This Bill would extend the mandatory supervision of offenders released from custodial sentences to provide that all offenders would be subject to at least 12 months of supervision in the community. It would also introduce new requirements, including drug appointments and residence requirements, which could be applied to offenders subject to such post-release supervision and offenders subject to community and suspended sentence orders.
The Ministry of Justice plans to allow organisations from the voluntary and private sectors to provide rehabilitation services in the community for low and medium risk offenders. New providers would be paid according to the reductions in re-offending they achieve. It is also legislating through the Offender Rehabilitation Bill to introduce and extend statutory supervision periods for short-sentence offenders. The Ministry of Justice says these and other proposals set out in the Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation strategy document (published 9 May 2013) will help to reduce reoffending while continuing to protect the public.
The problem of youth crime, and how best to respond to it, has attracted political attention for decades. More than 30 years ago, for example, the 1979 Conservative party manifesto promised to make more use of attendance centres for “hooligans” and to give a “short, sharp shock” to young offenders.
In recent years, the population of older prisoners has increased dramatically. Concerns have been expressed that the National Offender Management Service is ill-equipped to deal with an ageing prison population.
The Payment by Results (PbR) approach to delivery of public services is not new and is not without controversy. This note looks at current and planned projects in rehabilitation, welfare to work, the NHS, children’s social services and with rough sleepers and with vulnerable young people.
This paper examines the evidence for the effectiveness of prison and programmes in the community aimed at reducing reoffending and some of the claims and counter-claims for whether “prison works”.
The Commons is due to consider Lords Amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on Tuesday 17 April 2012. This note draws attention to the principal changes, additions and deletions that were made in the Lords.
This is a report on the House of Commons committee stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. It complements Research Paper 11/53. In the Bill’s remaining stages, it is likely that the areas that will prove most contentious will be the restrictions on legal aid, the introduction of new offences and possible Government amendments on squatting and self-defence and sentences of imprisonment for public protection.
This Research Paper has been prepared for the second reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The Bill covers a diverse range of issues, including legal aid; litigation funding and costs; sentencing; bail, remand and release on licence; prisoners’ pay and employment; out of court disposals and knives.
This note discusses some of the controversy surrounding the recategorisation of prisoners to category D and examines what is known about the disturbance at HM Prison Ford, which is subject to two ongoing investigations.
In 2010, the Legal Services Commission held a tendering exercise for new contracts for crime and civil legal aid work. This resulted in a significant drop in the number of firms awarded contracts for family and social welfare work. A judicial review brought by the Law Society led to those contracts being quashed.
This Bill would deal firstly with the transfer of border customs functions to the new UK Border Agency. It would also introduce new naturalisation requirements, deal with various other citizenship issues and place a new duty on the UK Border Agency to safeguard the welfare of children, also making provisions in relation to trafficking babies and children for exploitation. Some elements of the Bill underwent significant change in the Lords. The Bill as first published would have provided for immigration control to be introduced on air and sea routes within the Common Travel Area (the UK, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), but these controversial provisions were defeated in the Lords. Originally the Bill would also have restricted the involvement of the higher courts in immigration and nationality cases, but a Lords amendment limited the scope of this restriction.
At the Commons Committee stage, the clause relating to the Common Travel Area was changed again and the original provisions reinstated. The introduction in the Lords of a grace period for those close to qualifying for naturalisation was reversed and the original provisions relating to judicial review were also reinstated.
This paper is on the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL] (Bill 86 of 2008-09). This Bill would deal firstly with the transfer of border customs functions to the new UK Border Agency. It would also introduce new naturalisation requirements and deal with various other citizenship issues. The Bill as it was introduced in the Lords would have provided for immigration control to be introduced on air and sea routes within the Common Travel Area but these provisions were defeated in the Lords. Originally the Bill would also have restricted the involvement of the higher courts in immigration and nationality cases, but a Lords amendment limited the scope of this restriction. The Bill would introduce a new duty on the UK Border Agency to safeguard the welfare of children and make provisions in relation to trafficking babies and children for exploitation.