The number of older prisoners is now very high and is likely to remain so - partly caused by the increase in convictions for historic sexual offences. The growth of the older prison population and the severity of the needs of that population, warrant a national strategy in order to provide for them effectively. Older and disabled prisoners should no longer be held in institutions which cannot meet their basic needs nor should they be released back into the community without adequate support. There are some excellent prison officers and charity workers who are providing essential social care but an ad hoc system means that too often older prisoners have to rely on the goodwill of officers and their fellow inmates to fulfill the most basic of care needs. The responsibility to adapt the prison environment so that it suits less able prisoners lies with a prison's senior management team and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). NOMS should conduct a comprehensive analysis of prisons' physical compliance with disability discrimination and age equality laws. The Committee does not believe there is a need for the expansion of segregated older prisoner units or wings. However, NOMS should ensure all prisons have an older prisoner policy that provides age and ability specific regimes. Furthermore older prisoners who are released after a long period of incarceration must have a resettlement and care plan. At present older prisoners are frequently released to no fixed abode undermining all work that has been made towards resettlement
The Government has struck a reasonable balance in the way it is planning to exercise its right to opt-out of pre-Lisbon Treaty EU policing and criminal justice measures, but the way it has engaged Parliament in the decision-making process has been badly handled and 'cavalier'. The Government left the Commons select committees far too little time to assess the reasons for their decisions on EU justice opt-ins, and did not provide the full impact assessment which was needed. The Committee agrees with the Government's plans to seek to opt back into seven of the sixteen measures, and not to opt into a number of others. The Committee also raises questions about the Government's intention not to opt back into two specific instruments, the Probation Measures Framework Decision and the Framework Decision on the settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction. The Committee also calls on the Government to provide an assessment of the effect of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the measures covered by the opt-out. The Committee also agrees with the Government's proposal to seek to rejoin decisions on data protection in policing and criminal justice, and on a data protection secretariat, but says that the arguments are more finely balanced in relation to the Framework Decision on settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction
The chairmanship of the Office for Legal Complaints is one of the posts which are subject to (non-binding) pre-appointment scrutiny by select committees. Elizabeth France was recruited to the position on 10 October 2008, and the Justice Committee took oral evidence from her on 21 October.
The Justice Committee held a pre-appoointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Paul McDowell. This report contains the oral evidence from that meeting and the Committee approves his appointment. The report also contains correspondence between the Chair of the Committee and the Secretary of State, the job advertisement, the person specification used in the recruitment process, and Mr McDowell's curriculum vitae.
The Government presented its Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee and Justice Committee in November 2012. The parts of the Memorandum falling within the Justice Committee's remit were a) Serious Crime Prevention Orders and b) Part 2, in particular, offences of encouraging or assisting crime in terms of prosecution and interpretation of the sections by courts and the CPS. There is concern about the trenchant criticism that Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 received. In addition, Part 2 was the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal. The report concurs with the academics who wrote that the sections are complex and difficult to understand for lawyers, let alone for defendants, jurors and other lay-people working in the criminal justice system. It raises some key concerns and questions about the purpose of post-legislative scrutiny. It is considered that where the substance of an Act or part of an Act is to create or revise criminal offences it is appropriate for questions of a purely legal or technical nature to be considered. The latest judgment in the case of Sadique may allow the legislation to settle into accepted use and interpretation. However, the Ministry should conduct a further and full post-legislative assessment of Part 2 in 2016. If, in the meantime, the number of appeals on Part 2 increases, the Ministry should consider bringing forward legislative proposals for revising, or even replacing, Part 2 to meet the purpose of the legislation in a less tortuous fashion
The Government has proposed that the Youth Justice Board (YJB) should be abolished, and its inclusion in the Public Bodies Bill is currently the subject of 'ping pong' between the two Houses of Parliament. The YJB is responsible for: advising the Justice Secretary on the operation of the youth justice system; monitoring the performance of that system; purchasing places for, and placing, children and young people remanded or sentenced to custody; disseminating effective practice; making grants to local authorities and others; and commissioning research and publishing information. The Government wants to transfer YJB's functions to a Youth Justice Division of the Ministry of Justice, arguing that this will restore direct Ministerial accountability. The Committee point out that if that does happen, certain steps must be taken to ensure that the new Division: is not part of NOMS; benefits from the establishment of a genuinely and visibly independent Advisory Board; improves the dissemination of best practice; and exercises 'light touch' oversight of Youth Offending Teams.
