‘We have no awareness of what they actually do’: Magistrates’ knowledge of and confidence in community sentences for women offenders in England and Wales
| Author | Gemma Birkett |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895816632852 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2016, Vol. 16(4) 497 –512
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895816632852
crj.sagepub.com
‘We have no awareness of
what they actually do’:
Magistrates’ knowledge of
and confidence in community
sentences for women offenders
in England and Wales
Gemma Birkett
City University London, UK
Abstract
In its Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders (2013) the Coalition government reiterated
its support for robust and effective sentencing options that enable the majority of non-violent
women offenders to be punished in the community. While a laudable ambition, this strategy
will only be successful if sentencers are aware of (and support) the options available to achieve
this goal. Considering government policy in relation to current levels of awareness among the
magistracy, this article explores the factors that influence sentencing decisions for women.
Highlighting reservations about the suitability of community provision, it also reveals the lack
of information and training that magistrates receive on this issue. While there is certainly a
willingness to learn and consider more creative options when sentencing women, it is clear
that better knowledge of the offender and the options available are needed. Drawing on
empirical research conducted with 168 magistrates in England and Wales, this article concludes
with a number of practical avenues for improved communication, advocated by magistrates
themselves. With many unaware of strategic direction on this issue, the implications for policy
and practice are obvious.
Keywords
Confidence, knowledge, magistrates, sentencing, training, women offenders
Corresponding author:
Gemma Birkett, City University London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Email: Gemma.Birkett.1@city.ac.uk
632852CRJ0010.1177/1748895816632852Criminology & Criminal JusticeBirkett
research-article2016
Article
498 Criminology & Criminal Justice 16(4)
Introduction
Following the sharp rise in the female prison population between 1990 and 2004 (with a
levelling out in numbers since 2006), a number of official reports have advocated the
widespread use of community punishments for non-violent women offenders. The
Women’s Offending Reduction Plan (WORP) of 2004 stated the government’s intention
to improve sentencing outcomes, and that sentencers should be influenced to consider
credible alternatives to custody alongside increased levels of appropriate community
provision (Home Office, 2004: 19). Three years later the high-profile Corston Report
added weight to the argument, advocating that ‘holistic’ community punishments for
non-violent offenders should be the norm (Nugent and Loucks, 2010: 10). In one of the
recommendations to government, Corston called for the establishment of a network of
women’s hubs to act as referral centres for those who had offended or were at risk of
offending (Home Office, 2007). The provision of £15 million of ring-fenced funding for
the establishment of the women’s centres followed soon after, supplemented with a grant
from the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition, a consortium of charities set up to
‘sustain a shift from imprisonment to community sentencing for vulnerable women
offenders’ (Hirst and Rinne, 2012: 19). While the status of women’s penal policy on the
political agenda was affected by the election of the Conservative-led Coalition in 2010,
the current policy, Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders, continues to advocate the
widespread use of community punishments for women, calling for sufficient robust and
effective options to support this aim (Ministry of Justice, 2013: 6). It is difficult however,
to identify the community provision that is currently on offer for women offenders,
although the 2013 NOMS Stocktake of Women’s Services for Offenders in the
Community was until recently the most comprehensive resource. According to the
Stocktake (which alongside the Women’s Breakout website provides information for
those wanting to assess the national picture) there are currently 53 centres offering access
to a wide range of services for women, six approved premises and 83 beds for those
requiring Bail Accommodation and Support Services (BASS). In addition, NOMS esti-
mated that in 2013, over 2000 women would complete a gender-specific Specified
Activity Requirement (SAR)1 in their local community. This picture of patchy provision
is likely to change further still as the newly formed Community Rehabilitation Companies
(CRCs) assess the services that they inherited under the Transforming Rehabilitation
arrangements. Indeed some have already chosen not to continue to use established com-
munity provision for women.
Responsible for sentencing the vast majority of women offenders, utilization of the
above services by magistrates is a growing area of empirical interest (see Hunter and
Radcliffe, 2013), and as highlighted by Hedderman and Gunby (2013: 426; see also
Hedderman and Barnes, 2015), more research is needed to explore ‘the alternative
options available […] and how sentencers perceive their effectiveness’.
Sentencing Women Offenders
With a history dating back to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, magistrates are unremu-
nerated members of the lay judiciary that are drawn from their local communities.2 There
To continue reading
Request your trial