Killers could be released from prison early under Labour jail review
Criminals serving long sentences for serious offences such as manslaughter, GBH and drug dealing could be released early from prison under a Labour review to combat prison overcrowding.
David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary heading the review, said such controversial measures were needed if his proposed reforms of sentencing were to have any impact on prison overcrowding.
He warned that scrapping short prison sentences for lower-level offenders would not be enough on its own to prevent the Government from running out of prison cells.
'Those who are serving relatively long sentences will have to be released sooner if we are serious about not exceeding capacity,' he told the podcast, The Lord Chancellors, hosted by The University of Law.
'If we are going to keep control of our prison population, this isn't just going to be done on short sentences.
'The only way you can address that is the very large number of people we've got in prison who are in there for a reasonable length of time, and whether they need to spend all of that time behind bars in the way that they currently do.'
He admitted his proposals, due to be unveiled in May, would face 'opposition'. 'They will be controversial. They will be difficult. But nonetheless they will be necessary…We have run out of space,' he said.
Offenders serving the longest jail terms include those guilty of crimes such as murder and manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, armed robbery, serious sexual and violent assaults including rape, drug-related offences and trafficking.
Murder is excluded from the terms of the sentencing review, however, and it is unlikely that the proposals would include rapists. It is expected offenders would have to earn early release from jail and would still face tough restrictions while completing the remainder of their sentences in the community.
Mr Gauke and Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who ordered his review, have signalled their interest in Texas-style incentive schemes where prisoners can earn their freedom earlier by completing work, training or education assignments and demonstrating good behaviour in jail.
It is likely this would only apply to offenders on long fixed-term sentences who are currently released half or two-thirds of the way through them. It is unlikely to extend to those on 'indeterminate' sentences who have to 'earn' their release by demonstrating to the parole board they are no longer a risk to the public.
Mr Gauke blamed governments and Parliament for 'haphazard sentence inflation' which had seen jail terms for serious crimes nearly double in 20 years as they sought to win over the public with tougher approaches to criminals.
He also indicated the review would consider alternatives to short jail terms for lower level offenders including 'house arrest' where judges used tags, curfews and geographical restrictions to create virtual 'prisons outside prisons'.
'There are three ways in which you can control the prison population. One is about not sending people to prison at all who might otherwise be dealt with in the community,' said Mr Gauke.
'The second is if people are sent to prison for them to be imprisoned for less long. And the third is about rehabilitation and about reducing the level of crime.
'Now we will look at measures that assist all three of those objectives. Whether that is people who have maybe committed relatively minor offences and currently go to a prison for a short period of time. Is there something else that we can do there? We're clearly going to look at that.'
Mr Gauke said he would also be 'pressing the case' for 'problem solving courts' where judges take an active role in overseeing offenders' progress on drug, alcohol and other rehabilitation programmes in the community rather than sending them to jail.
'We will certainly want to be looking at the use of problem solving courts,' he said. 'I've seen it in Texas, recently. The returns are really considerable. So I'm pressing the case for that.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs call for action on benefits after winter fuel U-turn
Labour MPs have broadly welcomed the government's decision to reinstate winter fuel payments for three-quarters of pensioners but some are using the U-turn to renew their calls for planned benefit cuts to be reversed. Nine million pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income of £35,000 or less will now be eligible for up to £300 to help with energy bills this winter. Labour MPs thanked the government for listening to their concerns, arguing means testing the payment was fair but that the threshold was set too low last year. However, several urged ministers to also think again on planned cuts to disability payments, while others called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. Under planned changes to the benefits system it would be harder for people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payments (Pips), while the government is promising more support to help people get into work. While the two-child benefit cap policy prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017, which critics say has pushed people into poverty. Ministers are considering lifting the cap, with a decision expected in the autumn, when a child poverty strategy is published. Pressure from Labour backbenchers over the issues - as well as on winter fuel payments - has been growing since the party's poor performance at local election's in May. The winter fuel payment was previously paid to all pensioners but last year the government announced only those receiving pension credit or another means-tested benefit would be eligible in England and Wales. The original cut last year was estimated to save £1.7bn, with the government arguing it was necessary because of the state of the public finances. But the move, which meant more than 10 million pensioners did not receive the payment in 2024, was