Vera Baird DBE KC

Chair Criminal Cases Review Commission. Member Women’s Justice Bd.
Ex Victims’ Commissioner, Solicitor Gen & PCC. Fellow St Hilda’s Oxford. Writer. Labour Party

Category: BLOG

  • Avoiding more prison for women

    Clumsy drafting of the Sentencing Bill may increase the number of women sent to prison


    Earlier this year, David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review was published making a range of recommendations aimed at reducing the size of the prison population, which has caused alarming overcrowding. However, there is a big problem for women with its interpretation in the Sentencing Bill, which has its Second Reading in the House of Lords today (12 November). The very first clause of that Bill presents a very real risk of increasing, rather than reducing, the number of women who are imprisoned for short sentences, despite prevailing views that short sentences do more harm than good.

    I am on the Women’s Justice Board (WJB) and most of its experienced and dedicated members share my concern. In 2024, at the launch of the WJB, Shabana Mahmood, then Justice Secretary, exhorted us to keep women who offered no threat to the public out of prison. Her speech looked forward to the day when we could all watch a women’s prison being closed.

    The Concern

    The Gauke Review recommended a reduction in short prison sentences, of 12 months or less, whilst leaving them available for exceptional circumstances. It proposed a presumption that short sentences should be suspended, but it also argued for an increase in the use of community orders, which have a far lower reoffending rate than prison.

    There is abundant evidence to show that women are disproportionately given short custodial sentences, mainly for non-violent, low-level offences such as shoplifting or breaches of court orders. Nearly 70% of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse[1], many have complex needs and whilst, for male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor, families rarely stay together if the mother goes to prison. 

    Women can lose their children, home, job and their friends, through one short prison sentence. Not surprisingly, 73% of such women re-offend within a year.[2]

    Reducing short prison sentences is long overdue and the recommendation is welcome. However, for women, replacing short sentences with community orders is a vital option. Suspended sentences are preferable to immediate custody, but community orders are a much better option. Women with multiple needs may breach suspended sentences due to the complexity of their lives, the challenges they face in complying with court-ordered requirements,  mental health disorders, caretaking responsibilities, unstable housing and lower employment prospects. Conflicts with conditions, missed appointments or failure to meet financial obligations linked to their sentences, can result in technical violations which will breach the suspended sentence and lead to women being returned to court for imprisonment. Women may also breach community orders, but the consequences are not likely to be as severe. Women on suspended sentences live under the threat of prison from day one of the sentence, long before the benefits of treatment and support, which may be offered alongside a suspended sentence order, have any chance of working. 

    The law is harsh about breaches of suspended sentences. It requires a court to activate a suspended sentence by sending the woman to prison, unless it is unjust in all the circumstances. It even reminds the court dealing with the breach, that the court imposing the sentence had decided that custody was appropriate, so only exceptional new factors should be considered. If there is a new offence, however small, an extra term of prison will be added on.[3]

    As long ago as 2008, a study of changes to suspended sentences made in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 noted that ‘the impact of the [suspended sentence order] on the sentencing of women depends on whether the courts use the order as a real alternative to custody or as a displacement of non-custodial sentences (in other words, using it as a Community Order with the added threat of custody should the woman breach the terms of the order).’ If suspended sentence orders are used in the latter circumstances, the study warns, ‘we could, in the long run, see more women imprisoned for breach of the order rather than for the original offence’.[4]

    The Problem

    The problem is that Clause 1 of the Sentencing Bill introduces a presumption ONLY for suspending short custodial sentences. No reference is made to the availability of community orders. For Courts, this is the new rule. Women – and men – who were going to be sent into custody for 12 months or less MUST have their sentence suspended (unless there are exceptional circumstances).  Which means that if they breach the terms of the suspended sentence, they will be sent to prison.

    However, under existing legislation, before a court decides to send someone to prison, it must form the opinion that the defendant has passed ‘the custody threshold’. The rules for deciding that – known as ‘the basis of opinion provisions’ – are set out in Section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which allows a court to pass a community sentence if there are mitigating features, even where the custody threshold would normally be met.

    These provisions are still in force. So, contrary to the appearance of Clause 1 of the Bill, a sentencer who has decided that the person has passed ‘the custody threshold’  is empowered, nonetheless, to pass a community sentence instead. 

    However, it is unlikely in the extreme that untrained magistrates will be aware of these provisions or that they still exist. They are not being informed of it; just told that the new rule is to suspend short sentences. The precious opportunity offered by S77 is going to be lost, though many troubled women could benefit from its use.

