Update
| Published date | 01 September 1989 |
| Date | 01 September 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600301 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
98
UPDATE
Groningen
Rules
The
International
Penal
and
Peniten-
tiary
Foundation,
which
pioneered
the
development
of
minimum
standards
for
the
treatment
of
prisoners,
now
in-
corporated
in
the
European
Prison
Rules
1987,
has
now
agreed
parallel
Standard
minimum
rules for
the
im-
plementation
of
non-custodial
sanc-
tions
and
measures
involving
restric-
tion
of
liberty,
in
recognition
of’
grow-
ing
importance
of
such
measures
and
the
need
for
humane
and
civilised
stan-
dards.
The
British
participants
at
the
Gronin~en
assembly
forging
the
final
draft
were
Gordon
Lakes,
then
Deputy
Director
General
of
the
Prison
Service,
Bill
Bohan,
Head
of
the
Home
Office
Criminal
Policy
Department,
and
NACRO
Director
Vivien
Stern.
The
Rules
are
now
being
recom-
mended
to
the
United
Nations
and
to
the
Council
of
Europe.
If
granted
the
same
status
as
the
European
Prison
Rules,
they
would
not
be
binding
in
law
either
nationally
or
international
ly,
but
would
serve
as
influential
guidelines
for
governments,
courts
and
agencies.
They
deserve
attention
as
a
helpful
yardstick
in
promoting
rights
and
protections
in
an
area
notorious
for
piecemeal
or
maverick
developments
and
assumptions
that
benign
intent
is
sufficient
to
safeguard
the
interests
of
offenders.
They
deserve
study
by
those
responsible
for
Community
Service
and
Schedule
II
programmes.
Among
the
53
rules
and
their
adja-
cent
commentaries
are
helpful
re-
statements
of
the
obvious,
at
least
in
principle
if
not
always
in
practice.
Thus
there
shall
be
no
discrimination
in
the
enforcement
of
non-custodial
measures
on
grounds
of
race,
colour,
ethnic
origin,
sex,
religion,
economic
status
and
so
on
(r.l);
such
sanctions
shall
be
enforced
so
that
the
dignity,
self-
respect,
privacy
and
family
relation-
ships
of
offenders
are
respected
(rr. 4
and
5);
tasks
for
offenders
doing
com-
munity
work
shall
never
be
pointless
but
shall
be
socially
useful
and
mean-
ingful
and
should
enhance
the
of-
fender’s
skills
as
much
as
possible
(r.
19);
supervision
shall
never
be
carried
out
for
commercial
gain
(r.
17);
of-
fenders
shall
be
given
at
the
start
a
clearly
written
statement
setting
out
the
requirements,
expectation,
ground
rules
etc
(r.
18);
controlling
activities
shall
be
undertaken
only
to
the
extent
that
they
are
necessary
for
the
proper
enforcement
of
the
measure
imposed
(r.
14).
Less
familiar
requirements
include
the
availability
of
a
properly
con-
stituted
and
easily
accessible
com-
plaints
procedure
to
the
offender
(r.
8)
and
the
right
of
recourse
to
a
judge
if
the
offender
claims
that
a
condition
or
obligation
is
incompatible
with
the
non-custodial
measure
imposed
(r.
15).
There
will
be
regular
inspection
of
agencies
responsible
for
implementing
non-custodial
sanctions
to
ensure
com-
pliance
with
minimum
standards
(r.
11).
Offenders
shall
be
entitled
to
be
heard
and
collaborate
in
enforcement
To continue reading
Request your trial