forgiving, particularly vindictive – or particularly vulnerable to intimidation from the offender’s associates?
And why stop at sentencing? If victims’ needs are the priority, then prosecutions should not be brought against their wishes. Of course, some crimes cannot be investigated without a complaint to the police. Some defendants will never be convicted without the complainant’s evidence. But should an offender escape justice simply because the victim is too traumatised to complain?
The former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC acknowledged on his Double Jeopardy podcast last week that people who may be the victims of crime must be kept informed and treated with respect.
But, he added, ‘in a criminal justice system where the prosecution have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and where it’s the defendant who is at risk of a lengthy prison sentence, the whole idea of putting a victim first or putting a victim above the defendant presupposes a determination that the defendant is guilty’.
The Labour party’s promise to tackle the prisons crisis is certainly welcome. But how will that be achieved? ‘Labour recognises that prisons are of national importance,’ says its manifesto, ‘and therefore will use all relevant powers to build the prisons so badly needed.’ That is fine if it allows the government to close crumbling inner-city prisons and sell off their sites. But it must go hand in hand with reducing the number of people in custody. It is only by diverting resources into rehabilitation that Labour can meet its third objective – which is to cut reoffending.
Letting prisoners out early may not sound as if it is putting the needs of victims first. But emergency measures can no longer be avoided. Alleged victims should not have to wait two years or more to give evidence against those they accuse. Hearings are delayed because the prison service cannot cope with the numbers remanded in custody and then sentenced to imprisonment. Police forces are being advised to make fewer arrests.
Alex Chalk is still justice secretary. But his sentencing bill – which would have introduced a presumption that sentences of 12 months or less should be suspended – lies abandoned. Replacing short prison sentences with demanding community penalties should not be controversial.
Instead, the Conservative government has been reduced to releasing prisoners by stealth. An unknown number of offenders have been freed up to 70 days early under what’s called the end of custody supervised licence scheme.
In the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, Chalk introduced minor reforms to the arrangements for offenders sentenced to imprisonment for public protection. But these provisions are not yet in force and they should be replaced by a resentencing exercise for all remaining IPP prisoners.
Labour has promised ‘a review of sentencing to ensure it is brought up to date’. That is not inconsistent with sending fewer people to prison. Indeed, its pledge to ‘rebuild our criminal justice system’ can be achieved only by urgent prisoner releases.
Sir Keir Starmer cannot be blamed for not spelling this out ahead of the election. But the former director of public prosecutions will certainly be to blame if he fails to take action on coming to power. Of course there will be criticism from those who think the only option is to spend more and more on prison sentences that achieve less and less. But what is the point of a super-majority if you cannot use it to achieve real change?
The last time Labour won a general election after a long period in opposition, Tony Blair had a lord chancellor who hit the ground running. Lord Irvine of Lairg (pictured) steered the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on to the statute book without the prime minister seeming to notice.
There will be nobody in the Commons of Irvine’s stature. All the more reason for the new prime minister to seize the moment himself and mend our broken criminal justice system.
joshua@rozenberg.net
1 Reader's comment