DATE: 18:00-19:00, Tuesday 20th March 2018
VENUE: Committee Room 4, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, London, SW1A 0PW
SPEAKER: Dr Julia Rushchenko
EVENT CHAIR: The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Good evening everybody, my name is David Hanson, I’m a Labour member of parliament and I’ve been asked by the HJS to chair tonight’s meeting, I think because of my provenance in the issue we are going to discuss this evening. I was at one time Prisons Minister, between 2007 and 2009, and since that time I have also served currently on the Justice Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee in Parliament. The issue of extremism and extremist prisoners and how they are handled, and how the state deals with those individuals, what happens in terms of rehabilitation, what happens to those who are exiting prisons at some point in the future is critical to policy decisions. We have an increasing nb of convictions for terrorist offences, but we also have a number of people who have gone to prison for non-terrorist offences, who have subsequently been released from prison, committed terrorist offences in society at large. And the paper before us today by Dr. Julia Rushchenko is debating some of the issues around that and Julia will present to the members shortly about her views on policy solutions and policy challenges in that particular area. I’m going to ask Julia to open the discussion by talking about the report and then we’ll have the opportunity to take questions until 7 o’clock and we will see where the discussion leads us. So first of all let’s ask Dr Julia Ruschenko, who is an associate fellow of the HJS, to introduce to us the paper we have before us, copies of which should be available. Prison management of terrorism related offenders: is separation effective?
Dr Julia Rushchenko
Thank you for opening the floor, many thanks to all of you who are here now and are obviously interested in the issue of prisons and in this report that was just released by the HJS. So first of all, I’ll speak about prisons and why they are a security concern nowadays in terms of prison spreading radical ideology, then I’ll move to my report and its methodology and its findings and policy recommendations. So first of all, why are we discussing prisons now? Prisons are known to be hotbeds of extremism, and also so called academies of terror in terms of them facilitating the spread of radical ideology. And it’s a security concern everywhere, worldwide, which requires an immediate response. However, this problem is very often overlooked, and the reason for that is that most of European states only house a handful of extremist related offenders in custody. However, despite these low numbers, the presence of these people in the correctional institutions generate security concerns in terms of their potential to spread their radical ideology to other inmates. Now why does prison radicalization happen at all? We all know that prisons are environments of vulnerability and prison inmates already share a set of grievances that can be later on exacerbated by prison conditions and other factors. We also know individuals are more receptive to religious ideology, religious doctrine, including radical ideology, in prisons. And when their identity is questioned, placed under strain, prisons therefore become environments conducive to the search of a new identity, hope and recognition, to fill this void. And of course, I mentioned in the report the sort of reasons why people get radicalized: push and pull factors, facilitating factors, and of course penal crises experienced by many western states does not help, and overcrowding and tense staff-prisoner relationships and other factors connected to the infrastructure exacerbate the issue. When we talk about internal factors, identity seeking, belonging, membership, prestige and the need for protection often also exacerbate the issue and make them look for radical solutions, a radical ideology. However, besides spreading radical ideology, prisons can also be dangerous and pose a security concern in terms of providing a platform for people to organize, plan terrorist attacks, and also to exchange experiences and network. And in that regard, the Middle East offers a sad but telling lesson of how Camp Bucca, a US detention facility in Iraq, helped facilitate the rise of ISIS and how this prison provided a platform for people to collaborate, exchange experience, combat doctrine, and also the fact that most of the senior ISIS leaders at some point passed through this prison tells us how important it is to successfully manage terrorism related offenders, to avoid these issues being exacerbated. So however, when talking about policies, what is the right approach? We all know about prison radicalization and the difficulties and concerns it poses, but what is the right approach, how do we make sure that inmates do not spread their violent ideology, how do we prevent them from radicalizing others? And that was the concern, that was the issue that I addressed in this report.
