Sorry: We're full

Home Secretary John Reid has written to police and magistrates urging them to keep all but the most violent offenders out of jail because prisons are overcrowded.

The Home Office says the move is a necessary "stopgap measure" before plans to create a further 8,000 prison places come into being in spring.

It echoes the instruction allegedly given to police officers in North Yorkshire on the Friday before Christmas: Don't arrest anyone because the cells are full.

But why are our prisons (and police cells) so full? What justice can victims of crime expect when criminals can't be punished properly? And what sentencing alternatives do judges and magistrates have?

We asked around...

The magistrates...

RICHARD Goodacre, chairman of York magistrates, said he and his colleagues followed guidelines set out by the Sentencing Guidelines Council when deciding on the appropriate punishment for a convicted criminal.

"We will continue to use these guidelines," he said.

Magistrates had fairly limited powers to jail offenders: they could give a maximum six month sentence for a single offence, and a maximum 12 months in total.

"But what I would say is, where a custodial sentence is warranted, we will continue to sentence offenders to custody," he said.

The Home Secretary's letter was an indication of the strain being placed on prisons, Mr Goodacre said, but it was not for politicians to tell judges and magistrates what sentences to give.

"The judiciary is independent. We as magistrates are part of the judiciary. We fiercely maintain our independence and we will continue to do so," he said.

A senior retired York magistrate, who asked not to be named, said Mr Reid's letter put both judges and magistrates in a difficult position.

"The Government introduces the legislation, and part of the legislation determines the offence and also the sentence," he said.

"The judiciary, whether we're talking about lay judiciary or the judges, follow the legislation. If an offence merits custody, then custody it should be. If there is no room at the inn, that is not the fault of the judiciary. It is the Government failing to recognise that they are going to get themselves in a mess."

If magistrates weren't able to jail an offender, their only option would be to look at a lesser sentence, he said - possibly a lengthy community order.

Some offenders might view that as a harsher punishment than a short jail sentence. But it would send the wrong message to the public and to victims of crime.

"There are two issues," he said. "What does Joe Public think about the scheme? The judiciary and the magistrates are always getting hammered for soft sentencing', which is not necessarily the fault of the sentencer, it is the legislation.

"The other issue is the victim. They are going to feel that justice has not been done."

The question that had to be asked, he said, was why are our prisons so full?

"Who is in prison? Are they being filled up with people who should have been sent back to their country of origin? Are they there because they are on remand and they are only there because it is taking so long to come to court?

"And how much legislation has been introduced since 1997, how many new offences introduced, many of which have got a custodial sentence as part of the sentence?

"This is a very difficult position to put judges and magistrates in. If an offence merits custody, then that is the sentence that should be applied."

What the Home Secretary said...

HOME Secretary John Reid, together with Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, wrote to judges and magistrates urging them to keep all but the most violent offenders out of jail in a bid to relieve some of the pressure on Britain's overcrowded prisons.

Mr Reid said: "It is necessary to a civilised society that those who are a danger to our society are put away.

"The public have a right to expect protection from violent and dangerous offenders. Prisons are an expensive resource that should be used to protect the public and to rehabilitate inmates and stop them re-offending.

"However, we should not be squandering taxpayers' money to monitor non-dangerous and less serious offenders."

The Home Office said later that Mr Reid was "considering a wide range of options in order to provide capacity to meet immediate pressures".

The letter was a "necessary stopgap measure" before plans to create a further 8,000 prison places come into being in the spring, the Home Office said.

Prime Minister Tony Blair defended the Government's record on prisons in the House of Commons.

Conservative leader David Cameron called for a guarantee that ministers would not seek to resolve the overcrowding crisis by introducing a new early release scheme for prisoners.

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, he urged Mr Blair to consider the use of emergency prison accommodation, prison ships or Army camps before permitting any early releases.

Mr Blair insisted Mr Reid's letter was "simply reminding the courts of existing sentencing policy".

He said there would be 2,000 more prison places by the end of this year and a further 8,000 later.

The crime victim...

SARAH will never forget the day her family were the victims of an aggravated burglary.

While she was at work and her two children were at home, three men, hiding their faces behind scarves and hoods, burst into the house with knives and CS gas.

They held her asthmatic 16-year-old daughter at knifepoint and refused to let her get her inhaler.

Her son, who was 20, was kicked in the teeth, threatened with a knife and had CS gas sprayed in his eyes. They even threatened to stab her dog.

Before the intruders went, they held a knife to her daughter and threatened to come back and kill her if she called the police. They stole jewellery, £400 cash and emptied her son's bank account.

Last year, the perpetrators were jailed - one indefinitely.

Sarah, 48, did not want to give us her real name and still finds the ordeal difficult to talk about. She cannot imagine the fear she would have felt if they had been allowed to walk the streets again.

"It would have been absolutely horrendous, I would have felt very let down," she said.

"We won't get over the ordeal quickly, and are taking it very much one step at a time, but if they had not have been locked up it would have been horrendous."

It must be difficult to judge the most persistent and dangerous offenders, she says.

But by ruling out prison, criminals were given a licence to do what they wanted, she believes.

"If you do the crime you should do the time," she said.

"In some cases you have people who have been in front of the judge before. If it's the first offence, maybe prison isn't the best option, but after that then the judge should intervene."

The answer, she believes, is building more prisons.

"I'd be happy to pay more taxes towards them," she says.

"I don't know if other people would, but then how many people have been through something like this?"

The police...

MARK Botham, chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Federation, said the criminal justice system was in danger of "failing the victims of crime, future victims of crime and the police service".

It was essential the sentences handed out by the courts were appropriate and not a result of other factors such as the chronic shortage of prison places, he said.

"This is a problem that has been caused by under-investment from the Home Office and when one considers that there will be fewer police officers on our streets as the result of further cuts we have to ask who will be protecting the public from those the courts have let back out?

"It makes mockery of the criminal justice system where sentences are rarely completed in the first place anyway. The safety of the public is paramount. If we're kicking people out earlier then that is ludicrous and hugely demoralising for police officers who work hard to protect society from offenders."