Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:19 am
Time: 1:19 am
Results for electronic monitoring (u.k.)
3 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: It's Complicated: The Management of Electronically Monitored Curfews - A follow-up inspection of electronically monitored curfews Summary: Over the last six years, the use of court-ordered curfews has more than doubled. The maximum period of confinement is now likely to be extended from 12 to 16 hours per day, in an effort to increase public confidence in community sentences. Depriving someone of their liberty is a serious matter, whether this is done by sending them to prison or confining them to their home. The period of detention, in whatever way it is applied, should therefore be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Sentencing may properly contain an element of punishment but to be effective in reducing offending, it should also promote change and reform. It has become clear that electronically monitored curfews are now being used as an additional punishment for people convicted of minor offences that would not normally attract a prison sentence. Even at this level, however, punishment comes at a price. If the cost of electronically monitored curfews is to be fully justified, they need to be used more creatively and more effectively. This means providing targeted control and restriction and helping offenders to change their behaviour. Our latest inspection shows that curfews applied in recent years have only rarely been used to best effect. In the vast majority of cases in our sample, the curfew was unrelated to the circumstances of the offence. We saw very few instances where it had been imposed specifically to stop the individual from doing something, or was part of a strategy to address their behaviour. Such an approach would require thorough assessment at the pre-sentence stage, something which now only appears to happen in a limited number of cases. As in our earlier inspection, we remain concerned at the enforcement thresholds. Despite our previous comments, these continue to fall far short of what we think the public has the right to expect. We recognise that more rigorous thresholds, as we have advocated, could increase the numbers of minor offenders sent to custody for breach. A greater emphasis on compliance and the proposed introduction of other non-custodial options for breach, as proposed in the current sentencing review, would mitigate such an undesirable outcome. This latest inspection also exposed continuing inaccuracies in information conveyed by courts to the probation service or the electronic monitoring provider. These inaccuracies are sufficiently serious to undermine the efficient management of cases – an even more urgent concern if the Government approves proposals to extend the number of external providers of probation services. The matters raised in this report must be discussed and acted upon. Electronic monitoring, if used effectively, can be used both to punish and to promote change. Right now, it may do the former but rarely the latter. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmiprob/joint-thematic/electronic-monitoring-report-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/hmiprob/joint-thematic/electronic-monitoring-report-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125385 Keywords: Curfews (U.K.)Electronic Monitoring (U.K.)Law Enforcement (U.K.) |
Author: Airs, Jennifer Title: Electronically Monitored Curfew as a Condition of Bail – Report of the Pilot Summary: The presumption of innocence is central to our criminal justice system and is reflected in the statutory right to bail enjoyed by unconvicted defendants. However, there is also a need to ensure i) that any criminal proceedings progress swiftly and without interference; and ii) that the public is protected from any danger posed by the defendant awaiting trial. These two factors need to be weighed in the balance by the police and the courts who determine whether a defendant is released or detained. The police must make this decision whenever they charge a suspect and if they decide to release him/her on bail they may attach conditions to ensure that the suspect does not present a bail risk. If they decide to detain the suspect they must bring him/her swiftly to court, usually within 24 hours. The court must then, and at each stage of proceedings thereafter, decide whether the defendant should be remanded on bail or in custody. As with the police, the court may decide to attach conditions to bail. This study looks at electronically monitored curfew (bail curfew) as an alternative to court remand in custody. It built on an earlier study in 1989 and 1990 (Mair and Nee 1990) where there were severe problems with equipment. The new pilot ran at two sites, Manchester and Norwich, between April 1998 and August 1999. A sample of 9,000 remand decisions (affecting 5,200 defendants) was collected from Manchester City and Norwich magistrates’ courts to provide a snapshot of remand in the courts at the heart of the study. Various characteristics of defendants receiving the main types of remand (in custody, conditional bail, and unconditional bail) were identified to provide a yardstick for bail curfew. These characteristics were used to measure the likeness/unlikeness of defendants granted bail curfew with other groups of defendants. We collected information from courts and the electronic monitoring contractors. We also interviewed many representatives of criminal justice agencies, 24 offenders and 31 members of their families. In all, 198 bail curfews were made on 173 individuals. Very few women were curfewed. Most men curfewed were aged between 17 and 35. Take-up was lower than planned: partly because the measure was not used by all magistrates and judges in the pilot areas, and partly because there were comparatively few defendants who could meet the residence requirements and be considered sufficiently trustworthy to be released from custody. New violation procedures were developed to ensure that early action was taken against defendants who broke or violated their curfew in some way (for example, by damaging the equipment or by being absent during the curfew period). Two-thirds of defendants violated their curfews: 95 had lesser violations recorded (these were typically a few minutes absence at the start of the curfew period) and these did not trigger breach action. Forty-two defendants had breach action taken against them: in all 24 were remanded in custody. We know that three defendants had serious violations recorded against them but were not reported for breach action and that a further seven were arrested by the police on suspicion of re-offending. A total of 11 defendants absconded. In all, 142 defendants completed their bail curfew – some after being breached and having their bail curfew continued. A number of problems arose during the period of the study, many of them because of lack of interagency communication. It is clear from some of the problems that have arisen that it has not been easy for criminal justice agencies to apply or administer this new measure. We also found inequalities in use by magistrates and judges: including variable application and use of the measure, and treatment of breach. The police were concerned that defendants, who would otherwise have been in custodial remand, were again within police jurisdiction. They were also concerned that they had no right of access to a defendant’s home when a curfew violation