Government facing backlash over prison recall changes to free up jail space
Under emergency measures announced by the Justice Secretary, some criminals serving sentences between one and four years will be returned to custody only for a fixed 28-day period.
Offenders are recalled to prison if they commit another offence or breach licence conditions, such as by missing probation appointments, when they are released early but remain on licence.
Shabana Mahmood said the changes were necessary to curb overcrowding as she warned jails are on track to be down to 'zero capacity' by November.
The plans were criticised by victims commissioner Baroness Newlove and domestic abuse commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs, who said lives would be in danger as a result of the decision.
Baroness Newlove said: 'Victims will understandably feel unnerved and bewildered by today's announcement.
'If the Probation Service, the secretary of state and the Parole Board have all judged these individuals to pose a risk of harm to the public, then reducing time served on recall can only place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm.'
Dame Nicole called for the proposal to be scrapped, saying: 'I cannot stress (enough) the lack of consideration for victims' safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change.
'You are not sent to prison for four years if you do not pose significant risk to your victim or the wider public.
'Re-releasing them back into the community after 28 days is simply unacceptable.'
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said Labour was 'making the problem worse'.
He said: 'Under Labour's new rules, instead of being recalled to serve the rest of their sentence, they'll be given a fixed-term recall of a pitiful 28 days.
'They are then released, with no reassessment of risk or Parole Board oversight.
'That is not justice. It's a recipe for the breakdown of law and order.
'By telling prisoners that they will never serve their full sentence, even if they reoffend, the Justice Secretary has removed an important deterrent.'
Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of charity the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the recall change is a 'logical step to take' when the recall population is rising so quickly, and said the upcoming sentencing review is a chance for 'a lasting solution to this mess'.
'There is no time to lose, and only bold reform will do,' she said.
Ministers say the scheme will exclude people convicted of serious violent or sexual offences, as well as terrorist and national security crimes.
The exclusions will focus on offenders managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (Mappa) at Level 2 or 3, the PA news agency understands.
Mappa is used to manage certain sexual and violent offenders in the community, with only the most complex or high-risk individuals put at Level 2 or 3.
It is hoped the emergency measures will free up 1,400 prison places and 'buy time' before sentencing reforms expected to come into force next spring.
Legislation to bring in the changes is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks.
Ms Mahmood also announced three new prisons will be built, starting this year, as part of a 'record prison expansion', but admitted 'we cannot build our way out of this crisis'.
'The consequences of failing to act are unthinkable, but they must be understood,' she said.
'If our prisons overflow, courts cancel trials, police halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished and we reach a total breakdown of law and order.'
The latest weekly prison population in England and Wales was 88,087, 434 below the last peak of 88,521 inmates on September 6, recorded just before the Government began freeing thousands of prisoners early as part of efforts to curb overcrowding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Is it any wonder that the UK is such an unequal society?