criticised by charities, unions, opposition parties and many Labour MPs. Following mounting pressure, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a U-turn last month, with the details of who will get the payment this winter set out on Monday. The chancellor said she would detail how the £1.25bn policy would be paid for in the autumn Budget. How much is the winter fuel payment and who will get it? Labour hope to put winter fuel misstep behind them At-a-glance: Key changes to benefits in welfare shake-up Imran Hussain was among the Labour MPs to call for the planned benefit cuts to be scrapped in response to a government statement in the Commons on changes to winter fuel payments. "It is clear the government has listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in this chamber and scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support," the MP for Bradford East said. Fellow Labour MPs Nadia Whittome and Richard Burgon also welcomed the winter fuel U-turn but urged the government to listen to backbench concerns over benefit cuts. In response, Torsten Bell, who is both a Treasury minister and pensions minister, told MPs there needed to be "a better system focusing on supporting those who can work into work". He added that the status quo - where 1,000 people a day are going onto Pips - was not "a position that anybody should support". Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has been a leading campaigner for restoring winter fuel payments, welcomed the government's change in policy, saying it was "long overdue". She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the £35,000 salary threshold for the payment was a "sensible measure". However, Maskell called on the government to consider a larger payment following increases in energy prices over the past year. The MP for York Central also urged a rethink on planned benefit cuts, adding: "You can't rob disabled people in order to pay older people, that doesn't make sense." Meanwhile, she was among several MPs to reiterate their calls for the government to scrap the two-child benefit cap. In the Commons Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour MP for Salford, also asked for reassurances minsters "are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible" to bring children out of poverty. In response Bell said "all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table". The minister added: "She's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this government. "We cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty." The Conservatives have called for the government to apologise to pensioners who lost out on winter fuel payments last year. Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately described the U-turn as "the most humiliating climbdown a government has ever faced in its first year in office". She told the Commons "this rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers", arguing the move was "totally unfunded" and could lead to tax rises. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "Finally the chancellor has listened to the Liberal Democrats and the tireless campaigners in realising how disastrous this policy was, but the misery it has caused cannot be overstated. "Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating all whilst the government buried its head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who were really suffering." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing
More than 12,000 Harvard University alumni have signed onto a legal document in support of the university's lawsuit against the Trump administration. The document, known as an amicus brief, hasn't been officially accepted by the court as of 2 p.m. Monday. It is a reaction to the federal government pulling or freezing nearly $3 billion in funding to the university. 'As alumni, we are deeply alarmed by the Government's reckless and unlawful attempts to assert control over the core functions of Harvard and its fellow institutions of higher education. Without due process or any recognizable basis in law — and with complete disregard for the freedoms the Constitution secures and the constraints it imposes — the Government has embarked on a campaign to deploy every power at its disposal to damage Harvard,' the brief reads. The 12,000 alumni range from being a part of the Class of 1950 all the way through the Class of 2025. Crimson Courage, a community of Harvard alumni whose mission is to stand up for academic freedom, kicked off the campaign for signatures. Several other individuals and groups have or aim to submit court documents in support of Harvard's lawsuit. Among them have been two dozen universities, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Council on Education, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — also known as FIRE — and Columbia Alumni for Academic Freedom, according to court filings. Read more: 'We are not just fighting for Harvard': For alums, this year feels different 'The Government's escalating attacks — and this case — are about much more than funding. The Government strikes at the very core of Harvard: the longstanding practices and values of openness, free inquiry, and mutual respect, and its founding commitment to veritas — the quest for truth above all,' the brief said. 'The Government's end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms. As alumni, we attest that Harvard's true greatness resides in the ways we share these values and exercise these freedoms, which have long shaped how we understand and connect with one another, and how we anchor our continuing efforts to make a difference in service to the world,' it states. All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas 'We are not just fighting for Harvard': For alums, this year feels different What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump Judge blocks Trump admin from banning Harvard international students from entering US Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