In fact, the idea of this report was born last year, in the summer, when the government first announced its idea and its new policy of separation of some terrorism related offenders. This policy received right away negative media coverage. Criticism revolved around the idea that separation is against human rights, it’s absolutely unacceptable, and separation centres are jihadi jails, and a new Guantanamo Bay. And so I was quite intrigued by this media and I tried looking at these issues and tried to figure out whether separation is indeed beneficial, whether it’s advantageous or unadvantageous. And therefore, the main research question of this project was “Is separation effective?”. Will it be effective, and if yes, under what circumstances? And so this paper relies on the criminal justice system methodology, and there’s a rich tradition of comparative criminal justice in penology, social sciences and law, and this method helps us generate insights into the different policy measures. In this regard it’s about prisons and how to tackle extremism in prisons. It’s very difficult to find firm evidence about whether certain policies in prisons work. And many argue that measuring success in deradicalization is quite a contested and ambiguous process. So I decided to focus on discussing and evaluating already existing policies and best practices from ten countries. The countries selected for this report are the states that currently face the danger of Islamism behind bars. Some of them face it to a higher extent, for instance Israel and France, some to a lower extent, but they all grapple with the issue of Islamism. Now the idea behind it is that learning about penal arrangements in different countries will help us better understand the UK context and how to tackle this issue in the UK.
Now I will talk about my findings. So the study itself demonstrates that at least a partial regime of separation has already been introduced in the majority of countries that face the danger of Islamism, and you can have a look in the report: there is a map that visually shows that separation is already a policy worldwide. Therefore, we should not be dismissive of this policy, because it’s been already practiced. We should not be dismissive first of all because without understanding the policy first and the goals and objectives of the management of extremism related offenders. Also, it’s quite interesting that when the UK government first introduced the idea of separation, the main criticism revolved around the idea that this policy has already been implemented in the context of IRA. And with the Northern Irish paramilitaries, it did not work. So the policy is regarded as a failure by many penal scientists, penal experts, and criminologists. And the argument was that, since the policy did not work in that context, it will not work now either. I argue that, in fact, we cannot compare these two phenomenons, they are not synonymous, because these two groups, IRA and Islamist terrorists operate in very different social contexts, they have very different goals, objectives, ideology and strategies of recruitment. So it does not make sense, it’s counterproductive to compare them and draw parallels. As a conclusion, one of the main conclusions I find is that separation has a very powerful potential for mitigating risks of prison radicalization.
However, I also want to take note of the fact that in order for it to be successful, the government has to make sure that it complies to certain recommendations, or certain conditions. And I outline them in this report, you can have a look at the list of recommendations. So, a few of them. First of all, separation itself is not enough. You have to make sure of course that separation will always be judicially supervised, but it should be complemented by individual rehabilitation strategies, that are tailor made. And this is very important: not all prisoners, according to this strategy, are supposed to be separated. It’s only a small number of the most dangerous, subversive, and the ones who are actively proselytizing and spreading the ideology. But at this point we have a lack of understanding of who is separated and why and I believe there should be more clarity with regards to that. And the danger of prisoners generally, worldwide, is assessed through a number of risk assessment tools. And in this country ERG22+ is the risk assessment tool that is used to evaluate the danger of extremism related offenders. And I dedicated a subsection on that particular risk assessment in the report. However, it has to be updated. When it was first designed and tested, it was a while ago, and nowadays we have new demographic changes. We’ve seen with returning foreign fighters, it’s very often women who participate, so female participation. That was not the case years ago. Also, very young people participate, and they are convicted, speaking about early 20s, 18, 19. So the age and the gender aspect have to be considered and the risk assessment strategies have to be updated.