Do our imperial masters still consider our country to be part of the British Empire and try to consolidate that status by handing out a few baubles in the hope of keeping the masses happy? No wonder the UK is such an unequal society, led by a Prime Minister who also happens to be a benighted knight of the realm. Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn. Inexcusable indifference I refer to Doug Maughan's letter of June 13, 'Hypocrisy and double standards taint the West's view of Israel'. I suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu believes that as long as he has Donald Trump guarding his back, he has nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Trump administration has already imposed sanctions on four judges at the ICC over the tribunal's investigation into Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank. While the five countries (thankfully including the UK) who are imposing sanctions on two Israeli far-right ministers are members of the ICC, neither Israel nor the US is. Both are countries which believe they are above international law, outwith the bounds of common decency. Mr Maughan's letter ought to be recognised as a call not only to our 'leaders' but to each one of us. We must resist 'the temptation to shrug and look away'. Indifference, silence, on our part to such suffering as the Palestinians are experiencing is inexcusable and makes us allies of Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers. John Milne, Uddingston. * Doug Maughan may also be interested to know that it has been reported that former Labour MP Lord Austin has been sent by the government to Israel 'as a trade envoy to maintain our relationship with Israeli businesses.' Money is also regularly raised by the sale of Israeli government bonds on the London market. Israeli banks involved in the West Bank are also active in London. I'm sure that the Prime Minister, being an ex-lawyer, will be able to explain to this confused member of the public why Israel's activities in Gaza and the West Bank are much less serious than those of Russia in Ukraine and the former South African government, both sanctioned. Ewan Henderson, Haddington. Let's sanction this warfare state History repeats itself with false claims about what a perceived enemy is about to do. On February 3, 2003, British journalists were handed a dossier purporting to show Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be used within days in an attack on the UK. Tony Blair went on television later that month saying Iraq had 'vast quantities of... anthrax, VX nerve agent, and mustard gas' and we had to strike. On June 14, 2025 Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Iran could have produced a nuclear weapon in a very short time' while a henchman averred that 'Iran had enough fission material for 15 nuclear bombs within days'. Yet weeks earlier Tulsi Gabbard, the US National Intelligence Director, stated to Congress that the US 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon' and that its leader 'has not authorised a nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. Over the past year Israel has mercilessly bombed Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran, killing thousands and causing chaos and carnage. It is a warfare state. With a population of 10 million it has over 600 warplanes, not far short of the total strength of the RAF. It is led by an extreme right-wing cabal untrusted by 70% of the Israeli people, according to opinion polls. It's time for the UK to place sanctions on this dangerous regime and stop supplying arms, intelligence and material to it. William Loneskie, Lauder, Berwickshire. Spineless attitude towards Iran My, how times change. Under our current Labour party leadership Britain has given away the Chagos Isles, handed the EU a say in the future of Gibraltar and now produces no response to the Iranian threat to our shores if we aid Israel. Where is the spine of the British government? When given a choice of supporting Iran or Israel in the current situation there should be no hesitation yet there is and Labour has been very critical of only Israel. Israel has targeted precise locations for missiles whilst Iran has just fired them off indiscriminately. Where is the harsh criticism of Iran, where the press can only report stories favourable to the regime? Does Labour think the world will really be safer if Iran has a nuclear bomb? Right now that seems to be its position, ably backed up in Scotland by the theoretically anti-nuclear SNP and the Greens. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Nuclear power and renewables Can anyone explain to me how hydro power and nuclear power are equivalent in how they supply electricity to the grid? ('Should Scotland blindly follow England down the nuclear power path?', Rebecca McQuillan, June 12). My understanding is that the amount of energy produced by a nuclear plant is pretty much fixed. It can not easily be modulated to increase or reduce output and the only change comes when it is being serviced (a planned break) or when there is a fault (an unplanned break). Whereas the hydro power system that Rebecca talks about has a reservoir into which water can be pumped at times of excess electricity. Then, at times of high demand for electricity, water can be released from the reservoir to generate power. The hydro power/reservoir system works like a battery that can be switched on and off at times of high or low demand. So nuclear power and the hydro/reservoir system perform fundamentally differently. If we have nuclear power, we need an additional system to deal with the ups and downs of electricity demand and to deal with the times when the nuclear power station closes down, which can happen unexpectedly. This flexible source of energy could be provided by a battery type system (such as the hydro power/reservoir system) or a generator that can be powered up and down easily (such as a gas-fired power station) or a cable from Norway or somewhere. Nuclear power does nothing to offset the ups and downs of renewables. J. Pountain, Glasgow. A fair system of Legal Aid One has to hope that our nation is sufficiently civilised as to enable those of otherwise insufficient means to obtain access to legal representation in our courts ('Scots court chaos looms as solicitors boycott scheme', June 10). At the same time, that seems unlikely to happen when you consider the competing claims on public finances, such as the NHS, the putative care service, dilapidated schools, housing crisis, national defence, winter fuel payments, the two-child benefit cap, ferries and other causes that are more likely than legal aid to appeal to the electorate. Even if the current campaign were to achieve a realistic settlement, for how long would that last? Clearly the government has no long-term will to support an effective legal aid system. I would therefore like to ask the solicitors' profession where lies the constitutional duty to provide public access to justice, whether with the government as the national executive or with the judicial arm of the nation's constitution. Certainly, the government is signed up to international treaties to provide access to justice but that appears to have cut little ice in the last 40 years since the state took over control of the legal aid system from the solicitors' profession. The whole raison d'etre of that profession and of the constitutional monopoly it enjoys in professional legal representation, is that it has a responsibility to the whole nation, whether or not the government provides sufficient financial support. A solicitor's duty to an immediate client may therefore require to be balanced with the responsibility of the profession to the public as a whole. Consideration therefore might need to be given to a system which operates in other jurisdictions. whereby the solicitors' profession provides legal representation for the impecunious, financed equitably across the profession out of fees paid by the financially more fortunate clients of that profession. This would be somewhat along the lines of the legal representation that was made available via the Poor Roll, prior to the formal institution of the legal aid system which has now fallen into substantial disrepair. Michael Sheridan, Scotstoun, Glasgow.
