Criminals including sex offenders could be released from prison early
Criminals, including sex offenders and domestic abusers, could be released from prison after serving a third of their sentence to free up space in overcrowded jails, according to proposals in a sentencing policy review.
Sky News understands this is to be part of a series of measures the former Conservative justice secretary, David Gauke, who's been leading the independent review, will recommend to the Government on Thursday as a way of easing prison overcrowding.
The measure will apply to people serving standard determinate sentences, which is the most common type of jail term. It is based on sentences, rather than offence type.
That means violent criminals could also be eligible.
2:25
The policy will mean inmates serve only a third of their sentence in prison, a third on licence in the community, with the remaining portion under no probation supervision at all.
If an offender commits further offences in the "at-risk" or final stages of their sentence, once out of prison, they would be sent back to jail to serve the remainder of the original sentence, plus time for the new offence.
It's understood that ministers are planning to accept this proposal, among others.
The plans will include a tiered approach, with maximum and minimum points at which offenders can be eligible for release after serving a third of their sentence. Length of time spent in prison will vary according to a criminals behaviour.
Offenders would only be released at the third-way point if they've behaved well, and engage in rehabilitation and work while in prison.
More serious offenders might have a greater minimum period that they are required to spend in jail.
This "incentive" or "good behaviour" element mirrors moves made in the US state of Texas, which has helped ease overcrowding.
Other proposals set to be accepted include the scrapping of certain short sentences of under 12 months, with tougher community-based alternatives.
2:41
Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warned that prisons in England and Wales were due to be completely full by November.
Ministers announced that they were to limit the length of time certain offenders who'd been recalled to prison could spend behind bars, to 28 days.
It is understood the sentencing review could recommend that should instead be 56 days, in order to provide time to better rehabilitate repeat offenders who are recalled to jail for breaching the conditions of their licence.
The proposals aim to reduce the prison population by 9,500 people as jails battle an overcrowding crisis. The male estate is currently 99% full.
The Government has said it does not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review, but that it "inherited a justice system in crisis, with prisons days from collapse".
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "David Gauke is conducting a sentencing review to ensure that we never run out of prison places again, and we are committed to reforming sentencing to ensure our prisons cut crime and keep the public safe."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
34 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Welsh railways to get £445m investment in spending review
Rachel Reeves is expected to announce the additional funding as part of her spending review, aiming to address what the Treasury sees as years of underinvestment in Welsh infrastructure. Understood to be a combination of direct funding and additional money for the Welsh government, the investment is expected to be spent on projects such as fixing level crossings, building new stations and upgrading railway lines. A Treasury source said: 'With this Government, Wales will thrive, and the Chancellor has prioritised bringing forward a package that has the potential to be truly transformative.' On Tuesday, Welsh First Minister Eluned Morgan told members of the Senedd that her government was 'expecting something positive from the spending review'. She said: 'I've been clear and I've been consistent when it comes to rail funding that we have not been getting our fair share of funding, in a position that the Tories left us with for over a decade. 'The difference between the Tories and the UK Labour Government is that they've recognised that injustice.' Baroness Morgan's comments came in response to criticism from Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth of a decision to classify the £6.6 billion Oxford-to-Cambridge line as an England and Wales project. The designation means Wales will not receive the additional rail funding it would get if branded an England-only project. Mr ap Iorwerth said Wales had been 'getting our share until Labour actively moved the goalposts'. The expected announcement of additional funding for Welsh railways is one of several transport-related investments set to be confirmed on Wednesday. Ms Reeves has already announced plans to spend a total of £15.6 billion on public transport projects in England's city regions, and is understood to be preparing to extend the £3 cap on bus fares in England until March 2027.
Rhyl Journal
34 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Reeves to promise investment in ‘renewal' as she unveils spending plans
The Chancellor is expected to announce big increases in spending on the NHS, defence and schools as part of a spending review set to include £113 billion of investment thanks to looser borrowing rules. She will also reveal changes to the Treasury's 'green book' rules that govern which projects receive investment in an effort to boost spending outside London and the South East. Arguing that this investment is 'possible only because of the stability I have introduced' after the October budget, Ms Reeves is expected to say her spending review will 'ensure that renewal is felt in people's everyday lives, their jobs, their communities'. She will say: 'The priorities in this spending review are the priorities of working people. 'To invest in our country's security, health and economy so working people all over our country are better off.' Among the other announcements expected at the spending review is £39 billion for affordable homes over the next 10 years as the Government seeks to meet its promise of building 1.5 million homes by the next election. The Treasury said this would see annual investment in affordable housing rise to £4 billion by 2029/30, almost double the average of £2.3 billion between 2021 and 2026. A Government source said: 'We're turning the tide against the unacceptable housing crisis in this country with the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, delivering on our plan for change commitment to get Britain building.' The Chancellor has also already announced some £15.6 billion of spending on public transport in England's city regions, and £16.7 billion for nuclear power projects, the bulk of which will fund the new Sizewell C plant in Suffolk. But the spending review is expected to set out tough spending limits for departments other than health, defence and education. Although Ms Reeves is reported to have agreed to an above-inflation increase in the policing budget, this is thought to have come at the expense of cuts in other parts of Home Office spending. And sources close to London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan have expressed concern that the spending review will have nothing for the capital. Ahead of the spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that any increase in NHS funding above 2.5% is likely to mean real-terms cuts for other departments or further tax rises to come in the budget this autumn. The Chancellor has already insisted that her fiscal rules remain in place, along with Labour's manifesto commitment not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. She will say on Wednesday: 'I have made my choices. In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of retreat, I choose national renewal. 'These are my choices. These are this Government's choices. These are the British people's choices.'
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