Another thing is that another issue that I discovered in my interviews with prison and probation officers is that there is an increasing trend of people being convicted of nonviolent offences, for instance the dissemination of terrorist propaganda. And they enter the prison system for a very short period of time, so 1 year or 2 years. They might spend as well 9 months on trial and only spend 1 year in prison. And shorter sentences create the challenge for the management of terrorism related offenders. And they can exacerbate already existing grievances and they can even exacerbate the issue of prison radicalization. So I argue that more alternative options, to custodial sentences, have to be considered for only of course less serious offenders.
It’s interesting that just a week before my report was launched, this paper was released as well, the Sentencing Council Guideline on terrorism, and it recommended very similar considerations. The government has very similar considerations to address this issue. However, this particular recommendation is also met with some criticism.
I also argue that we need more clarity with regard to the number of extremists in jails. So the Home Office regularly publishes statistics on how many prisoners related to terrorism we have in British jails. However, this number was published a few weeks ago, and it was 224. However, this number is actually not indicative of the real number of people with extremist beliefs. Why? Because not all terrorists get convicted for terrorism related offences. Some of them are because of other serious crimes, and therefore excluded from statistics. However, in order to devise effective policies, we need to know the real number, which is currently absent from the discourse. And finally something that has already been mentioned in the opening remark, it’s very important to factor in the discussion returning foreign fighters in this debate in prisons. So current trends definitely suggest that the number of people to be prosecuted will gradually increase, and if returning foreign fighters will be prosecuted, those who will be prosecuted and those who enter the prison system, it’s very important that the government consider what strategy the returnees will be faced with. Is it separation, if separation, under what circumstances, and why, what’s the assessment process, as I believe the wrong placement might potentially exacerbate the risk of radicalization. So that’s another debate that is ongoing, however, more attention should be definitely paid to it. Many thanks for your attention. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Thanks Julia. There are a lot of issues in there. I just want to add as well that I think we’ve got not just an increasing number of convictions for what will be termed Islamist terrorism, but we’ve also got, particularly in the UK, a sort of rising number of neo nazi convictions as well. And although the numbers of people in prison for neo nazi type offences are still relatively small, there is the potential for that to increase as well. So on both counts, the level of the government and members of parliament in both houses are looking at what is effective and what works. And what Julia set out very strongly there is what the parameters are about whether or not we have separation, if so, who do we separate. How do we identify, looking at the increasing issue as well, that a large number of offenders are going to be convicted for offences which are low level, but which are connected to terrorism and who will spend a short time in prison. And the Justice Committee Report, which I was part of, is asking the question how do we deal with these people. Presumably, the objective of prison is to punish, but it’s also to reform, and to make sure that those individuals, when they leave prison, or leave the states’ custody, whether a big community sentence or custodial sentence, are not reoffending. And again, the issue this has touched on and which we need to reflect upon I think as a whole, is the large number and disproportionate number of people in prison who potentially are subject to influence by those who are imprisoned for the severest terrorist offences, and then neo nazi or other forms. And all of that is extremely complex. I think the issue for us today is well, let us see what the UK is currently doing, look at world partners and see what they are doing, and see if there are solutions to these issues. We have approximately 40 minutes, when we can take comments and questions. I want to try and get as many people in as possible, and it’s not compulsory to give your name, or if you’re with an organisation, to say who it is. But if you are, and if you are, it’s very helpful to the panellists and everybody else in the room to know who you are. So if anybody wants to indicate that they wish to contribute, please show the usual manner.
Question 1
So it’s interesting that you looked at ERG22 as criteria. You say it needs some updating, but that’s a securitizing criteria. Did you have full access to the scientific basis for the ERG22, or … ?
Dr Julia Rushchenko
Thank you for your question. So I did speak to people who developed it and who designed it, so forensic psychologists who worked for the joint extremism unit in prison and probation services. And so they guided me through how exactly it worked. The interesting thing with ERG and any risk criteria is that it’s supposed to be scientifically informed, it’s supposed to be also tested on a certain population. But the way it works is that, because of low numbers in prison, so first we have low numbers, so it cannot be scientifically tested to the extent that other instruments can be. So that’s the first impediment. That’s why a lot of psychologists I’ve spoken to, some of them actually criticize any risk assessment in prison because it’s not really tested the way that other tools are. And there is another problem with that. Not all offenders will be willing to participate in this process and to respond to questions because there are serious questions that are being asked. You can complete that with the open source data, but experts tend to be very cautious about it. So it’s more about interaction.