    So, members of the Women’s Justice Board have drafted an addition to Clause 1 of the Sentencing Bill, to ensure the opportunity to impose a community sentence will not be missed by the sentencing court. The amendment simply clarifies that the ‘basis of opinion’ provisions in s77 Sentencing Act 2020 still apply, and that the court should still, where appropriate, mitigate the sentence to a community order as provided for in that section. 

    The amendment was tabled in the Commons by Andy Slaughter MP, Chair of the Justice Select Committee and Pam Cox MP, distinguished academic and MP for Colchester. 

    That is all we are asking for, to help safeguard women from the perils of automatic suspended sentences – to draw judicial attention to the preferable option of a community sentence.

    References

    [1] Ministry of Justice (2025) Identified needs of offenders, custody and community, 31 October 2024, para. 3.8. 

    [2] Prison Reform Trust (2025) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile, February 2025, p.72

    [3] Sentencing Code Schedule 16

    [4] Sunita Patel and Stephen Stanley, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (2008) The Use of the Community Order and the Suspended Sentence Order for Women, p.19

  • Pregnancy and Prison. Do not mix.


    Rianna Cleary, an 18-year-old care leaver, was pregnant when she was remanded to prison, on a charge of robbery. She went into labour when locked in her cell, and, though she rang desperately for help, nobody came. When she rang a second time, the officers turned her bell off. She gave birth to baby Aisha, and had to chew through their umbilical cord, losing copious blood and, eventually, passing out, with Aisha wrapped in a towel beside her. By the next morning when the cell was unlocked, Aisha’s lips were blue. The prison had no baby-sized resuscitation masks, and this tiny baby died. The coroner found that, if Rianna had been taken to hospital, Aisha would have had ‘a chance of survival.’[1]

    In 2020, Louise Powell was sent to prison for eight months for harassment, criminal damage and common assault, not knowing that she was pregnant. One evening, she had severe abdominal pain; her cellmate shouted for help, but no health personnel arrived. Louise was in agony, for hours, until she went to the prison toilet, where the baby started to be born. Someone then called a nurse, who attended, and Louise’s baby, Brooke, was delivered, but she died very shortly afterwards.[2]

    These cases are not only heartbreaking but highlight the unacceptable disregard for pregnant women and mothers in our criminal justice system. 

    Twenty-two per cent of pregnant prisoners miss midwifery appointments[3]; medical facilities are insufficient, and there are rarely midwives or doctors in prisons at night. One in ten prisoners do not get to hospital in time, and give birth in transit.[4] Dr Laura Abbott, Senior Lecturer in Midwifery at the University of Hertfordshire, found that in-cell births are common; they take place in a non-sterile environment, and they often happen without any midwifery support. Consequently, babies born to women in prison are twice as likely to be premature, and – a statistic of which we should all be ashamed – they are seven times likelier to be stillborn. 

    The NHS now says that due to the complexities for women in detained settings,

    ‘all pregnancies there are high risk’[5]


    The Royal College of Midwives describes prison as ‘No place for pregnant women’[6] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists emphasises the need for non-custodial sentences for mothers-to-be.[7]

    This is not about improving conditions in jail, which is an inherently stressful and unfriendly place, inimical to safe pregnancy and new motherhood. As has been powerfully argued by campaign groups including Birth Companions, Level Up and No Births Behind Bars, ‘prisons are, and will always be, inappropriate and unsafe spaces in which to navigate the complexities of pregnancy and early motherhood’.[8]  If women prisoners do manage to give birth safely or, if they enter prison during the postnatal period, they are likely to be separated from their baby. There are six hundred pregnancies and one hundred births in prison annually, but only sixty-four places on mother and baby units. Any separation will affect breastfeeding, but will also disrupt the formation of a secure attachment bond between mother and child, potentially leading to long-term negative consequences for the child’s development.[9]

    The solution is obvious. Courts should never imprison pregnant women and new mothers, unless it is unavoidable and absolutely necessary.

    Last week, a new Sentencing Guideline was withdrawn because of controversy about its declaration that offenders from racial, religious and cultural minorities, when convicted, should be the subject of a pre-sentence report before being sentenced. This was said to be discriminatory against the racial, religious and cultural majority. The Guideline also included advice that pregnant and post-natal women defendants should, similarly, have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. That guidance has now also been suspended causing fears of a step backwards for women.

