Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Judiciary Speeches >> Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales : "Restorative Justice" [2001] UKSpeech KL78W (25 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/speeches/2001/KL78W.html
Cite as: [2001] UKSpeech KL78W
[New search] [Help]
Lord Woolf
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
"Restorative Justice": Speech to the Youth Justice Board
Church House Conference Centre, London SW1
25 October 2001
I would like to start my remarks by thanking all those who were involved in organising this conference, for doing so. I would also like to thank all those who are present here today, for finding the time to be here so as to be able to join in a discussion about 'restorative justice'.
A great deal has been happening recently and is continuing to happen in the criminal justice system. I can see chinks of light coming through what up till now has been a very gloomy picture. One of the chinks of light is the innovative role of the Youth Justice Board who have been responsible for this conference. Another chink of light is provided by the interest and understanding of 'restorative justice' which is developing.
We need those chinks of light. Why do I say that?
Well there are two obvious reasons, the first is that regrettably it is my belief that the public's confidence in the justice system is far below what it should be.
The second is the rapidly rising population of our prisons. The figure is 67,465 inmates, an increase from 67,056 at the end of August. Those figures are to be compared with the population which can be accommodated in available establishments which is just under 64,000. They have also to be compared with the figures 10 years ago, when I did my prison reports, where overcrowding was thought to be a major cause of the rioting. It was also an explanation as to why a by no means 'soft' Home Secretary described prisons as an expensive way of making bad people worse.
I know this audience is probably well aware of the cost of all this. But can I remind you the average cost of keeping a prisoner in custody is about £27,500. The cost of housing the volume of prisoners we now have has caused a prison building and maintenance program costing around £2.7 billion over 10 years.
Why is the prison population so high? If you talk to magistrates which I regularly do, not least because my wife has been a magistrate longer than I have been a judge, they will tell you that they only use a custodial sentence as a last resort. I am sure that they are absolutely right. The problem that they are faced with and we as a community are faced with, is that unfortunately there are so many repeat offenders in the system. We have to find ways of tackling those offenders effectively. In doing this, we now have the advantage of the Halliday Report. This report, by a highly experienced civil servant in the Home Office, really tries to address the problems to which I have just been referring. Forgive me if I give 2 quotations from the Report, of which, you are no doubt already aware.
The first: "One of the most important deficiencies in the present framework is the lack of utility and short prison sentences - those of less than 12 months. Only half of such sentences are served. Release is automatic and the second half is subject to no conditions whatsoever. With Home Detention and Curfew, for many the period in custody is shorter than it would otherwise have been. The sentence is nevertheless used for large numbers of persistent offenders, with multiple problems and high risk of re-offending, whose offences (and record) are serious enough to justify a custodial sentence, but not so serious that longer prison sentences would be justified. A more effective recipe for failure could hardly be conceived."
Then again... "For large numbers of offenders who receive these sentences, they are markedly ineffective. Reconviction rates within 2 years of release -at 60% of those released - are higher for these sentences than for other prison sentences." Short prison sentences have in recent years come to play an increasing part in penal policy, largely because of choices made by sentencers, mainly magistrates.
The review found widespread dissatisfaction with the state of affairs.
"Sentencers are frustrated at having to pass sentences they know have such limited effect. The prison service looks in vain for guidance on how to make the best of these sentences. The probation service feels, and is, powerless until the offender re-offends. Other participants, for example in the employment service, who are involved in the resettlement of these prisoners, wonder about their purpose. The results are the worst aspects of the so-called "revolving-door". The mischief lies not in the revolving-door itself, but in the lack of any material impact on either side of it."
What can we do about this? Well one thing that we can do, and here I repeat a message that was given in the case of Bebi (1980) 71CAR 300 by Lord Lane, Chief Justice, repeated by Lord Taylor, Chief Justice, repeated again by Lord Bingham, Chief Justice in Howells (1999) ICAR(S) 325 and Lord Justice Rose, Vice President, of the Court of Appeal, who cited Ottorenshaw (April 23 1998), but I fear has not been remembered.
It is a very simple message:
- Don't send people to prison unless it is really necessary.
- If you are sending them for short-term, pause before you do so - ask yourself, if you are going to sentence for 12 months would 6 months be sufficient and achieve exactly the same benefits for the public, at lower cost to, the Treasury and our prison system. If 6 months is what you have in mind would not 3 months do? If 3 months will do, what about 1 month?
Of course, for serious offenders and serious persistent offenders, there is no alternative but for substantial punishment. What we have got to do is try and avoid the offenders who appear before us getting to that stage. Here we have the valuable assistance that the Youth Justice Board is helping to provide. Among the choices we should be considering, where it is appropriate to do so, is taking action which falls within the label 'restorative justice'. What do I mean by 'restorative justice'? Well, no one has produced a satisfactory definition and that is probably a good thing because the loose label can be appropriately applied to a variety of situations. I would not wish to see it too restrictively defined. What it does involve however, which is important, is the victim and the community who are affected by the victim's crime and the offender.
We take first the victim - there can be nothing which is more frustrating for a victim than to find they have been a subject of a crime and the consequences for them not being taken into account or addressed by the justice system. That is inherently unjust. I welcome within 'restorative justice' that the offender has to acknowledge the wrong he/she has done to the victim. The victim should not be involved in that process unless they are clearly willing to be involved. But subject to their being willing, they should be able to be involved. The offender, where appropriate, should have brought home to him/her personally precisely how the victim feels about the offence.
More important for the victim, but is also important for the offender, is that the offender learns that there is a real person who suffers in consequence of his/her action.
Then the offender has to take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation so far as that is possible. This is salutary for the offender. It is more demanding than being shut up in a cell where the majority of time is spent asleep or lounging on their bunk. To have to confront the victim is no 'soft touch'. It brings home to the offender the consequence of what he/she has done. It prevents the offender ignoring the consequences of his actions by dehumanising the victim. Incidentally, it avoids the victim dehumanising the offender.
Finally, there is the community. The offender should make reparation in an appropriate way to the community. One way of doing this is by embarking on courses which involve confronting offending. Other ways are performing services for the public. Either way it is beneficial to the victim and the public that the offender should make reparation for his offence. The benefits to the community can be enormous.
We have to find ways of breaking the viscous cycle of repetition of offending, punishment, release, re-offending and punishment again! 'Restorative justice' can not be the sole answer to this problem but can assist. What you have to discuss today is how to maximise that contribution.
Please note that speeches published on this website reflect the individual judicial office-holder's personal views, unless otherwise stated. If you have any queries please contact the Judicial Communications Office.