Question 1
My understanding is that 2 primary psychologists who were involved in putting the ERG22 together, [inaudible] criticizing that it wasn’t a tool that was meant to be used for the future or to be predictive of future behaviour generally. Also the other issue is [inaudible] not just deployed on the prison population, the ERG has been deployed in family settings, where you have [inaudible] child issues in the family. That’s a much larger number and much more defined parameters for the [inaudible] that are involved. [inaudible] We haven’t seen how that tool stands up to scientific scrutiny at all. So it’s a bit concerning to have a policy based upon these pseudoscientific principles.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
Actually we didn’t go as far as criticizing the scientific basis, though I’m aware that, simply because I’m aware that it’s difficult to test any tool on a very limited number of populations, so I guess there are always these impediments and barriers to it. Another point of criticism I have heard about ERG22+ is that it focuses on vulnerabilities of people rather than on their possibilities to harm in the future. So it’s that vulnerability issue. And another thing that we have to remember is that ERG22+ is just one of the risk assessments and it happens to be the one who is in this country. But worldwide, there are also other risk assessments, for example LIRA is another risk assessment used in The Netherlands, and so we can also learn from these practices worldwide I think.
Question 1
But I think they have quite a lot of data from [inaudible] in terms of existing or pre-existing threat assessment criteria that was deployed for inaudible. And that was when we had a [inaudible] rather than based upon DDPs, which is dangerous as a criteria. So we have a lot of data fed into that probation system that we could draw. It’s just it’s not calibrated towards ideological goals rather than just general harm.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Anybody who wants to contribute?
Question 2
I just wanted to ask you, do they use the same approach and techniques in Guantanamo Bay according to you? How do they handle terrorist inmates, do they separate them, to they keep them together? Is there more physical torture, do they try and alter their thinking?
Dr Julia Rushchenko
So Guantanamo Bay is meant to be a separation centre on its own, so it’s just terrorists, people who are supposedly involved in terrorist activity already. So it’s a separation centre on its own, and that’s why there’s criticism here in mass media revolving around the fact that this could lead to the next Guantanamo Bay, which I completely disagree with, because they’re not synonymous. And also of course the fact that enhanced interrogation techniques were used in Guantanamo Bay. These are things that we cannot compare in my opinion.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Any other comments? Colleague at the back.
Question 3
I’m wondering if in your research you looked at all at what prisons do in different countries to stop the spread of extremism in terms of preachers or imams coming in. I know that in this country, a couple of years ago concerns were about Islamism in particular where inaudible.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I think it’s a fascinating question. Actually, I mostly focused on the inside influences and how management happens inside the prison, rather than on outside influences. But according to my understanding, separation is meant to be about isolation, either in small groups or individually. And so any access to any extremist literature is definitely not permitted and it’s limited. And also I forgot to mention that separation centres at least in this country are meant to be for a very small number of people, so up to 26-28 I think. And of course there is more attention to them and there is more attention as to what they are using, what they are referring to, who they are corresponding with, and what literature they are reading. So I don’t think this is even happening, the way it works now in separation centres.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
I think the key issue again for me would be that we have a number of people who are being convicted of straightforward terrorist offences, who are imprisoned as a result of those terrorist offences. But we may have a number of people who hold views which are very extreme but who are being convicted of non-terrorism offences and are imprisoned for those offences be it domestic violence or theft or some other activity. And that leads me as well to looking at what is the infrastructure within the prison to identify and to support, and to examine what those challenges are for the prison. Because very often the first point of contact will be the prison officer or it will be somebody else within the prison, maybe a local religious figure, or it may be a visiting educationalist figure, or it may be somebody else. And if there are indicative issues about the spread of extremist views for somebody who’s not convicted of the terrorist offence, that again needs examination and managing, so that people are helped and supported to examine those views in what I hope will be a constructive, positive way eventually.
