Desistance and recidivism: the Sky News and Jordanian government model

It seems that Sky News and the Jordanian government have alerted us to new strategies in the fight against recidivism and desistance. It is so brilliant and simple, and I wonder why the criminal justice system has not adopted it wholesale before now. 


No need to ponder whether community-based punishments or prison programmes are best at reducing re-offending rates. The answer is simple; listen to those who are guilty of former crimes (i.e. phone hacking, torture) say they will not commit these, or other, crimes again, and accept it.  

Well, that is more or less what Head of News at Sky News, John Ryley told the Leveson inquiry yesterday (above). He thinks "it is highly unlikely in the future that Sky will consider breaking the law". When pressed further on his lack of overt support for the law, he added that he was "pretty much ruling it out". Now imagine if someone who burgled houses for a living responded in a similar manner in a court of law. 

Whilst I note that Ofcom have started an investigation into Sky's admission of two counts of email hacking, let us not forget that this is a criminal, not civil, offence. Sky News have fallen foul of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 


Using honesty as a tool to divert any guilt, Ryley admits that he was not as aware of these Acts as he should have been. Given that he will have been aware of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire's criminal activities, surely Ryley, obviously not an unintelligent man, could have then made the fairly obvious connection between phone hacking and email hacking. 

Falun Gong practitioner tortured by guards in a labour camp in China
(c) Asdf12345

Similarly, the UK government has accepted that the government of Jordan will not use evidence obtained through torture in any case against Abu Qatada. Yet Jordan regularly tortures and detains people based on evidence gained through torture. The latest Human Rights Watch report states:

Perpetrators of torture enjoy near-total impunity. The redress process begins with a deficient complaint mechanism, continues with lackluster investigations and prosecutions, and ends in police court, where two of three judges are police-appointed police officers. 

Would the UK government accept similar reassurances from China if it was returning a an illegal immigrant Falun Gong practitioner? Regardless of the innocence or guilt of the fictional Falun Gong practitioner, if the UK is truly a civilised society and a respected guardian of global human rights, we should not be returning anyone to face a trial overseas where torture and abuse of  human rights is so intrinsically linked to justice.


We try and detain illegal immigrants for crimes committed in the UK. We have the means to try Qatada here. We choose not to. 

Throw away the key: serial offending in the UK

The following article has been republished in full from The Pryer as the original has been archived on an old server and is no longer available. This article was originally published in June 2011. 

(c) Lionel Allorge

The Telegraph published an article yesterday, claiming that serial offenders are far less likely to be jailed than they were a decade ago. Other newspapers, including The Daily Express, have also been berating a criminal justice system, that they claim is soft and operating a revolving door policy.

I have downloaded the latest Ministry of Justice bulletin. Pages 68-69 contain the following information on offending histories:

Just over half of offenders who committed indictable offences and were cautioned in 2010 had no previous criminal history, although 3% had 15 or more previous cautions/convictions:

• 54.1% of offenders of all ages who received a reprimand, warning or caution for an indictable offence in 2010 had no previous offences;
• 3.2% of offenders had received a reprimand, warning, caution or conviction on 15 or more previous occasions. The majority of these offenders received a reprimand, warning or caution for drug offences and theft and handling stolen goods offences; 
• The equivalent figures for the year 2000 show that the criminal history profile of cautioned offenders is changing over time: 67.3% had no previous offences while 1.3% had 15 or more previous occasions.

The criminal history profile of sentenced offenders is also changing over time. More offenders sentenced for indictable offences in 2010 had previous offences, and a higher proportion of offenders had 15 or more previous convictions or cautions:

• the proportion of all offenders sentenced for indictable offences who had 15 or more previous convictions or cautions has increased steadily from 16.8% in 2000 to 28.9% in 2010; 
• Over the same period the proportion of sentences given to offenders with no previous convictions or cautions fell from 12.3% to 10.5%. 

The criminal history of offenders receiving different sentences varies by sentence, with custodial sentences associated with higher levels of previous offences, in 2010:

• 43% of adult offenders receiving custodial sentences have 15 or more previous convictions/cautions.
• 27% of adult offenders receiving a fine have 15 or more previous convictions/cautions

A-Block at Alcatraz (c) Nonie

In his column, Tom Whitehead repeatedly refers to “hardened offenders” as those being cautioned or avoiding custody. I understand the need to sell papers and online advertising, but the sensationalist use of “hardened offenders” is somewhat different to the offenders identified above. Moreover, the report indicates that serial offenders are getting their ‘just desserts’ and only a minority are getting away with it. The article is clearly geared towards a more punitive idea of justice. Yet punitive measures, such as imprisonment, are clearly not working if criminals re-offend. Fifteen or more times.

Based at Kings College, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies estimate that the annual cost of keeping someone imprisoned is £38,000.There have been several studies conducted on public opinion and sentencing policy. Many indicate that the public are less inclined to seek a custodial sentence when other factors are known.

Roberts and Hough (2011) have recently published an article that explores under what circumstances the British public would opt for an alternative community penalty over imprisonment as punishment. They found that many respondents considered community punishment sufficient, even for relatively serious offences. Along with knowing the financial costs of a custodial sentence, consideration of an individual's circumstances and a thorough understanding of the non-custodial option were determining factors that altered these participants’ perceptions of sentencing.

The Conservative government are right to look anew at sentencing. However, they need to balance a whole range of issues that take into account the rights of the victim(s) and their families, and the rights and circumstances of the accused.