Compelling statistics: how many innocent people on remand?
Britain’s jails are full, but are they full of the right people? A huge number are on remand – and are subsequently found not guilty of the charges on which they were remanded.
Just how many has recently been disclosed in a parliamentary answer to a question from Andrew Pelling MP – whose researcher Adam Chambers attended a Royal Statistical Society seminar for journalists, and has since inspired a number of useful statistical questions from Mr Pelling.
He asked Maria Eagle, Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, for the annual number of prisoners held in prison on remand who are found not guilty of the charges on which they were remanded to prisons; and on the length of their remand.
The Table shows the latest data (not yet available for 2008) from Criminal Statistics, England and Wales for defendants remanded in custody by all courts in England and Wales, by outcome of their court-case.
This shows an average of more than 12,000 ultimately innocent defendants are locked up on remand every year. The data does not show how long they spend on remand, nor the number subsequently found guilty but given a non-custodial sentence (because Mr Pelling did not ask for these figures). Clive Fairweather CBE, former Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, was right to have entitled his report on remand prisoners at the end of the last century Punishment First, Verdict Later.
These parliamentary answers should have shocked the Ministry of Justice into urgent inquiry into just how justly and efficiently its courts demand the costly occupancy of remand prisons by persons who are subsequently found either not guilty or guilty but given a community sentence.
The numbers are startling: one third as many ultimately-innocent defendants on remand (38,700 over three years) as there are those subsequently found guilty and sentenced to immediate custody (119,800 over three years).
Ms Eagle also provided data from the Offender Management Caseload Statistics which “indicate that during 2007 the average length of time served on remand was 55 days”.
A simple sum tells us that on average during 2005-07, the courts remanded to prison each year 12,900 ultimately-innocent defendants. If they indeed served an average of 55 days on remand then, each year in England and Wales, the ultimately-innocent were sent to prison for 12,900 times 55 = 709,500 prisoner-days, or 1,944 prisoner-years.
In other words, pre-sentence incarceration of the ultimately-innocent commandeered three moderately-size prisons (of around 600 inmates) at a cost of over £60 million a year. Even if their average time on remand was halved, the wasted prisoner-days, cost, and distress, are substantial.
Why has the Ministry of Justice collected official statistics which give the same shrill message year-on-year and yet not conducted a proper statistical investigation into why so many ultimately-innocent offenders are remanded to prison, how long they indeed languish there, and what feedback the possibly-different remanding and sentencing courts receive on their respective decisions which led to the costly incarceration on remand of so many defendants who were ultimately-innocent. How can courts’ performance be justly improved?
The UK could save potentially lots of prison places and lots of lolly by investing in a proper statistical investigation into the ‘proportionality’ of remand versus sentencing decisions. ‘Doing bird’ when ultimately innocent is, I suggest, an even bigger issue than how long to retain the DNA-profiles of innocent persons.
Al (not verified) wrote,
Thu, 13/08/2009 - 21:03
While an interesting piece, surely we also need to remember the difference between three, rather than two categories - innocent, guilty, and those who are guilty but are found innocent at court because a jury could not be persuaded "beyond reasonable doubt" that they were guilty.
Judges tend not to remand people where they can avoid it, or where there are no compelling reasons for them to do so (either due to the nature of the offence, or the defendant's prior history). Doubtless some genuinely innocent people will be caught in this mix, but this will only be a subset of the wider "guilty but not proven" group. The language of this article confuses innocence with "not proven-ness" (for want of a better phrase), which are not necessarily the same thing
Helga (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 06/10/2009 - 10:27
Al wrote:
"While an interesting piece, surely we also need to remember the difference between three, rather than two categories - innocent, guilty, and those who are guilty but are found innocent at court because a jury could not be persuaded "beyond reasonable doubt" that they were guilty".
Not to mention those caught up in sex cases, who were found guilty, but were in truth completely innocent despite the jury being given evidence that the complainant lied time and time again and there was little or no reasonable doubt.
Robert Whiston (not verified) wrote,
Tue, 10/11/2009 - 11:44
I thank the authors for raising this topic. It is one of many in a barrel full of canker.
There is much that is rotten at the heart of our justice system and knowing that a Gov't Dept was actually in control or on the verge of regaining said control, would be a first step to restoring public confidence.
To put it in the vernacular, I have 'a problem' with putting debtors into jail, e.g. for CSA non-payment when Gov't policy is to dis-establish life long marriage.
I also have a problem with a government Dept - guess which one - which tries to invoice prisoners, upon their release, for their board and lodging (and why aren't women prisoners asked to pay ?)
Ministers had better wake up to the lack of quality in the administration of justice before they (and ultimately the tax-payer) get hit by a 'class action' for really big money (see '£46 award for innocent man's 27 years in prison', Sunday 22 March 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/22/sean-hodgson-compensation-justice )
Guilty or wrongly convicted, £46 is the most released prisoners get together with a travel warrant. How much of a meal and for how many days will that buy ? Ludicrously if a prisoner wins his appeal at the court of appeal he still gets the £46 but not the travel warrant.
Stan Alarm (not verified) wrote,
Fri, 01/04/2011 - 08:05
Remand can be one of the most difficult phases in the sentencing process. Often individuals are held in custody on remand for extended periods. This can lead to a range of medical and behavioral concerns. Monitoring and management these challenges are multiplied due to low levels of medical services and case management. Often the patients inability to maintain his or her own medication compliance increases risk of mental health issues and then emergency medical intervention is necessary and increases cost to the already stressed justice system.
Regards,
Stan
cctv system