    However, there already exists a reassuringly supportive Guideline, published in April 2024[10] providing that pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care were, in themselves, mitigation for most offences. It acknowledged that custody can be harmful both to mother and child; recognised that women in prison are likely to have complex health needs, which may increase risk, and registered concerns about accessing healthcare. Furthermore, in the recent case of Thompson [2024] EWCA Crim 1038, the Court of Appeal reinforced these strictures, and began a series of appeals against sentence, by pregnant women, which have brought a new wave, both of understanding and of relative sympathy, to the law. 

    The new Women’s Justice Board, of which I am a member, aims to cut the number of women who go to prison. Its work is wider than pregnancy and motherhood, but we have a workstream about it. I am shocked that the lower courts still send such women to prison, despite the dire risks, the 2024 Guideline, and in the teeth of the strong Court of Appeal judgments delivered in this string of 2024 appeals. 

    Last week, I saw the seminal Clean Break Theatre play, ‘Lost Mothers,’ about this topic. In the discussion afterwards, a barrister related that Judges and Magistrates accuse women of getting pregnant to avoid custody and therefore determine to send them there. That is a headlong clash with what the Court of Appeal said in the case of R v Byron [2024] EWCA Crim 818.

     In exchanges with counsel, at the sentencing hearing, the lower court Judge had said:

     “… She knew that this matter was not going to go away. She knew what she was facing, and she knew that she was going to plead guilty. What does that say about responsibility in a mature woman that she decides, ‘I’ll tell you what, I’ll get pregnant again?”

    In allowing the appeal and suspending the prison sentence imposed by this judge, Lord Justice May said:  

     “…whether a pregnancy is planned or not can be of no concern to a sentencing judge whose focus must be on the risks to mother and baby of pregnancy and birth in custody.” 

    In R v Charlton [2021] EWCA Crim 2006, Lord Justice Holroyde, in the Court of Appeal, explained how the lower courts should approach pregnancy as a factor in sentencing:

     “First…. imprisonment would be a far heavier punishment for this applicant than for most other prisoners; secondly, the pregnancy and births can be expected to increase her motivation to remain drug free; and thirdly, it is necessary to have regard to the rights of the children who, as things stand, will be born in prison.”  

    Doughty Street Chambers have developed an excellent legal toolkit, from which these few cases are summarised. It is a vital weapon to make sure that lower level judges are informed of progressive judgments from the Court of Appeal, when sentencing pregnant women and mothers.[11]

    There is a limitation on the Appeal Courts’ improved stance though. It was set out in R v Stubbs [2022] Crim 1907, where Mr Justice Pepperall noted that pregnancy might improve the prospects of rehabilitation, but added: 

    ‘Pregnant offenders cannot automatically expect to avoid imprisonment.’ 

    One can only reflect that, if our justice system were different, two little girls, Aisha and Brooke, who could not survive being born to mothers in prison, would be starting school, this year.

    There are eleven countries that do not lock up pregnant women, or very rarely do so. It is time that we became the twelfth.

    References

    [1] Diane Taylor, The Guardian 2nd August 2023

    [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59938239.amp

    [3] Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists Position Statement: Maternity care for women in prison in England and Wales 

    [4] Nuffield Trust: Pregnancy and childbirth in prison: what do we know?

    [5] NHS England (2022): National service specification for the care of women who are pregnant or post-natal in detained settings 

    [6] Royal College of Midwives: Perinatal women in the criminal justice system 

    [7] Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists Position Statement: Maternity care for women in prison in England and Wales 

    [8] Birth Companions: ‘1001 days in the CJS – a better approach to pregnancy and early motherhood in criminal justice’ 

    [9] Parent Infant Foundation: Evidence Briefs 

    [10] Sentencing Council, Sentencing pregnant women and new mothers (2024); See also, Sentencing Council, Miscellaneous amendments to sentencing guidelines 2023-2024 (2024)

    [11] Doughty Street Chambers: Representing pregnant women and mothers in the criminal justice system: a legal toolkit 

    ← The Right to Be Reviewed: Why Survivors’ Voices Must Shape JusticeThe Undercover Police Scandal: Love and Lies Exposed →

    Holding the state to account for

  • Manslaughter by suicide

    Prosecuting perpetrators for manslaughter when domestic abuse leads to suicide

    In January, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed in the manslaughter prosecution of Ryan Wellings, a domestic abuser, whose victim, Kiena Dawes, killed herself. It was only the
    third prosecution of this kind that the CPS had ever attempted, and they have lost two. That is a shocking record, given the abundant evidence that more women are driven to suicide by
    their abusers than are killed by them [1]. In 2022-23, for instance, a National Police Chief’s
    Council report showed that 80 abuse-related deaths were homicides and 93 were victim suicides.