Question 4
Just as a response to that, in terms of the theory of prisons about education as well being [inaudible] we have a system as well whereby we are supposed to give our offenders an education regardless of what the reasons they’re in prison are. And some ability to [inaudible] so that they’re functioning inaudible. We are not achieving those targets, let alone [inaudible] special issues such as ideology and extremism. So how are we going to tackle the particular and challenging problem, in the context of not being able to deal with the basic problems for everybody in prisons are also one of the driving factors why people are interested in an alternative world view.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Well I’m not here to answer for the government, cause I’m not the government, but I would say that there is a…with the reductions that they have of 7000 prison officers, the lack of investment in education and training in prisons with the amount of time that people being locked up [inaudible] greater challenges. The point I am simply making is that it may well be the prison officer is the first point of contact very often in prison with the offender for whatever that offence is. And if there is not an understanding of the levels of support and examination or identification of potentially challenging issues over and above the basic conviction [inaudible] the support, then that’s an area that needs to be examined. And I think that’s simply for me, how does an ordinary prison officer [inaudible] in a prison such as I am going to visit on Thursday understand if there is one individual who unrelated to their imprisonment offence, is radicalizing in a neo nazi or other way, individuals who are in prison with him. Because that contact is always going to be there. And that is simply a matter of trying to find some mechanism to give greater support to prison officers who are the first line of support and challenge, and rehabilitation, for many offenders.
Question 5
Just practically, because of reasons not directly to prison, but to a young man from Syria, who went through a deradicalization and then [inaudible] to look as if he was benefitting from it, a complete waste of time. I know you wanted to leave [inaudible] and I wonder whether you have a percentage of those. I didn’t think there’d be that high a percentage but you keep referring to it.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Well I keep referring to it because it’s important, because it’s an important issue as well. The relative number of extreme right wing individuals who have been convicted of terrorist offences remains very small, but there are individuals who have been done so. So the murder of my colleague Jo Cox by an individual was one. There are other people who may be also imprisoned for again non terrorist or violent offences, who hold extreme right wing views on the neo nazi end of the scale. But broadly speaking, the number of individuals who have been convicted currently are convicted for terrorist offences through their views on extremism in relation to the islamist issue, and that’s where the majority of convicted prisoners are, and where the majority of influences on prisoners who are not convicted of those offences, but are in for something else are. But I don’t want to avoid the issue that there are people on all sectors of the extremist network who are subject to influence.
Question 5
From a practical point of view, because I have this inaudible, would be wonderful if it did. But for the effectiveness of solitary, of keeping prisoners in solitary confinement, separate, isn’t it very costly, and I know I haven’t got the thickest back up, but do you think it’s going to be cost effective? I am just talking from the point of view of one small example of a Syrian man inaudible, a failed one, so I wonder whether using that amount of resources isn’t going to give you a lot back.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I think from what I’ve seen through my research that it’s not only about financial resources very often, but we are constrained as to what we can do here by human rights as well, human rights, values, and things for instance that are being implemented in the States. The US, similar to the UK, has a mixed approach to housing extremism related offenders. So they have solitary confinement, separation and dispersal within high security jails. So it’s all very individual, it depends. However, the European countries, they certainly have more expectations in terms of human rights.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
My general assessment is that there is not a great deal of cost difference because the individuals who are imprisoned would be imprisoned. They are simply imprisoned in the examples that Julia has looked at in separate prison units dealing solely with people with that conviction of serious nature related to terrorism offences. If they weren’t there, they would be in Wakefield, we have separate prisons for sexual offenders, we have separate prisons for low level offenders, and if they weren’t in that prison, they would be dispersed in the state elsewhere. The key question is, is that effective in terms of their rehabilitation and reform, and is that effective in terms of preventing any ideology they have being spread to other prisoners who are in for other offences.
