Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Professor Anthea Hucklesby and Ella HoldsworthCentre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, [email protected]
Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union
This document has been produced with the financial support of the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union. The contents are the sole responsibility of the author/s and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission.
Rapid pace of change in EM in England and WalesExpectation is that the number and range of individuals subject to EM will increaseThe ways in which they are monitored is expanding and will continue to do so
Fieldwork: 18 days of observation and interviews with 68 individuals involved in the EM policy and delivery.
New contracts anticipated but not in operation‘Business as usual’ model operatingClimate one of uncertainty and debateNew and different uses and potential organisational models were being exploredPolicy drivers:
Pressure to increase use of GPS technologiesPolicy Exchange and Reform reportsDissatisfaction with delays and architecture of the new contractsGrowing consensus that the prison is harmful and that the population is too highSavings required in government budgets.
RF technology to monitor curfews Bail, sentence and Home Detention curfewStandalone and integrated uses
GPS trackingPolice‐led▪ ‘Voluntary’ schemes post‐release from prison (IOM)▪ Criminal Behaviour Orders▪ Sexual Offender Prevention OrdersMinistry of Justice (MoJ)▪ Sex offenders on licenceHome Office▪ TPIMs
Alcohol pilotsAAMR (MOPAC)
Budget cutsMore for less (police)
Reduce prison population (Ministry of Justice)
Side‐line probationIncreases chances of getting caught (offending)Widespread availability of technologiesImproved credibility of technologies
Reliability of equipment
Improvements in technologies
Source of intelligence data (individuals and associates)Tool to aid rehabilitation/desistence
Pre‐ and post‐trial and a sentence
Low/high risk/persistent offenders
Multiplicity of objectivesReducing costs▪ Prisons and police
Reducing prison population
Increasing deterrence thereby reducing reoffending
Rehabilitation/desistence
Habit‐breaking
Provides structure
Control
Swift apprehension
Punishment
Number %
Bail condition 3617 31
Community sentence (Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders)
5917 50
Home Detention Curfew (HDC) 2208 19
Total 11742 100
13,000
13,200
13,400
13,600
13,800
14,000
14,200
14,400
14,600
14,800
15,000
0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000
100000
Total Pre-trial Sentenced
7000
9000
11000
13000
15000
17000
19000
21000
23000
Little is known about who is electronically monitoredGenderMost are menWomen comprise 9% of adults on bail, 12% those on HDC and 17% of those on community sentences
GeographyEM is used in some courts much more than others
Private sector have been the EM providers since the beginningUntil Spring 2014, vertically integrated model based on geographical regionsSince 2014, EMS have provided monitoring services nationwide using G4S equipment
EMS operate the whole monitoring processThe Probation Service has not been centrally involved in EM’s development or implementation.Scandals involving EM providersWidespread support for continuation of private sector as providersAdvantage was that it by‐passed probation services’ involvement.
Contracts tightly regulate operationInstallation/deinstallationContacts with monitored individualsBreaches
Lack of integration between EM and criminal justice agenciesCommunication difficulties between contractor and criminal justice agenciesPotential of the proposed portal.
Currently RF technologiesExpectation of greater use of GPSPolice and PCCs enthusiastic about GPSConcerns about police use of GPS
Appropriate use of GPS and the data gleaned from itWhether individuals freely consent.Fall outside of any legislative framework raising proportionality and ethical issues.
Limitations of current contractsInflexible – one equipment provider for lengthy time periodWanted flexibility to plug in different technologiesMixed views about national/local contracting arrangements related to flexibility, consistently and compatibility
Consensus about the advantages of RFCheap, reliable, easy to use and understandProvides structure
Advantages of GPSImplicate or exonerate involvement in known offencesMonitor compliance with exclusion zonesWidely regarded as useful in DV cases but only with back‐up
Drawbacks of GPSWeak signalsBattery life
Min duration
Max duration
Min hours
Max hours
Bail Next court hearing None NoneCommunity and Suspended Sentence Orders
None 12 mths 2 16
HDC 14 days 4.5 mths 9 NonePolice GPS None NoneAAMR None 120 days
Lack of creative useStructured and routinised useHours are 11/12 hours a day, 7 days a week between 19.00 and 07.00.Hours remain unchanged throughout the lifetime of the order No exit strategy for phased return to freedomNo mechanism to end curfews earlier than planned.
