Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
Women offenders: after the Corston Report - United Kingdom ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Justice Committee: Evidence Ev 718 December 2012 Rt Hon Baroness <strong>Corston</strong> and Liz Hogarth OBEhave enough to do with <strong>offenders</strong>, and sometimes <strong>the</strong>sewomen‐specific services are ones to which women aremore likely to relate.Q22 Rehman Chishti: In relation to sentencing,Baroness <strong>Corston</strong>, previously you did not recommenda separate sentencing framework for women. Wouldyou now consider this <strong>the</strong> right time to revisit that?Baroness <strong>Corston</strong>: What I said at <strong>the</strong> time was that Iwas not going to suggest that <strong>the</strong>re should be one, but Iwas not going to rule out <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re might needto be one. The reason why I said that was because <strong>the</strong>reseemed to be so much institutional misunderstandingof <strong>the</strong> reality of most women’s lives and responsibility.I have just referred to what happened to me. Assomebody who used to work as a lawyer, you havea client and you say, “You are likely to get a noncustodialsentence.” So your client is perfectly happy,and all of a sudden you are sent to prison. If you are awoman, you are held in <strong>the</strong> cells longest of all because<strong>the</strong> men are always dealt with first. It is 10.30 at nightbefore you actually get to prison, and you know thatyour child was outside school at 3.15 pm and <strong>the</strong>rewas nobody to meet that child. Can you imagine <strong>the</strong>state you would be in? The needs and responsibilitiesof primary carers are absolutely crucial and should beat <strong>the</strong> forefront of <strong>the</strong> minds of sentencers. It is difficultto have this argument with <strong>the</strong>m of course because,for people like us, you are accused of interfering with<strong>the</strong> judiciary. I have to say that some judges now areabsolutely superb. I can think of one judge in Bristol,His Honour Judge Horton, who has taken this strategycompletely to heart and implements it when dealingwith women <strong>offenders</strong>.What made a very big difference during <strong>the</strong> lastGovernment was that Vera Baird, who of course wasa distinguished QC and did so much to change <strong>the</strong>law on battered women who kill before she came intoParliament, as a law officer, with that professionalbackground, brought in a conditional caution forwomen. I had thought of recommending a conditionalcaution for women, but I thought nobody is goingto accept that, so I didn’t. But she, as a law officer,brought it in. We had this pilot in two areas; I haveforgotten which ones actually. I think one was <strong>the</strong>north‐east. <strong>Women</strong> who had committed some kind oflow level offence of <strong>the</strong> kind I have been discussingwere told, “We will caution you on <strong>the</strong> condition thatyou attend a women’s centre for an assessment and thatyou follow through <strong>the</strong> course that is set out for you.”That is an informal change of sentencing frameworkand has been very successful.Q23 Rehman Chishti: Forgive me if I have missed<strong>the</strong> point, but, in terms of clarity, are you <strong>the</strong>n sayingthat that system, which was introduced previously in<strong>the</strong> north, should now be spread out across <strong>the</strong> country?Baroness <strong>Corston</strong>: There is a very good argument forthat, yes. The argument for it is unanswerable.Q24 Rehman Chishti: Secondly, to both of you, is<strong>the</strong>re appropriate community-based provision for <strong>the</strong>management of women <strong>offenders</strong> who represent ahigher risk of harm to <strong>the</strong> public?Baroness <strong>Corston</strong>: It has been said, throughGovernment, that 3.2% of <strong>the</strong> female prison populationpresent a risk or a high risk to o<strong>the</strong>r people. Liz maywell be able to talk to you about this in a minute becauseshe is a person who worked in Holloway and hadpersonal experience. There are some of those womenwho will probably never come out of prison, and, for<strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong> kind of prison regime that we currently haveis entirely right. But, if it is 3.2% of women, we aretalking about 140 women at any one time, so it is asmall number of people who would need to be kept insecure circumstances. I can accept that, for <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong>rewould be a price to pay in terms of family unity, but, in<strong>the</strong> interests of justice and a public acceptance of <strong>the</strong>seriousness of a crime, that is a price that we wouldhave to pay.Liz Hogarth: In terms of those women who do comeout, who have been high risk and have gone intoprison, it is good that—looking at things like approvedpremises—<strong>the</strong>re has been a slight shift. Back whenI was doing work in 2008, again we found it veryhard because approved premises were for high risk<strong>offenders</strong> and it felt a bit like women did not fit thatmould. They were not so much high risk, but <strong>the</strong>ywould come out of prison on licence or in terms ofbail conditions. They had very high needs in terms ofmental health and drugs, which could make <strong>the</strong>m a riskin that sense. They needed slightly different provision,and it was good <strong>after</strong> 2008 that that was looked at andthat medium risk women <strong>offenders</strong> could be consideredfor approved premises for women.Having said that, though, <strong>the</strong>re is still <strong>the</strong> issue that<strong>the</strong> small numbers of women can be seen as beingproblematic for us in terms of policy. Because, if youonly have relatively few women needing approvedpremises, those premises are few and <strong>the</strong>y are milesfrom home. An awful lot of women say <strong>the</strong>y wouldra<strong>the</strong>r stay in prison than go somewhere away fromhome. It sounds ironic in a way, but, when <strong>the</strong>y havefamily contacts, it might be easier for those familycontacts to get to a prison than to approved premises.It is good it is out <strong>the</strong>re. Some very good and reallyinventive work is done with approved premises likeAdelaide House, but <strong>the</strong>y have to fight very hard tohave <strong>the</strong>ir voices heard, because <strong>the</strong> norm is that itwould be male high risk <strong>offenders</strong> and <strong>the</strong>y are verydifferent in terms of <strong>the</strong>ir needs.Q25 Jeremy Corbyn: What form of commissioningarrangements do you see as <strong>the</strong> best way of dealingwith women <strong>offenders</strong> and those at risk of reoffending,because you mentioned, for example, <strong>the</strong> issue of,potentially, a woman prisoner from Truro, where <strong>the</strong>nearest women’s prison would be Eastwood Park,which is well north of Bristol; I know <strong>the</strong> place. Whatwould be your preferred option for commissioningarrangements?Baroness <strong>Corston</strong>: My preferred option for womenwho have committed <strong>the</strong> kind of crimes to which wehave referred—generally petty offences—would bethat <strong>the</strong>re should be local provision. There should besmall units dispersed throughout <strong>the</strong> country, just for asmall number of women. I do not accept <strong>the</strong> argumentabout cost because I have seen that it works in Scotland,and I don’t see why it can’t work here.