We need to Kill the Bill, but one part of it could be worthwhile

A view of Wormwood Scrubs Prison
Support us and go ad-free

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a huge piece of legislation that’s designed to increase the government’s control over the people. The so-called police bill’s origin, promising a ‘smarter approach‘, claims to deliver on Conservative manifesto commitments to keep the public safe. Now that parliament has concluded a consideration of amendments, it’s expected to receive royal assent shortly.

In reality, the bill is a vicious, repressive, and racist piece of legislation that’s sparked massive protests across the country. It criminalises those deemed to be causing a nuisance, whether it be noise, annoyance, or the blocking of streets. A reversal of policy in some cases, it expands the use of controversial stop-and-search powers and discriminates against Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller people. The bill also changes sentencing rules, meaning those convicted of a crime will spend more time in prison.

Almost all of the hated police bill is wrong and does not respect human rights. However, while parliament should ‘Kill the Bill‘ while it still has the chance, it is my opinion that there is one small detail hidden within the bill that should be embraced.

The bill will update the complex and lengthy rules on criminal records. These have been known to hamper societal reintegration by creating a divide between those who have made mistakes in life and those who haven’t. The current rules on criminal record disclosure are neither proportionate nor effective. For example, they state that if you receive a one-year suspended sentence, you have to legally announce it for five times that amount of time.

Consistently vilified

Allow me to state that I am on the side of prisoners, a group of people who are consistently vilified and are stripped of fair chances by our ruthless society. My position is that regardless of their crime, people in prison deserve to be treated like human beings. Their efforts at rehabilitation should be aided and encouraged, not hindered. The prisoner is a recurring scapegoat of the mainstream media, with partisan headlines found in the Daily Mail and Sun. I often write for Inside Time, the national newspaper for prisoners. And in doing so, I aim to correct the record on matters of criminal justice and champion the work of groups like Unlock, who campaign relentlessly for fairness.

The police bill builds upon a foundation that will help people with a conviction in their pursuit of a normal life. In 2011, the government introduced their Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LASPO), with a consequence of justice becoming ‘just for the rich’. The LASPO Bill cut legal aid and criminalised squatting in a residential property. In a surprise move, however, it did relax the rules on criminal record disclosure that had been set back in 1974. These rules dictate for how long an individual must suffer a criminal record that will hinder their employment, travel, and insurance needs.

That relaxation has changed lives for the better, helping former prisoners move on from their past mistakes. The policing bill will further relax the disclosure rules – though hardly to the extent proposed by respected prison reformer David Ramsbotham.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

An excessive regime

I have previously written about the disproportionality of the criminal records regime. I believe it represents an unwinnable situation where people are shut out by society after serving their punishment. This is not theory or hypothesis but a reality. If the state makes it impossible for an ex-prisoner to get a job, that person will have no choice but to claim social security to feed themselves. And we all know the labels that are placed upon those reliant on benefits.

The parts of the police bill concerning criminal records do remain imperfect. But the bill contains some satisfactory improvement, reducing those excessive and impractical disclosure rules. For any sceptics of ex-prisoner rehabilitation, I would advise them to look at the evidence and success stories. Furthermore, if not convinced, keep in mind that the law sets out a long list of roles and offences to which the reforms do not apply. This means a person will have to disclose their conviction (even if it is spent) for the rest of their life.

While the bill may give with one hand, it overwhelmingly takes with the other. A worrying projection estimates that by 2026, the prison population will have increased by 20,000. And to accommodate that increase, the government intends to build 18,000 new prison places. This is money that could instead be spent on rehabilitative services. According to the Prison Reform Trust, the majority of the police bill’s sections that relate to serious and violent offences are not supported by evidence, or the evidence used is misleading and selective.

Party politics

Shamefully, the ‘shoot first and ask questions second’ Labour Party rarely takes an interest in the plight of ex-prisoners. They prefer a hard-line approach involving antagonism by police ‘at three o’clock in the morning’. A compassionate approach of educating and supporting people, rather than shaming and humiliating them for eternity, especially when they have paid their dues, would lead to a better end result for everyone. We would see lower reoffending rates and fewer victims as a consequence.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, are a cunning bunch. While I welcome their improvements to the criminal records regime, I’m reluctant to dish out praise for their efforts. This is because they do not truly believe in reform. The Tories are using an important cause for a reason yet to be determined. It could be to make the legislation more palatable or to get campaign groups such as Unlock temporarily off their backs. I ask myself about the day our prime minister – an alleged criminal – finds himself involved with the justice system. When it affects him personally, will he finally support a reasonable disclosure regime?

While I always hoped that the criminal records regime would be reformed beyond the LASPO amendments, I never envisaged it happening this way. For everyone’s sake, let’s come up with something that can truly be described as a ‘smarter approach’.

Featured image via Wikimedia/Chmee2 – cropped to 740×220, CC by-SA 3.0

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. It is common for governments, in particular Tory ones, to include good and bad in complex bills, so easing the path for well-meaning (or less malevolent) MPs to reluctantly vote through the whole shebang rather than vote it down (the pernicious argument …… ‘for the greater good’). In this case the bill is, as widely accepted, overwhelmingly authoritarian, with the one useful aspect which Elliot Tyler identifies.
      I’m not sure what ET is advocating but as it seems impossible to me that the “criminal record regime” item could be passed and everything else rejected, surely attempts to implement his idea are for another day. So all attempts must be made to Kill the Bill.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.