Responsible officers deal with requests to change curfew hoursContractors are unable to sanction even urgent or temporary changes but are still contacted by curfeweesComplex system especially if subject to more than one orderExtent to which requests are granted depends on: modality, reasons for request and the evidence provided.Concerns:
Time taken to deal with requests – inflexible and unresponsiveDelays in notifying contractors of changes to curfew times
Linked with complianceCurfewee’s consent is assumed rather than actively sought.Householders may withdraw their consent but they have to initiate thisConcern that householders may be coerced or may feel coerced into agreeing that individuals could be monitored in their home.
Two 24/7 control centres with teams of field monitoring officers (FMOs)FMOs are increasingly working from home raising security challengesMonitoring process is governed by contractsRaise logistical challenges for contractors
Timescales for equipment to be installed/deinstalledCommunication difficulties▪ Missing and/or inaccurate information.▪ Bail
Potential alternatives‘Plug and play’ technologiesCurfewees return equipment to central location
Probation involvementHalf of all community sentences are multi‐requirement orders
Standalone does not mean no support24/7 support via control centreBail Support and Accommodation Scheme (BASS)▪ Bail and HDC
Curfewees initiate support.Non‐curfew related support not generally provided although signposting to third sector organisation sometimes takes place.Enhanced support in the future
Potential to use third sector organisations to a greater extent
Staff usually undertake visits aloneEMS has safety procedures in place and training was reported to occurStaff reported a general lack of trust in procedures.
EMS do not routinely receive information relating to the potential risks posed by specific individuals.
EM provides certainty and evidence of breach which is a major strength.Automated, efficient system for dealing with violations which are common.Violations related to: equipment, curfew hours and behaviour towards staff.The most common violations are time violationsBreach thresholds vary for time violations potentially resulting in confusion for curfewees.Very little leeway for bail cases resulting in significant workload for contractors and police.
Highly regulated and routinisedBreaches are dealt with by the responsible officer.Timescales are stipulated for each stage of the processHDC is the only use of EM where data exists on breach ratesIn 2014, 842 individuals recalled with 601 recalled resulting from breaches of curfew requirements (MoJ, 2015).Most breaches related to time violations.
EMS are required to notify each and every breach to responsible officers.Police questioned whether it is proportionate to breach as a result of equipment tampers.EMS are not always aware of the identity of the responsible officer.Delays in notifying EMS about outcome of breach proceedings.Resources to deal with the likely increase in the volume of breaches if the use of GPS is expanded.
EM data is stored indefinitelyGovernment owned but stored by private providers Government does not have routine access EM dataData concerns mainly related to the police use of GPS.
Routine matching of GPS and crime data
Efficient and workable system for police to access EM data exists for MoJ schemes.Concerns about storage of data overseasNeed to review data policy
Published data relating to EM is very limited and has consequences for knowledge, understanding, credibility and legitimacy of EMNo assessments of effectiveness of EM because of inability to access data.
Information on diversity is limitedDiversity information is not routinely received from the court so it is difficult for EMS to plan strategies to deal with any issues.Staff suggested that they received no training in diversity issues but dealt with any issues according to common sense.
EM is currently viewed as a panacea by most criminal justice policy‐makers and practitionersStrong support for continued use of RFIntroduction of GPS ‐ pilotsNew uses
Home Office (GPS)▪ Police/Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs)
▪ Immigration▪ Terrorism
Bi‐lateral victims monitoringExpanded use of alcohol (sobriety tags)
