Margaret Moran & the face of crime

Margaret Moran MP (c) Richard Lea Hair

Yesterday, The Guardian reported that former Labour M.P. Margaret Moran, accused of falsely claiming £80,000 in expenses, and her legal team would be making an application for a “nolle” to the attorney general. This would allow the case against her to be discontinued on exceptional grounds.

If granted, Moran would not stand trial. Instead, a jury would assess the merits of the case in her absence at a trial of issue. Jim Sturman, her Q.C., stated:

"These proceedings are a continual threat to her life, not just to her liberty, and the experts agree that she is unfit to plead."

Three pyschiatric experts have evaluated Moran and all come to the conclusion that she is unfit to plead. Sturman himself talks of his only meeting with Moran, in which she cried during the whole conference, and refers to a previous hearing at Westminster magistrates court, in which she sobbed uncontrollably in the dock.

I understand that it is considered more beneficial for defendants to attend their trial so that they can defend themselves more adequately. However, with the team that she has on board, the public display of her illness, and people's general disdain for M.P.'s expenses abuse, I wondered whether her absence would harm her case.

If not, do others with less (financial/political?) clout have access to the same recourse?

Kelly (2000), amongst others, has conducted research into links between inequality and crime. The Ministry of Justice report on the UK riots reveal the depth of the links between social exclusion, inequality, poverty and transgressions of the law.

• 35% of adult rioters were claiming out of work benefit, almost three times the national average (12%)

• 64% of child rioters lived in the country's most social excluded areas

• 66% of child rioters were classified as having special education needs, again three times the national average (22%)

Social exclusion, inequality and poverty are also linked to mental health problems. Therefore, if we accept that the majority of those passing through our criminal justice system are from poorer socio-economic backgrounds, then we also have to accept that many will pass through the system with similar issues to those of Margaret Moran.

Moran is using a Q.C. Q.C.s cost a lot more than less qualified barristers. By using a more prominent, and presumably, more knowledgeable barrister, this will have enabled Moran to pursue this course of action.

Furthermore, Moran was examined by three psychiatrists over a period of two years. Again, this will have cost a lot of money. All this will be quite different to the legal (aid?) access that those living in poverty will have recourse to.

Looted Sainsburys local, Chalk Farm (c) hughepaul

Looking back at Sturman's statement regarding his client, it is difficult to find any reason why Moran should receive better treatment than the children who have been criminalised as a result of their wrongdoings during the summer riots. There is a large gulf between the alleged crimes of Moran and child rioters.

Not only will these children have had emotional needs, not dissimilar to Moran's, but arguably this is a greater threat to their life, because their criminalisation threatens their life chances; unemployment, poorer physical health, further mental health problems, and an earlier death.

Due to her influence, Moran will be able to distance, and anonymise herself, by her absence at her trial, yet children have lost their right to anonymity in the UK criminal justice system. Those in power want us to remember who 'criminals' are, regardless of their age and the protection that we should afford them.

I am minded of Reiman's 'pyrrhic defeat theory'. This maintains that the way in which the criminal justice system, and criminal justice policy, works is to perpetuate the myth that 'criminal activities' are solely associated 'with the dangerous acts of the poor' (Reiman, 1998).

In other words, a burgeoning prison population, peopled by those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds, is a loss leader for governments, because it diverts the public's attention away from crimes committed by the powerful.

This case is just another example of what the face of crime looks like. 

The family justice review review

(c) Eric Ward

Yesterday, David Norgrove, wrote an article entitled, “Children’s welfare should not be trumped by parents’ rights” in The Guardian. This referred to the family justice review that he, and a panel, had conducted on the family justice system. Albeit in a blog post, I am going critique a part of the review that has drawn headlines, namely that divorced and separated fathers will not get a legal right to a ‘meaningful relationship’ with their children.

The overarching, and noteworthy, goal of this report was to ensure that any recommendations chimed with the ‘best interests of children.’ But what exactly are the ‘best interests of children?’

In paragraph 1 of his executive summary, Norgrove writes:

We published our interim report in March. This is our final report, which reflects our conclusions following well over 600 responses to our consultation and input from meetings in many parts of the country.

For all the repeated mentions of this notable aim, there is a distinct lack of evidence of children’s views in the construction of this review. There are no supporting statements that might demonstrate that children participated in this study. Therefore, what constitutes ‘best interests of children’ is left to more powerful voices.

The vast majority of quotations come from the consultation responses provided by legal and academic experts, and interested family organisations. Whilst children were provided with an opportunity to comment on the interim report, there is no evidence that they did so. How would interested children possibly get to know of such a report? CBeebies? T4? YouTube?

Whilst Norgrove has given reasonable consideration to an Australian study on the implications of implementing a legal right to a ‘meaningful relationship’, equally, he has not drawn on any studies that have considered children’s responses to the effects of divorce and separation. Even with taking the Australian study at face value, and forgetting its noted problems, no effort has been made to rebrand the term ‘meaningful relationship’; government services have rebranded ‘alternative dispute resolution’ to ‘dispute resolution services’. Surely, legal alternatives could be given further thought.

In paragraph 2.4 on the family justice system, reference is made to:

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also makes explicit the importance of children’s rights being considered and upheld in the family justice system. Article 12 of the Convention makes it clear that children have the right to have their voices heard in decisions that affect their lives.

That being the case, why is there so little evidence of their voices being heard in this report.

I have other issues with this report, including the make-up of the independent panel members and the idea of an online hub that is supposedly accessible to all. However...