    The three CPS attempts took place in 2006, 2012 and the third was Kiena’s case. That is no demonstration of relish to tackle these worrying cases. It is urgent that CPS and police work
    out a strategy, to hold abusers accountable when women are driven to suicide, especially now that the police’s own figures show it to be an accelerating pattern.

    Kiena

    Wellings abused Kiena for two years. He tried to strangle her, hit her while she was pregnant, held her face under water when she was bathing her baby, put a cordless drill in her face to ‘drill her teeth out’ threatened to pour acid on her face and told her to kill herself. 

    On 17 July 2022, he rammed her head into a radiator and, though police arrested him, he went home as soon as he was free. On 22 July, Kiena left her baby girl at a friend’s house and took her own life under a train. She left a note:

    “….I was murdered… Ryan Wellings killed me.”


    Coercive control, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide

    Domestic abuse charities have long seen the link between coercive control – from which women feel they will never escape – and suicide. Two thirds of people, who have suffered abuse, experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and brain injury. These are alarming numbers [2]. 

    Thirty-seven studies have found that trauma, and hopelessness, typically found in abused women, are strongly associated with suicidality [3].

    A review of 3,500 women, who were being supported by Refuge, showed that 83% had experienced hopelessness, 24% had felt suicidal and 18% had actively made plans to end their lives [4] [5].

    However, most jurors are unlikely to know about these studies, and only a few will have seen domestic abuse, in their own lives. Calling expert evidence is imperative, if jurors are to understand that coercively controlling domestic abuse may put women into a mental state, pre-disposing them to suicide. 

    The CPS won their only domestic manslaughter success through expert evidence. A psychiatrist told the court that the victim, Justine, had been in a “substantially abnormal” state, feeling depressed and hopeless and that there was “a clear link” between those feelings, caused by the actions of the defendant and her suicide” [6]. The defendant, Nicholas Allen, pleaded guilty.

    The crime of manslaughter

    In the case of Dhaliwal, the first of the CPS’ attempted prosecutions, in 2006, the Court of Appeal made clear that the offence, in law, can cover driving someone to suicide. They said:

    ‘…subject to evidence and argument on the critical issue of causation, unlawful violence on an individual with a fragile and vulnerable personality, which is proved to be a material cause of death (even if the result of suicide) would at least arguably, be capable of amounting to manslaughter.’ [7]

    Kiena suffered from a personality disorder, causing impulsivity and poor self-esteem, and had made suicide attempts before she met Wellings. So, she had ‘a fragile and vulnerable personality,’ but despite the Court emphasising its relevance to manslaughter, ironically, it seems from press reports that Wellings’ defence successfully blamed her poor mental health for her suicide and exculpated him.

    There are two points. The first is a legal rule called ‘the eggshell skull principle’. It says that a defendant is liable for the harm they cause to a victim, even if it is unusually serious harm because of a pre-existing vulnerability [8]. So, if Kiena’s poor mental health made her more susceptible to suicide, Wellings was nonetheless responsible, if his behaviour was a substantial cause of her death. The psychiatric evidence was that Wellings’ behaviour made her condition worse over time, and would have contributed to her suicide.

    It is not clear that the CPS even argued this point, though it is especially vital in the context of research into Domestic Homicide Reviews about suicides, showing that, in no less than 94% of them, the victim had pre-existing mental health problems and in half, there had been previous self-harm.

    Full information and the key legal rules are key to jurors properly unravelling these interacting factors.

    Causation

    If a separate decision to die by suicide is freely and voluntarily taken, it would, in a perfect case, break the ‘chain of causation’ between the abuser’s behaviour and the death. However, the courts have repeatedly said:

     ‘..causation is heavily context specific …’ [9]


    For instance, in Corbett [10], a man who violently assaulted another was convicted of manslaughter when his victim ran away and was killed by a car. 

    In the case of Wallace [11], a woman who threw acid over her boyfriend, causing him endless pain, and near-total paralysis, was convicted of his manslaughter, though he went abroad and signed, voluntarily, to be euthanised. 

    It is common sense that what caused the death in the Corbett case, was not a free and voluntary decision to run (instead of fight).

