The inquiry
1. The purpose of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
was to provide overall structure and clarity to sentencing in
England and Wales by reserving prison for the most dangerous offenders,
while moving lower level offenders away from short prison sentences
into robust and rehabilitative community punishments.[1]
The purpose of this report is to evaluate to what extent the provisions
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have been implemented, and what
impact this had on developing an effective sentencing policy.
2. This inquiry is set within the context of
a historically high prison population in England and Wales. On
31 May 2008 the population in custody reached a record high of
82,822.[2] The last nine
years have brought a 26% rise in the number of people locked up
with 16,000 new prison places since 1997.[3]
The over 80,000 people held in prison means that per 100,000 people
we are holding 152 in prison—the highest rate among major
countries in Western Europe, far in excess of Germany, France,
Italy, Denmark and Ireland.[4]
Recent crises, involving overcrowding and the necessity of early
release schemes, have drawn attention to the problems in the criminal
justice system in England and Wales. The continuing upward trend
in the prison population has been maintained, and enhanced, by
the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and points
to more fundamental problems with both prisons and sentencing
policy.
3. This report therefore evaluates the key issues
that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was designed to address and
the extent to which the 2003 Act has succeeded in its aims. We
also examine what steps can be taken to address problems that
remain including those which were created by the 2003 Act. We
explore the recent history of government initiatives relating
to sentencing, focusing on the provisions of the 2003 Act, in
particular:
- the impact of introducing risk-based
sentencing in the form of indeterminate Sentences of Imprisonment
for Public Protection;
- the attempt to establish the community sentence
as a credible sentence which can provide an alternative to short
custodial sentences; and
- the need for sentencing and criminal justice
structures that can provide appropriate responses to people with
different needs and vulnerabilities.
4. We found a remarkable degree of consensus
amongst judges, practitioners, politicians and pressure groups
alike, not only about the fact that prison should be the last
resort, and reserved for the most serious and violent offenders,
but also that non-custodial options are often more effective in
reducing re-offending and in rehabilitation. This consensus makes
it even more striking that we find ourselves facing the highest
number of prison inmates since records began. [5]
5. The Home Affairs Committee began its inquiry
Towards Effective Sentencing on 6 February 2007 in order
to review the implementation and the impact of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003 on sentencing policy.[6]
The Home Affairs Committee collected a wide range of written evidence
and also took oral evidence from the Rt Hon Lord Woolf, the former
Lord Chief Justice.[7]
On 9 May 2007 responsibility for sentencing policy transferred
from the Home Office to the newly created Ministry of Justice.
We considered this issue to be so serious that we continued with
the inquiry. A full list of witnesses who gave oral evidence in
our inquiry is available on page 97. We are grateful to our colleagues
on the Home Affairs Committee for their contribution to this inquiry.
6. During the course of our inquiry the Government
introduced what is now the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2008. Many of the measures in this Act were designed to address
shortcomings in the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Where our witnesses commented on the value of the provisions expected
or included in this legislation, we have been able to consider
the appropriateness of the Government's solutions. It is clear
from many of the topics which we have considered that the effectiveness
of implementation, in particular the provision of sufficient resources
and the way in which sentencers use community sentences, is every
bit as important as the policy intention behind the criminal justice
legislation. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of
the 2008 Act.
1 