Question 6
One of the interesting aspects of your research was the comparative approach and some of your other countries [inaudible] that you looked at. And so do you think you could you say a bit more about some of the other countries concerned, particularly comparing how inaudible.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
Sure, I think it’s very helpful if those who have a copy of the report could open it at the road map, page 28, and it’s about strategies for dealing with extremists in prison worldwide. So it represents graphically and visually how the strategies are, how people are managed worldwide. For instance, some of the very interesting examples are represented by Israel. Israel has full separation of terrorism related offenders. However, it’s the only country that does not fully have any rehabilitation strategy in place. And the reasons for that is the general belief is that Palestinian prisoners, there is no point in rehabilitating them, because their environment is conducive to radicalization. From the moment they’re released, post release they will return to their villages and they will be again in the same social environment so again, that’s quite unique. There isn’t any other policy like that. And also Palestinian prisoners, prisoners in general in Israel are divided into security prisoners and normal prisoners. So whoever is convicted for terrorism offences is a security prisoner. I thought it was quite interesting. The Netherlands is quite unique as well in that. So The Netherlands is one of the few countries that has fully implemented separation, even though they have a really small number of offenders. Murderer of Theo van Gogh, for instance, Mohammed Bouyeri, is there, in one of those prisons. So they have two tier, they call them terrorist wings, so to separate basically places where those people are kept. Spain has a very interesting method approach. So in Spain, terrorists are divided according to their motivation. So the Basque separatists are housed separately, and Islamists are housed separately as well. I thought it was quite an interesting approach, in terms of separation. And as you could see, UK and US follow a very similar approach now, since last summer, since the UK already has a mixed approach. Continental European countries that have not yet implemented separation are still debating that. France is, Germany is, Russia is as well. And Belgium to a certain extent. However, even for example in France, the debate was there however because of the pressure from non-profit organisations and human rights organisations, for some reason there is a general belief that separation is against human rights. Even though I disagree with that, and even though it’s a judicially supervised process that ensures people have their rights; but in their general worldview, they are against human rights.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
There is a separate issue, again just to throw on the table for discussion, but the levels of intervention require to influence people who have been convicted of long term sentences, and the ability to do that is a very specialist skill. And therefore the dispersal of prisoners around the estate means that the level of intervention will not be the same quality as it would be where potentially sides are brought together. And that again I think is part of the thinking of government in relation to how they can work with longer term prisoners who have a very long sentence, who are not going to be leaving the estate very quickly, but who need a long period of intervention in order to change behaviour for the eventual date of release, which will not be available in every prison in the UK. They will not be put together on one side.
Question 6
Can you say something about the view of the European Court of Human Rights on this subject of separation in this context?
Dr Julia Rushchenko
As far as I know, I have not heard any specific criticism from the European Court of Human Rights and criticism that I’ve come across come from mass media outlets and people who do not have a specialized knowledge to judge to what extent this policy complies with the human rights principles. Because again, it’s a policy that is meant to be judicially supervised. And it’s a policy that it’s meant to comply to certain requirements and measures. It’s not a random process that just happens to people who are not liked by prison managers.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Any other colleagues who wish to contribute?
Question 7
I think some of the problems with a critical view to separation in practice are that in practice, [inaudible] is separated [inaudible] at that stage [inaudible]. I was wondering if separation means isolation. And I’m saying there could be many degrees of separation. They could include access to [inaudible].
