News

Criminal Justice Centre director Professor Jackie Hodgson and CJC researcher Juliet Horne have recently published their research report ‘Imagining more than just a prisoner: The work of Prisoners’ Penfriends’. The research examined the work of Prisoners’ Penfriends a small charitable organisation that facilitates and supervises letter-writing between prisoners and trained volunteers. Based on interviews and questionnaires with prisoners and volunteers, the report examines the workings of the scheme and concludes that it is likely to improve prisoner well-being and to raise prisoners’ chances of successful rehabilitation. The research has already attracted the attention of significant policymakers within the Ministry of Justice. Building on this interest, the research report will be formally launched to an audience of policymakers and practitioners in the House of Lords on Thursday 25th June. Speakers at the event include representatives from Prisoners’ Penfriends, Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust, Lynn Saunders Governor of HMP Whatton and Professor Hodgson.

The full report is available here: Prisoners' Penfriends Report

Edited by Michele Caianiello (University of Bologna, Italy) and Jackie Hodgson (CJC Director) and published by Carolina Academic Press, this volume brings together a broad range of scholars working within a variety of procedural traditions in Europe, North America and China. The first section contains three papers that address the use of discretion during the investigation and prosecution stage of criminal proceedings; the second section deals with negotiated justice and various types of plea agreements in Spain, China and Italy. In the third section, different approaches to the exclusion of evidence are discussed, relating to Switzerland, Germany and a potential EU approach. The fourth section discusses discretion in relation to the death penalty in the US. At the heart of these issues is the prob-lem of reconciling prosecutorial and judicial discretion with the principle of legality. The need to avoid arbitrary decisions is key, but the authors come to differing conclusions as to the impact and value of judicial discretion at different stages of the process and in different jurisdictions.

Discretion is the theme of the collection, and the writers believe it can be characterized in positive terms, as it ensures that justice is tailored to the individual and to the facts of the case rather than being applied mechanically. However, without a clear legal frame-work, it risks allowing arbitrary decisions based on bias or other legally irrelevant factors. All of the papers collected in the book teach us something about the way that discretion plays out in different systems and how it is understood and adapted within existing legal norms and cultures.

Dr Ana Aliverti has been awarded the British Academy Rising Star Engagement Award (BARSEA).

The BARSEA aims at providing an opportunity for early career researchers who have established their academic credentials as leaders in their field to enhance their skills and career development through playing a leading role in engaging others through the organisation of engagement events.

Ana is the co-host and leading organiser of a two-day international workshop entitled ‘Criminal adjudication in the age of migration’ to take place in March 2016 at the University of Oxford. This workshop will bring together leading international scholars and early career researchers from various countries, doctoral students, and British policy makers and practitioners to shed light on the relevance of citizenship and immigration status in criminal justice decision-making.

The theme of the workshop is associated to Ana’s current research project, funded by the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust, which investigates the impact of immigration status and citizenship on the treatment of defendants before the criminal justice system.

Once again the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that a complete ban on prisoner voting rights is incompatible with the UK’s commitment to the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights.

Whether or not prisoners should enjoy the right to vote is a controversial subject in many democracies but perhaps none more so than in the UK. The issue pits the civil and political rights of some of the most unpopular citizens within society against the strong desire of Parliament to restrict and to limit those rights.

The reason why the UK position has been deemed unacceptable is because it applies to all convicted prisoners irrespective of the nature of the offence committed or the length of the jail term imposed – the ECtHR has held this to be arbitrary and disproportionate. But the focus on the appropriate cut off assumes that some prisoner disenfranchisement is justified and this seems to be the wrong way around – the real and logically prior question is why prisoners should be disenfranchised in the first place?

Neither Parliament or the ECtHR has paid much attention to this critical question. They should both more seriously consider the view of the Supreme Court of Canada – that prison disenfranchisement cannot rationally be said to enhance our respect for the rule of law or to impose appropriate punishment on offenders.

Politicians of all political hue have opposed reform and criticised the Court for overstepping the mark. Despite the recommendations of a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Lords, the government have stalled taking action until the Autumn of 2015, claiming to be 'actively considering' the most effective way to implement the Court's judgment in Hirst, the original decision in which the UK position was condemned a decade ago.

Professor Alan Norrie has been awarded almost £155,000 by The Leverhulme Trust for a three year study into criminal justice theory.

Alan will primarily examine how and why different types of justice are labelled and how these labels compare with each other.