    If the research findings and psychiatric evidence are put into court and the ‘eggshell skull’ principle is pressed, it may become common sense that the cause of a victim suicide can be feeling trapped in unimaginable coercive control, like Kiena’s. 

    There are at least three hopeful signs: 

    In July 2023, an Inquest into the suicide of 30-year-old Kellie Sutton, heard about the impact of long-term abuse, from an expert, and the jury found that her abuser had unlawfully killed her. 

    Secondly, after Kellie’s death, the abuser was prosecuted for coercive control, but the trial judge seemed to consider that he may have been guilty of manslaughter since he said: 

     “He drove [his partner] to hang herself that morning. Beat her, ground her down and broke her spirits.” [12]

     And thirdly, a CPS prosecutor told one of the Warwick researchers: 

    “We did a briefing… because often, the suicide messaging has come across as if its everyone’s severe mental health problems. It is saying no, it is because they feel completely hopeless in that situation.” 

    Conclusions

    If the police tackled domestic abuse well, from the start, few cases would lead to death.The CPS says it intends to take on more such prosecutions, so casework charities, like AAFDA should liaise closely with them, on appropriate cases.  

    Successful prosecutions for manslaughter are essential. Women abused into such despair that they take their own life, do so by compulsion, not by choice.

    References:

    1. An Analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews in Cases of Domestic Abuse Suicide; Danger, Munro &   Andrade, University of Warwick July 2022

    2. Domestic Abuse & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) National Centre for Domestic Abuse 2022

    3. McLaughlin, J., O’Carroll, R. & O’Connor, R. (2012) ‘Intimate Partner Abuse and Suicidality: A Systematic Review’. Clinical Psychology Review 32: 677-689

    4. Ibid at page 46

    5. WRAP-Domestic-abuse-and-suicide-Munro-2018.pdf

    6. Man jailed for manslaughter over ex-girlfriend’s suicide – BBC News

    7. R v D 2006 EWCA Crim 1138

    8. See Owens v Liver pool Corporation (1939) 1KB 394

    9. Hughes (2013) UKSC 56

    10. 1996 Criminal Law Review 594

    11. 2018 EWCA, Crim 690

    12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-4354153 

  • Women in Prison

    Women in Prison

    Our criminal justice system imprisons twice as many women now, as it did in the nineties. No increase in the quantity or gravity of female crime has happened, to justify this. Harsh penal policy, directed at tougher sentencing for men – who are 96% of the prison population – seems simply to have carried women along with it. Yet, it is almost two decades since Baroness Corston recommended, in her seminal Report, that there should be:

     “a distinct radically different, visibly led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-centred, integrated approach” towards women in prison.”

    That need for a targeted approach to women is even stronger now. Imprisonment grows while research shows, what a huge role domestic and sexual abuse play, as drivers of women’s offending. The Prison Reform Trust’s Report: ‘There’s a Reason We’re in Trouble’ (2017) found that 67% of women in prison had suffered abuse, with most in the grip of a male perpetrator, at the time of their offence. Some women were coerced into delivering drugs or shoplifting to order. Many were convicted of stealing food, to survive when being starved of cash, or of stealing alcohol to self-medicate. Other women strike back, after years of abuse, and are convicted of violence themselves. Some are arrested, when they have called the police, and manipulative perpetrators make cross-allegations.

    One prisoner, Mary told PRT that she was in an abusive relationship for 3 years. He had, repeatedly, assaulted her and, though she was a disqualified driver, threatened her family unless she drove him to deliver drugs. The police stopped them and found his cannabis, but Mary took the blame, together with admitting that she was driving whilst disqualified.

    Belinda also spoke to PRT. She has scars, from her ex-partner throwing boiling water over her and slashing her with broken glass. She suffers from ADHD and depression. He took her to a party, got drunk and tried to force himself on her, so she punched him, to get away. He got his friends to make statements and the police prosecuted her for assault.

     A variant is that, frustrated by police incomprehension, a victim, who has called them, shouts at them or pushes them away. If a male officer takes hold of a female victim, it can cause a struggle, through a ‘fight or flight’ response, as she relives earlier trauma. Offences such as these, committed against police officers, usually result in imprisonment.

    Typically, women get short sentences. But if this sounds merciful, that is the wrong conclusion. 53% are sentenced to less than 6 months and another 17% to less than12 months, and all are released halfway through. Few courses/treatments, to tackle complex needs, are available on that brief time scale. Many programmes have been defunded and the remainder have entry queues far longer than the sentences themselves. That means that 70% of, often needy, women, who go to prison, are just warehoused, without getting any benefit, nor any new learning, to set them up for a future.