was reported. Other criminal justice agencies had concerns about the potential for domestic violence not being identified during the limited curfew assessment produced for the remand decision – we found no evidence of domestic violence although there were reports of aggression. Electronic monitoring contractors had concerns about retrieving equipment from defendants after the bail curfew ceased. The bail curfew was generally popular with defendants and their families (until they found themselves sentenced to custody and regretted losing the remission that custodial remand would have attracted). The role of women was found to be crucial to the successful operation of many of the bail curfews. It is clear from comments made during interviews that many women made personal sacrifices for the family as a unit and there would have been fewer successful bail curfews, particularly for young defendants, if women had not done so. There were reports of aggression and increased tension within families, although some reported improved relationships. There were some problems with the equipment although these were less severe than those of the first bail pilot. An alternative to custody? There was no consistent evidence that a bail curfew provided a true alternative to custodial remand. There were strong indications that it had been used in place of custodial remand for some defendants, but there were equally clear indications that bail curfew had been used as an additional bail condition for others. After weighing up the evidence we concluded that bail curfew had been used as a true alternative for over half those curfewed under the trial. Costs Costs of the new measure will depend on how widely it is used. Estimates based on the use made of it in Manchester and Norwich provided a base to calculate likely take-up in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The calculations for bail curfews are based on a fixed price per curfew since curfew orders are currently charged at a fixed rate regardless of their length. We have compared the cost of bail curfew with the cost of remand in custody, taking into account the likelihood of a longer period on bail curfew than in custody, and the lack of remission for any sentence from bail curfew. Overall we estimate that savings to the prison population will be outweighed by the cost of adding electronically monitored bail to the list of conditions available to courts. Assuming that only half the estimated number of electronically monitored bail orders made were for defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody (about 2,500 at magistrates’ courts and about 100 at the Crown Court), and the remaining 2,500 from magistrates’ courts and 100 at the Crown Court would otherwise have been granted conditional bail the cost of a national roll-out (to England and Wales) would be £1.53 million. We also estimate that if this measure were used only for defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody, then the saving from a lower unsentenced prison population would outweigh the cost of bail curfew orders. These figures are volatile and do not included full costs of breach action because not all the information needed was available. Conclusions We concluded that: Low use of the measure might be due, at least in part, to a small target population because few defendants have the type of accommodation needed for the equipment, or because of the nature of the alleged offence, or because of the defendants’ previous record. Bail curfew had been used as a true alternative to custodial remand for at least half those curfewed although there was some evidence of net widening with bail curfew being used as an additional bail condition for some defendants. Bail curfew worked as an alternative to custodial remand. Although some defendants absconded, this was a lower proportion (6%) than recorded as absconding from conditional bail in available national and local statistics. National statistics show 12 per cent of bailed defendants abscond from magistrates’ court and nine per cent from Crown Court. Breach action was not correctly taken in all cases. This was partly due to poor differentiation between bail curfew and curfew as a sentence by the contractors. Good procedures were developed by all agencies for the trial but were found to fall short in some areas because of staff turnover, insufficient training, overlooked or forgotten procedures, and unforeseen circumstances. There are three options for bail curfew: to extend the pilot (which has now finished), to roll-out nationally, or to do nothing. Details: London: Home Office, 2000. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/homisc/occ-bail.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/homisc/occ-bail.pdf Shelf Number: 125693 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration125693BailElectronic Monitoring (U.K.) |
Author: Geoghegan, Rory Title: Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring Summary: Future of Corrections shows that the current system of tagging is in desperate need of reform. A more effective use of tagging, where police and probation officers are directly involved in keeping track of offenders and recommending to prison governors and the courts which criminals should be tagged, could save hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money and help the Coalition achieve its goal of stabilising the prison population by 2015. The current procurement system is outdated and offers poor value for money to the taxpayer. Since tagging was first introduced in the UK in 1989, there have been three private sector suppliers each enjoying a monopoly position with little competitive pressure. This has led to a lack of innovation in technology and programmes with the majority of criminals wearing tags confined to night time curfews which do little to prevent them from reoffending during the day. The report notes that in other countries, in particular the US, ankle bracelets have become smaller, smarter and more durable. The most advanced forms of tags are now GPS-enabled allowing the police to pin point someone’s exact location at all times. However, the lack of competition and the current nature of the contracts in the UK market means the taxpayer is losing out. If England and Wales replicated the US system, where providers simply hand over the technology to the police and probation officers to monitor and fit the tags, £883million could have been freed up over the past 13 years. This money could have created 2,000 probation or more than 1,200 police officers. The report makes a number of recommendations including: Creating a real market by giving suppliers and customers the freedom to design, develop and contracts services that work for and address local priorities and needs. Devolving powers to locally elected Police and Crime Commissioners to decide on how much money, if any, should be spent on tagging and who should provide the services. Give the police a much greater say by asking officers to recommend the most effective use of tagging to prevent and detect crime. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2012. 89p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/future-of-corrections-exploring-the-use-of-electronic-monitoring Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/future-of-corrections-exploring-the-use-of-electronic-monitoring Shelf Number: 126455 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationElectronic Monitoring (U.K.)Electronic TaggingOffender Supervision |