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I absolutely agree. I think there is also some misunderstanding regarding terminology. So there is this term, containment, which is very often used instead of separation, then there is separation, then there is segregation, and then there is isolation. So people can be separated being in small groups, and meaningful rehabilitation can still be assured and they can still interact with staff members and with other people, and get out of jail time. And they can be in complete isolation, as it actually takes place in some places in the United States. Complete isolation, complete segregation, which is not, I agree, conducive to potential rehabilitation. However again, I think we should also remember that rehabilitation strategies should be tailor-made, individualized, and it also depends on whether a person received a whole life sentence, or the person would be released. For instance, in the case of X, who will be scheduled for release this year or next year, very soon, I think there is a lack of information what exactly I believe security reasons [inaudible] sensitive issue, what kind of strategies are used to rehabilitate this kind of people, who are in prison only for 4-5 years, and then they will get out and might need to reintegrate, look for jobs and build their lives outside of prison. The point is that they have to be individualized still.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
To answer that question, I think that the government views separation as being separation but not individual separation, which ties in with the point that you’ve made, it’s about having contact with other prisoners and with prison officers and being able to have access to facilities to help rehabilitation. But it might be under the context of not access to prisoners who have not been convicted of terrorist based offences.
Question 7
Are we suggesting that we put people in like mind, with similar offending, together and then attempt [inaudible] in their views to try and de-radicalize the whole group in one go?
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
I am not suggesting anything, what the government are currently doing is that policy in relation to a number of current prisoners. And the government are looking to bring prisoners together who have similar convictions in order to manage to prisoners in a better way. I’m not here today to defend or criticize that policy. That is what the government are currently doing and that is what Julia has partly been assessing.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
My point on that is that we of course have to be critical. I do argue that this policy has a strong potential, but I am also trying to be critical looking at how, what kind of limitations it can have, and what improvements we can suggest for it to be better. And certainly what I feel is that there is generally a lack of transparency about this, about how this policy is implemented. And for two reasons: first, it’s a very recent policy, let’s not forget that it was introduced only last summer. And 3 separation centres are supposed to be in place, however there is just one now, as of today. So that’s one of the reasons. And the second reason is of course secrecy, in terms of it being a very sensitive issue. We are speaking about the most dangerous terrorists in custody, including non-violent offenders.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
And I don’t know, because I’m not a part of it, I’m not the government, as to who is in the current separation centre, on what criteria they’ve been put in that centre, and how long they’re intended to be before release at some point in the future. So all those are issues that we’ve got in the policy vacuum that I haven’t got access to.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I also haven’t got access to and the Ministry of Justice in my experience is not always helpful with regard to getting this information.
Question 8
Just to come back from that, I think it is a little bit dangerous to say that [inaudible] people are dangerous when they’ve been separated into people who are inaudible. Certainly dangerous, [inaudible] dangerous people who have just been talking about ideological views, without much acting. So putting the two together I think is something quite [inaudible] risky.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
But that’s why again the Sentencing Guidelines Council produced a draft sentencing guideline a couple of weeks back, which the Justice Committee has commented upon, on which it had some mild criticism for the outcome of this was trying to look at how we deal with people who have been convicted of terrorist offences but they were not convicted of serious terrorist offences, which has resulted in attempted murder or murder. And again, we were arguing in part for an examination of community based sentences, on their way to supervision, because there are very often particularly women or younger people who’ve been forced, coerced or drawn into in naivety into potential terrorist activity, who have the potential for early reform and change, by interventions which are not prison based. And that’s a challenge in the community but it’s trying to differentiate who’s a serious offender and a minor offender but of a serious potential crime and to deal with them differently.