    For male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor; wives hold the family together. But abusive fathers rarely keep the home fires burning. Women can lose their children, their home, their job, and their friends, through one short prison sentence. 17,000 children a year are separated from their mothers, by custody.

    Jane told PRT that the Magistrates’ Court imprisoned her when she had not expected it. Her little boy went into care. When she ended her sentence, all she had was a prison-issue thermos and a tent. 3 years later, she still hasn’t seen her son.

    Not surprisingly, 55% of women, who get short prison sentences, reoffend. Suspending a sentence can mean that home, job, children, family, and local connections are preserved, and fewer than 30% of women, on those sentences, re-offend.

    The Tory Government, perforce, was legislating to suspend all prison sentences of less than 12 months. Prison capacity is around 89000 and, without that change, they estimated a need for 94000 places, before the end of this year.

    Albeit as an incidental, that legislation would have taken a very welcome scythe, to the damaging, short sentences currently imposed upon women.

    The new government should do the same, but this time, intentionally. It should also look closely at the Greater Manchester and West Midlands Women’s Problem-Solving Courts. In both regions, probation staff harness local services such as mental health and housing, to tailor community-based sentencing packages for women who offend. Depleted services can make this hard, but there is huge commitment, and early data is looking good.

    An impressive innovation is that the sentencing judge reviews the defendant’s progress, every few months, at court. The judges are outstanding and see the opportunity to improve these women’s lives. They both discipline and encourage. Women emerge wide-eyed, with the belief that the justice system requires them to try hard so that they can do well.

    Of course, it is insufficient to improve the process that picks up the pieces. We must, quickly, hugely re-invigorate the fight against male abuse of women, and I have no doubt our new Labour Government is committed to that mission.

    However, it is darkly ironic, that overcrowding in male prisons, some of it caused by the  sentencing of violent men,  may ultimately trigger the tailored, rehabilitative approach to women in trouble, that Jean Corston’s Review recommended many years ago.

  • Postal Votes Have Started To Arrive

    Are you voting by post, if so, I hope you will consider giving me your first choice vote.

    I have worked hard to ensure that Northumbria Police delivers the priorities set by you in the Police & Crime Plan.  Please take a few moments to read my election leaflet.

    If you have any questions, it would be great to hear from you.  My email is voteverabaird@gmail.com

  • Consultation on taxi licensing to protect passengers.

    ‘The current taxi licensing system is unfit for purpose and requires an urgent re-think’ says Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, following today’s (12, February, 2019) government announcement to launch a consultation on rules to improve passenger safety.

    Dame Vera has repeatedly expressed concerns over the granting of taxi licences and the application of licensing conditions, which vary from authority to authority. Currently this means that a driver who is refused a licence in one local authority may get one from a less strict council and apply for trade in the area which thought they were unfit to run a taxi in the first place. Whilst most taxi drivers are responsible and honest there has been taxi driver involvement in large scale sexual exploitation wherever it has been found. This ability to play one council off against another increases the risk of unsuitable people getting into a position of trust which they can abuse.

    In recent years, alongside all six local councils, she has called on the government to introduce tighter controls, including the introduction of a national database and consistent national criteria for handing out licences.

    In 2017, she championed the issue further in her role as Association of Police and Crime Commissioner (APCC) Chair, lobbying the government for new statutory guidance relating to how public authorities exercise their licensing functions on taxi and private vehicle hire legislation, in order to enhance protection for children and vulnerable adults.

    Dame Vera, said: “The issue of taxi licenses has troubled me for some time. Clearly no-one with a sexual or indecency conviction should be getting behind the wheel of a taxi either – clear and simple. A system with the potential laxity that allows for anyone with such a history to slip through the net is unfit for purpose and requires an urgent re-think.

    “I will be responding to the consultation in due course and hope it will ultimately deliver a safe, clear and up-to-date licensing structure for the future.”

  • HOME SECRETARY FAILS NORTH EAST COMMUNITIES – say North East PCCs

    The three Police and Crime Commissioners for the North East have today slammed the Home Secretary for increasing council tax bills to fund policing, instead of the Government providing a fair funding settlement for the communities of Cleveland, Durham & Darlington and Northumbria.