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Letter: Prime Minister has misled voters since his election
All politicians stretch the truth, but few do it with the frequency and shamelessness of Keir Starmer. He came to power promising 'honesty and integrity', a pledge that may turn out to be his most misleading of all. From the moment he ran for Labour leader, Starmer misled the public. He pledged to uphold Jeremy Corbyn's policies, abolishing tuition fees, lifting the two-child benefit cap, and nationalising key services. All were swiftly abandoned once he secured the leadership. It seems this has worked for him, so he's made it a habit. During the election campaign, Starmer gave the impression that Winter Fuel Payments and a cap on social care costs would be safe. Both have now been dropped. He said taxes wouldn't rise for working people, yet his Budget hits them through higher prices and lower wages, thanks to a £25 billion national insurance hike. He promised swift compensation for 1950s-born Waspi women. That too has vanished. Farmers were told they'd get certainty, instead, they've been hit with new inheritance taxes. Even his touted EU deal lacks detail, with vague claims and no transparency about what the UK is giving up, including 12 more years of access to British fishing waters. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted, the £22 billion black hole in Labour's Budget 'was obvious to anyone who dared to look.' But Starmer and his Chancellor pretended not to see it. Voters aren't fooled. When leaders routinely tell us things we know aren't true, and do so with utter confidence, it's not just dishonest, it's corrosive. Britain deserves better than this calculated deceit. Roman Jones
Scotsman
4 hours ago
- Scotsman
Forget party politics - directly-elected mayors for Glasgow and Edinburgh is worth considering
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Directly-elected mayors has been deployed in ten combined local authorities in England. The concept is perhaps most notable in Greater Manchester, where the process of local devolution began a decade ago. No figure is arguably more recognisable in the UK under the structure than Labour's Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Like him or loathe him, Burnham has been a powerful, influential voice for the Manchester community. Such is his influence that he was even name checked last week in the fallout of bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis announcing closure plans for its Falkirk facility at the likely cost of 400 jobs. An aerial stock view of Glasgow. The greater Glasgow region needs a directly-elected mayor and a devolution deal to avoid falling behind other large UK cities, a think-tank has recommended. Picture: Richard McCarthy/PA Wire Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar had accused John Swinney of ordering electric buses from China rather than Falkirk, and compared the decision to Mr Burnham, whom he said had been able to order around 160 vehicles directly from Alexander Dennis. It was a nod to the influence of the mayoral system. But in more practical terms, a new report from think-tank, The Centre for Cities, has put an actual figure on what having a mayor may economically mean for a city like Glasow. The organisation claims Scotland's GDP would be 4.6 per cent larger than it is now if Glasgow's economy performed in line with the average for cities its size. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Andrew Carter, chief executive of Centre for Cities, argues: 'A directly-elected mayor for the Glasgow city region would bring much-needed leadership, accountability and the ability to shape growth around the city's needs.' Two former leaders of Edinburgh and Glasgow city councils, in Donald Anderson and Steven Purcell, have likewise called for Scotland's answer to the Northern Powerhouse to be created.
