Short Custodial Sentences: A Necessary Evil?

The Lord Chancellor, Rt. Hon. David Gauke MP, has reiterated earlier murmurations from the Ministry of Justice that custodial sentences shorter than 6 months should be abolished.

If the plan went ahead more than 30,000 criminals a year would avoid a custodial sentence of less than 6 months. As the maximum sentence the Magistrates' Court can impose for a single offence is 6 months' imprisonment, such a move could have a significant impact on the disposal of cases at that court.

According to Mr Gauke, more than 250,000 custodial sentences of 6 months or less and more than 300,000 for 12 months or less were handed out in the past five years. Almost two-thirds of those offenders go on to reoffend within a year of their release.

The Prisons Minster, Rory Stewart MP, has previously said that custodial sentences of less than 6 months were "long enough to damage you and not long enough to heal you".

Putting an offender into prison for just long enough to deprive them of their home, employment, reputation and family, is not conducive to successful rehabilitation, so the Minister says. I agree entirely.

Admirable a job as the prison authorities do, often in the most difficult of circumstances, prison is not the ideal place for rehabilitation. On the contrary, most offenders are exposed to new levels of criminality during their stint behind bars. Prison is the ideal place for offenders to hone their criminal skills and character traits. Many of those offenders released from prison will have made undesirable new contacts and learnt undesirable new behaviours.

Despite the Government's concerns, it has to be said that custody is already a last resort in terms of Magistrates' Court sentencing. It is an option reserved for offences deemed so serious that no other sentence is appropriate.

Less than 5 percent of cases disposed of by the Magistrates' Court result in an immediate custodial sentence and every case that does is a very sobering experience for the bench in question.

Depriving a fellow citizen of their liberty is not a decision anyone takes lightly, but it has to remain an option for serial offenders and those displaying wilful and persistent non-compliance with community orders.

What kind of authority would the Magistrates' Court have if offenders knew that custody was never a realistic sentencing option? Very little I suspect.