    Residents across the North East of England are facing a significant increase to the policing element of council tax as a consequence of the Government announcing that PCCs will be allowed to increase the precept by up to £24 per year for a Band D property. If this increase does not go ahead, it could mean a funding cut for the region’s three forces.

    The three PCCs are once again demanding that the Home Secretary stops making hard working families pay for policing, when it is the duty of the Government to provide effective policing and keep our communities safe – a point with which PCCs from all political parties agree. In simple terms, the Government funding package for each force assumes that PCCs will increase the precept up to £24. If the PCCs don’t it will result in a cut to the funding received to pay for policing in the North East.

    North East police forces are some of the busiest in the country and yet continue to be underfunded by central Government, having all seen funding losses of more than 30 per cent resulting in almost 2,000 fewer police officers on the streets of Northumbria, County Durham, Darlington and Cleveland since 2010.

    Commenting on the announcement, Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner for Durham and Darlington, Ron Hogg, said “The Government has not increased the amount it pays for policing – it has put all the burden on council tax payers. In areas like mine, the majority of properties are in Council Tax Band A, which means that those with the lowest incomes are being asked to pay the largest part of the increase. I would compare that to areas like Surrey, where there are many more properties in the top council tax band, lived in by people with very significantly higher incomes.”

    Cleveland PCC Barry Coppinger added “I do not want to increase the precept for residents in Cleveland, but under this settlement I am left with very little choice and it simply isn’t fair. Once again, residents in the most deprived areas are being asked to foot the bill for the country’s underfunded police forces, as the Government once again fail to account for the increasing cost of policing and levels of inflation. I will continue to lobby the Government and push for a fairer deal for all of our forces. Cleveland has some of the highest levels of crime and deprivation in the country, yet our overall level of funding increase for next year is £7.2m and Surrey’s is by £17.6m – over £10m more. How can an area with 60 per cent higher level of recorded crime be treated so unfairly?”

    Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC, said: “It is completely wrong for our police forces to be in this position. I wanted the Government to put in place a fair funding formula – they refused. Once again they are moving the burden of proper police funding onto hard-pressed council tax payers through the police precept. £24 a year is an increase of a quarter on the burden on local families who deserve better, but we do not want instead to be forced to make yet more cuts to our vital policing services. I will start 2019 consulting with local residents to see what extra they feel should be implemented in Northumbria.”

    The three PCCs will consult with their communities to find out what they think. None of the region’s PCCs have taken a decision on this matter yet, this will happen after the consultation closes. In the meantime the three PCCs will seek an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary, speaking up for local residents and demanding change to the funding formula.

  • BAIRD SLAMS CPS

    Northumbria’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC responds to reports that Prosecutors have been urged to ditch “weak” rape cases to improve figures.

    Dame Vera Baird said “This approach is completely hostile to the principle of access to justice. The point of the CPS is to bring fair prosecutions, not to deliberately avoid bringing them and to abandon hundreds of victims, in order to make their conviction rate look better.

    I would be very surprised if there isn’t a judicial review here in the public interest.

    If the CPS think that this will make them look better to the public they need to think again. How appalling to put the appearance of their organisation before their obligations to the public.

    The CPS have reportedly been told to take “350 cases out of the system in order to increase their conviction rate 61%“. Before this diktat, these 350 cases seemingly would have passed the necessary test to be prosecuted (a greater than 50% likelihood of conviction by a jury). It seems that rape cases will now require a 60%, 70% or 80% likelihood of conviction – but only rape cases.

    The CPS knows that myths about woman and rape are rife amongst jurors as with the public at large. Their job is to use insight and skill to overcome these obstacles to justice. The reaction from some CPS staff shows their own shock at being told to stop trying and only prosecute rock solid certainties.

    Cases involving younger or more vulnerable complainants or those with mental health issues will all be in the “too difficult category” as set out by Messrs McGill and More. There couldn’t be a clearer signal to predatory criminals that if they abuse those victims the state will leave them alone. And there couldn’t be a more damaging sign of support for the rape myths that are still believed in our society.

    Guardian Article. Prosecutors have been urged to ditch “weak” rape cases to improve figures.

  • Labour Conference 2018 Blog.

    It was great to be at Labour Party conference in Liverpool – it’s always good to catch up with old friends, listen to debate and to see CLP delegates from across the country debating Labour Party policy and helping influence our party manifesto that may be needed sooner, rather than later.