Public authorities have a duty to ensure looked after children are not at greater risk of being drawn into the criminal justice system than other children. The relevant authorities must continue to support looked after children and care leavers when they are in, and when they leave, custody. The substantial decrease since 2006/07 in the number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time is welcomed but looked after children have not benefited from this shift to the same extent as other children. The Youth Justice Board has done excellent work to halve the youth custodial population over the past decade but continues to spend £246 million a year detaining a small fraction of young offenders. Recommendations include: a statutory threshold to enshrine in legislation the principle that only the most serious and prolific young offenders should be placed in custody; devolving the custody budget to enable local authorities to invest in effective alternatives to custody; and more action to reduce the number of young people who breach the terms of their community sentences and the number of young black men in custody. The aim of improving the basic literacy of offenders, as outlined in the Transforming Youth Custody consultation paper is endorsed, but is it most useful to focus resources on the secure estate, given that the average length of stay is currently 79 days? The greater focus should be on improving transition between custody and the community, and on improving provision in the community and incentivising schools and colleges to take back difficult students.
In the five years since the Ministry of Justice was created, it has made improvements to its structure and performance and is now a more integrated Department. However, the Ministry is still too much in thrall to the prison service: better integrated offender management would enable the Ministry to make the financial savings demanded of it but also provide a more effective service to clients, users and the wider public, and in particular to achieve its key objective to reduce re-offending. The Ministry has been subject to past criticism for poor financial management - missing the Treasury's deadline for the laying of accounts three years running, woeful inefficiency in the administration of legal aid and too much focus on policy at the expense of delivery. Following an in-depth investigation into all aspects of the Department's work, the Committee concluded that the Ministry has got a grip of the situation and is justifying the rationale for its creation. However, the MPs believe the Department could undergo further restructuring to create a single delivery body. Additionally, the current structure of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which continues to be driven by prison priorities, produces difficulties in reducing re-offending. The Committee also makes a number of further recommendations to improve how the Department functions
This short report does not intend to formulate precise recommendations for the future framework of the relationship between the Ministry and its criminal justice inspectorates. That is a matter which requires careful consideration and discussion involving all interested parties, including the new Chief Inspectors of Prisons and Probation. Instead it 's aim is to express an opinion on the overall contours and timetable of that process of consideration and discussion, and the principles which we think should underpin it, to ensure that the relationship between the Ministry and its inspectorates commands public confidence.
This inquiry was prompted by the loss by HM Revenue & Customs, in November 2007, of two CDs containing personal and banking information belonging to all child benefit claimants. The Committee took evidence from Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, and David Smith, his deputy, about this case and the issue of protection of personal data held by Government and other agencies. The Committee concludes that there is evidence of a widespread problem within Government relating to establishing systems for data protection and operating them adequately. The Information Commissioner needs better funding and more powers to enable review of systems for data protection. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the advantages of wider exchange of personal data between Government departments and the protection of personal data. The Committee will return to this topic at a later date, after various inquiries put in train by the Government have reported.
Joint enterprise is a form of secondary liability whereby a person who agrees to commit a crime with another becomes liable for all criminal acts committed by the other person (the principal offender) in the course of their joint criminal venture. It is a common law doctrine, which means it has been developed by the courts over the years. Inthis report the Justice Committee find that the law on joint enterprise is so confusing for juries and courts alike that legislation is needed urgently to ensure justice for both victims and defendants and end the high number of cases reaching the Court of Appeal. The MPs also call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to produce guidance for prosecutors on joint enterprise, particularly in cases of gang-related homicide. The Director of Public Prosecutions should collate data on the number of people charged under joint enterprise so that problems with the operation of the law identified by campaigning groups representing both victims and those that say they have been convicted in a miscarriage of justice can be alleviated, if necessary.
Some former Ministers and senior civil servants argue that Freedom of Information (FOI) is having a 'chilling effect' on policy discussion at the heart of government. The Committee recognised there could be a problem--at least of perception. However the existing provisions of the Act could be used more effectively, including use of the ministerial veto to ensure a "safe space" for high-level policy discussions. The number of FOI requests is growing and some witnesses suggested introducing fees for FOI. However, while FOI imposes costs, it also creates savings when the inappropriate use of public funds is uncovered - or where fear of disclosure prevents the waste of public money. Setting fees could deter requests with a strong public interest and therefore defeat the purposes of the Act. Fees introduced purely for commercial and media organisations could also be circumvented. The MPs recommended: higher fines should be imposed for destruction of information or data and the time limit should be removed on prosecution of these offences; the law should be amended to protect universities from having to disclose research and data before the research has been published; all public bodies subject to the Act should be required to publish data on the timeliness of their response to freedom of information requests; the right to access information must not be undermined by the increased use of private providers in delivering public services and contracts for private providers should be explicit and enforceable in stipulating FOI obligations; where public authorities publish disclosure logs, the names of those requesting information should be included
This report assesses the decision to apply sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) to mesothelioma compensation claims. These sections prevent winning claimants recovering from defendants success fees charged by their lawyers or premiums for insurance against having to meet defendants' costs (after the event, or ATE, insurance). They applied to all other personal injury claims since April 2013, but section 48 of LASPO required Ministers to undertake a review before they could be brought into effect for claims relating to mesothelioma. The section 48 review was not prepared in a thorough and even-handed manner and a fresh consultation should be undertaken. The Government was not reconciled to the concession it was forced to make to exempt mesothelioma cases from its provisions, and determined to review the exemption as soon as it could. In its haste the Government failed to ensure that relevant information, such as a cost-benefit analysis of the changes, was available to interested parties. It also shoehorned part of its section 48 review into a wider consultation on changes to the mesothelioma claims process. The Committee also urges expedition of the primary legislation needed to bring into effect the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, which will enable a claim to be issued against an insurer without a judgment first having had to be obtained against an insolvent insured party. The Ministry of Justice should also work in tandem with the Department of Health to reduce delays in the production of medical records of mesothelioma victims.