Audience member
It is remarkable because it’s 2018 and the Terrorism Act 2000 came about 18 years ago, and in that act there are particular offences that inaudible, which means that they are low level [inaudible] deal with them at a time, I think with a maximum sentence of a year. So the legislation itself by definition was rather seen as a high risk or low risk and was inaudible, whereby magistrates could theoretically deal with a low level offence. The idea that 18 years later we still haven’t grappled with that idea is remarkable.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Well the draft sentencing guidelines are trying to grapple with that very issue now. To offer guidance to sentencers about the potential sentencing options that are available. And that’s something that is currently live and will be determined shortly by Parliament and by the Judiciary.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I think it has some excellent recommendations and the ones that we mentioned are definitely very beneficial considering alternative options to custodial sentences for those who are low level offenders.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
And if I may just say something, the driver for this, whatever the legislation was previously, is a potential increase [inaudible] of individuals who are committing terrorist offences, whatever level of seriousness that is put in place, and there is an increasing number, because of people going abroad for potential terrorist offences, returning, people facilitating people to travel for those issues, people disseminating information and again what’s happened is the world is a different place than it was in 2000 just by simply…the net, the web, Facebook, Twitter, and other mechanisms that are there which are aiding the disseminating act in this field. So what this is an attempt to do is in relation to low level terrorist offences give greater guidance to the judiciary to avoid potentially custodial sentences.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
And the idea is that once people get in the prison system for one year, it doesn’t help them, in terms of neither rehabilitation nor retribution or real punishment. What it does – it just aggravates them, and exposes them to potentially very dangerous rhetorics.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
And just a side again, I think there’s a growing fear and feeling in the community generally that short sentences are not effective generally. And that’s something that we were trying to push when I was minister, and it’s been pushed till further now because self-evidently if you are imprisoned for 3 months or 4 months, job, housing, family relationships may be fractured whatever the offence that drove you into prison in the first place. And it may just simply exacerbate the eventual further offending, so we’re trying to look at how we can deal with prison for serious dangerous offenders or persistent offenders for whom no community based penalty is available.
We have time for a couple more questions if anybody has any.
Audience member
Can I just say, I very much agree with what you’re saying on the children who have been recruited to go to Syria, but from the point of view of different practitioners, there is always a problem that if a judge stands up and says ‘I’m not going to send this young child to prison’, there will be a headline the next day saying that the judge is terrorist approved. [inaudible] for the public to realise that there is a difference in degree between a terrorist offence [inaudible] and somebody who has been recruited [inaudible] to go up to Syria.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
Yes, absolutely. That’s partly what the draft terrorism guideline is trying to achieve in terms of helping to create public opinion but we had very strong Daily Mail headlines when we produced this 3 weeks ago. Any further points from anybody who hasn’t contributed today? Or do you have any final comments, Julia?
Dr Julia Rushchenko
I think what’s important is that this policy is there and we have to wait for it; in order to speak practically about its outcomes and results we have to wait a bit more. So now it’s just initial, now as I said, my forecast as to what we can expect, what we can do better in terms of improvement, but the truth is that it does take a lot of time to maybe quantify it in order to see practical results. However, hopefully the government will be able to consider some of the recommendations both in this report and in the draft Sentencing Council guidelines and some issues especially the one of returning foreign fighters – what to do with them, do we prosecute them, do we imprison them, do we not let them in, do we, as Rory Stewart suggested, do we not let them in at all? These are issues that we definitely have to grapple with in the next few years.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
And I’ll just throw one final issue onto the table, before we complete today. Because of the historic offences, there is a very strong cohort of individuals who will be coming up for release shortly at the midpoint of their sentences. And so there’s another question about how those individuals are managed, whilst on license in the community and what mechanisms, interventions are in place then. And for those who’ve historically been in prison for some years to date, and that is a separate challenge for the fragmented community relations, companies and probation service as a whole. And that again I think is something that’s worth investigation as to management of offenders post release, but still whilst on licence.
Dr Julia Rushchenko
So how criminal records and experiences of conviction actually influence their labour opportunities and personal life opportunities; of course they don’t influence them in a positive way so we have to see how we grapple with that. It’s the job of social workers, probation officers but also ours, those who influence policy and research.
The Rt Hon. David Hanson MP
I would like to thank everybody for coming this evening. If you want a copy of the report, there are copies available.