    Conference once again shows us why we need a Labour government (not just to clean up the mess the Prime Minister is making of Brexit), the Tories are failing hard working families, real wages are still lower than what they were in 2010 and millions of working families are set to be worse off under Universal Credit. When in government Labour worked hard to end child poverty, since 2010 it has risen by over four million and the Institute for Fiscal Studies projects it will rise by a further million by the end of this Parliament.

    We know it is Labour that will tackle these issues head on, it’s our party that will support work and create a social security system for the many, not the few. The next Labour government will end austerity and introduce a Real Living Wage of £10 an hour by 2020. Labour will pause and fix universal credit and implement a new Child Poverty Strategy. Labour will also lift the Tories’ freeze on social security support which is penalising families, to ensure people get the support they need.

    Conference clearly heard Jeremy’s commitment to rebuild our public services: Years of austerity and privatisation have left our public services in crisis. Labour will rebuild our public services with new investment and properly paid staff. Labour will increase investment in the NHS and social care to tackle the crises caused by the Conservatives. Our party will stop the cuts to school budgets with a real terms increase in funding, introduce universal free school meals for primary school children and get class sizes down to under 30 for all 5, 6 and 7 year olds.

    Right across conference I heard people commenting on these ideas, there was a buzz in fringe meetings about wanting the next general election to be sooner rather than later – as if we get the keys to number 10, we can sort the mess that Tories have created, the next Labour government has committed to putting an extra 10,000 police officers back on the streets in England and Wales. We must never underestimate the Tories, they crave power – but for all the wrong reasons. When a General Election is called, I will be standing ready with you to campaign once again in constituencies across Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, to show the difference our hard working Labour MPs makes. Our members, councillors and trade unionists are our greatest strength, the Shadow Foreign Secretary is on standby for the election to be called by the end of the year – if it is, we must do everything we can to rebuild and improve our public services and only Labour will deliver that change to benefit communities across our region and beyond.

  • Brexit needs the best deal possible, not a no deal!

    As the dark nights start to draw in, I think the Prime Minister will be having many dark days – wondering how to control her rebels over Brexit. The government are making a monumental hash up of this process, it is stumbling from crisis to crisis and as they do this they are failing to see the bigger picture and the damage they are doing to communities across our region.

    In relation to policing, the Home Secretary needs to get a grip and start ensuring the various vital cooperation tools / mechanisms enabling the UK and the EU police forces to work together to prevent and tackle crime and threats to regional and national security are in place. He also needs to address the potential impact on the future incompatibility between EU and UK laws and the rights the UK could lose by falling out of the EU’s jurisdiction and legal framework. We need continued use of shared law enforcement databases and EU arrest warrants which have assisted Northumbria Police on many occasions, nationally last year 1,735 arrests were made in the UK and more than 10,000 people have been extradited since 2004. In 2017 the Schengen Information System (SIS) which is a European database used by the police to search for terrorist suspects, missing people and to check vehicle registrations and passport details was checked nearly 540 million times by police officers in the UK – it’s imperative that the Home Secretary and his department ensure that these services are still available to Northumbria Police after March 2019. Northumbria Police plays a vital role in national security and the safety of the public in our region and we can’t allow the good work police officers and staff undertake be put in jeopardy if the government doesn’t get its act together to ensure detailed arrangements are in place – we work with partners to tackle crime such as human trafficking and serious organised crimes and police officers need the tools to get the job done, not Boris and his cronies fighting for the next media headline.

    Theresa May now needs to move away from accepting a possible “no deal” outcome on Brexit, as this will cause chaos and confusion for policing and security services. She has a duty to deliver the best deal possible that will ensure the continued safety of residents. We are fast approaching March 2019 and policing needs considerable additional resources at a local and national level for policing to operate using non-EU services, and in all reality, whatever is put in place to deal with a no-deal outcome will be an inferior standard to what is already in place. It is hoped that the government and EU will have agreed terms for leaving by October – that’s very optimistic as there is a great more deal work to be done.

    I agree fully with Richard Martin, deputy assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police and the NPCC lead on Brexit, when he said “it is in the interests of both sides to negotiate an arrangement that allows for continued close working, whether as part of existing mechanisms or negotiated alternatives. Without such arrangements, both UK police and EU member states will lose capabilities including identifying criminals and missing persons who cross our borders, detaining and swiftly surrendering suspects under EAWs, quickly identifying previous history of offending or the sharing biometric data”

    There is a job to be done, Theresa May needs to get on with it and I stand with other Labour Police and Crime Commissioners across England and Wales demanding it is done with the interests of safety and delivering effective policing running through the heart of any deal.