(c) Irate

The major purpose for conducting the family justice review is to speed up the judicial process. Admittedly, this is also designed for clearing up problems associated with the adoption process, but in terms of private law, it appears to be creating additional layers of bureaucracy. As well as going through an online hub, parents would need to negotiate pre-application protocols, mediation, and a separated parents information programme.

Paragraph 4.73 notes:

We note that the concerns about delay and the effect on the Private Law Programme apply equally to the Pre-Application Protocol, which is already in force. But our difference from the respondents quoted in the preceding paragraph rests in many ways on a different view of the proper role of courts. We would argue first that the extra time will be well spent if it results as we expect in fewer cases going to court, and secondly that the opportunity of the FHDRA will still be there.

“If…as we expect”…not, then, the most effusive of reasons to be taking this route. 

Potentially, we have a system that is perceived to exclude parents from having an automatic right to a ‘meaningful relationship’, and then makes it harder to secure these rights. Would the parent concerned be willing to spend the extra time going through this process? How would the child feel not seeing the parent concerned whilst the process was ongoing?

There is a discursive link between contact and maintenance that is discussed in the report. In a system that prioritises the rights to family life of one parent over another, would this affect maintenance payments? Would this be in the ‘best interests of children’?

Without going into the arguments for the rights of grandparents (which too should be looked at in more depth), it is men in particular, who are the target audience for a review of private law. Fathers4Justice have long fought for the rights of men and their right to a more equal family life. From a feminist perspective, I wonder how women perceive this review. Does it perpetuate a stereotypical view of a patriarchal world in which women ‘naturally’ look after children, thereby exacerbating the financial pressures associated with looking after a child as a single parent?

Given the government’s recent talk of a broken society following the riots, and of the need for parents to engage in their children’s education, the family justice review into private law needs further consideration before implementation. From the perspective of children, primarily, but also from anyone else who has been excluded in the process.

Policing the UK riots?

(c) William 79

Earlier this evening I tweeted: 

16,000 police being deployed in London tonight to quell #UKriots. Why not last night or night before? Police making a point about govt cuts?

Given that only 6,000 police were on the streets the night before, one has to wonder why has there suddenly been a sudden 267%  increase on the number of police being deployed tonight.

Last night was night 3 of the disturbances. Whilst the major politicians were away on holiday, only returning to the UK today to address the situation, there were still people present, whom I am sure it is in their job description, that are supposed to step up and deal with situations like this. Tonight, the 16,000 strong police force appear to have extinguished the ardour of those seeking to set fire and loot. At what point, did those left to deal with the disturbances not think that it might be worthwhile having a more visible police presence on the street the last couple of nights?

One has to wonder whether the police were sending out a message to the public and the government. We know that recent government cuts are due to hit police forces all over the country over the next few months. We know that they claim that this is going to put the public at greater risk. Yet those in charge of police operations in London over the last couple of evenings have blatantly failed to safeguard the public. Nobody has come forward to explain why more police were not deployed earlier to protect the public.

For me, it seems that the police have only taken full ownership of the problem tonight. There does not appear to be a good reason why they did not so before, unless they had ulterior motives. 

UK riots: who is responsible?

2011 Tottenham riots on High Road (c) Victoria

Copycats, mindless thugs and disenfranchised youth are all terms that have been used to describe those who have taken part in the disturbances over the last few nights. But do any of these descriptions explain what, or, why it is taking place?

We know that the first riot that took place in Tottenham started largely as a result of the killing of Mark Duggan. However, this soon mutated from anger at the reaction of the police and IPCC, to one which focussed on looting local businesses. Looting seems to have been the primary objective for those rioting. It has been reported at any number of sites throughout London, and has since spread across Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, amongst other areas.  

One might see these rioters simply as copycats.  I am presuming that this term has been widely used in the media to denigrate those taking part in the riots, and to make them think that their actions are not as good as those that did it originally. However, this misses the point. They are not necessarily looting to look as “good” or as “hard” as their forebears. From Blackberry messages that have been made public (see Newsnight link), they appear to be looting to make some money. Is this the work of mindless thugs?

No. Everyone wants to make money.  This is exactly what the capitalist society is about, but some people are less able to make money in this socially divided society in which we live. This is as ideological as it is economical. 

At the same time, people see politicians, the police, bankers and multinational corporations loot the public purse to line their own. And whilst I agree that this is not an excuse to start rioting/looting, one has to consider whether this kind of “criminal” behaviour has a knock-on effect, given that we still live in a largely hierarchical society.

Tonight’s Newsnight has suggested that amongst those arrested for rioting/looting, are people from the traditional middle class backgrounds. Please check on the BBC iPlayer tomorrow for evidence of this report. If so, this hints at something more than the disenfranchised youth who live on council estates as being responsible for the riots.

For the purposes of this blog, I do not condone any of the actions taken by the rioters/looters over the past four nights. The riots are especially distressing for those that have been left frightened, and for those that have lost their livelihoods and property. I thoroughly understand their frustrations (please see my next post on this).

Whilst these actions are not justifiable, we need to understand why people are rioting/looting. We need to talk to them and we need to understand what it is they are saying on a personal and cultural level, so that we can try to avoid future disturbances.

My fear is that this is only going to lead to more punitive measures that target specific communities, and that it provides the coalition government with an excuse to make cuts in welfare services that negatively affect those self same people. This will not address the problems that we have in our society, namely that greed is good, but will serve to divide society more by stereotyping, and further excluding, those who are already marginalised by consumerism. 

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.