This is the Committee's first major inquiry on prisons planning and policies in this Parliament, and it has provided an opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's programme of reforms and efficiency savings across the prison estate. These policies have been implemented alongside the creation of working prisons and resettlement prisons, designed to improve the effectiveness of the prison estate in increasing employability and reducing re-offending, as well as the tightening of operational policies on earned privileges and temporary release in order to improve their public credibility. They have also come at a time when the total prison population has returned to very high levels. The Committee expresses concern that despite the Government's efforts to supply sufficient prison places to meet demand, the proportion of prisons that are overcrowded is growing, and the proportion of prisoners held in crowded conditions remains at almost a quarter, with consequent effects on the ability to maintain constructive regimes. The Committee welcomes the reduction which has taken place in the cost of a prison place, although the Committee notes that it remains high, and is unlikely to fall significantly while the pressures on estate capacity remain at current levels
The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are self-governing dependencies of the UK. These "Crown Dependencies" have their own directly-elected legislatures together with independent legal, administrative and fiscal systems. UK legislation only extends to them with the consent of the relevant legislatures. The UK Government represents the Crown Dependencies in international and defence matters, a role for which it receives annual payment from each dependency. The Ministry of Justice is the UK Government department responsible for managing the UK's constitutional relationship with the Crown Dependencies and the department's performance in doing so falls within the remit of this Committee. In 2008 problems in the Icelandic banking sector (also affecting subsidiaries of Icelandic banks in, inter alia, the UK, Isle of Man and Guernsey) and the UK authorities' response gave rise to a number of issues which, in the opinion of the Committee, merited examination. Many UK-based depositors in banks in the Crown Dependencies fear that they may have lost most or all of their savings and want to know what responsibilities the UK Government has in these matters. The Committee took evidence from Lord Bach, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice and received written evidence. Prior to this, in November 2008, the Committee had the benefit of an informal meeting with a delegation from Tynwald, the Isle of Man legislature, led by its President, Hon Noel Cringle MLC. The Committee believes that some questions over the relationship between the UK and the Crown Dependencies remain to be answered and that further clarity on the way in which the dependencies' interests are protected by the UK Government is required. The situation is further complicated by the relationships between the parent banks in Iceland and their subsidiaries in the UK, the Isle of Man and Guernsey as well as between the financial regulators in each jurisdiction. The Committee was not sure that the arrangements within the Government were adequate to deal with all aspects of the recent crisis. The Committee intend to return to the wider issues, and the performance of the Ministry of Justice in these matters, in the New Year. There is also the independent review of the immediate and long-term challenges facing British offshore financial centres in the current economic climate commissioned by HM Treasury.
The chairmanship of the Office for Legal Complaints is one of the posts which are subject to (non-binding) pre-appointment scrutiny by select committees. Elizabeth France was recruited to the position on 10 October 2008, and the Justice Committee took oral evidence from her on 21 October. The Committee considered Ms France's competencies relevant to the role, her experience and proposed strategies for meeting the key challenges and objectives of the new position. The Committee is entirely satisfied that Elizabeth France meets the criteria necessary for the role of chair for the Office for Legal Complaints.
The report The Inquiries Act 2005: Post-legislative Scrutiny (HL143) finds that the government is not using the legislation passed in the Inquiries Act 2005 enough, and is setting up inquiries with inadequate powers. The Committee urges the government to set up a Central Inquiries Unit to make the most of any lessons learned from past inquiries, and make the best use of collective knowledge and proficiency in this field. The unit would be a new center of expertise, which would enable future inquiries to hit the ground running while also being more efficient, more streamlined and less costly to the public. Overall the Inquiries Act 2005 is robust and effective, but the government is not using it in the way it should be. By setting up public inquiries outside of the Act, the government is creating inquiries which have inadequate powers to do their job. On 6 March 2014, the Home Secretary announced a judge-led inquiry into undercover policing, but did not say
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.