The Corston Report

The whole report is here

In 2007, Baroness Corston produced a report about the imprisonment of women.

This followed a 2006 prison ombudsman's report into the deaths of six women at Styal prison.

The Corston Report concluded against imprisoning women offenders who pose no risk to the public. It called for the closure of women's prisons over a 10-year time period and their replacement with some small custodial units for serious and dangerous offenders

 For most women offenders, she argued for a larger network of support and supervision centres in the community.

 These would provide access to services to help women deal with addictions, mental illness, rape and domestic violence, trauma and debt, while also helping them to gain skills and take responsibility for their families.

R (Noone) v Secertary of State for Justice and HMP Drake Hall [2008] EWHC 207 (Admin)

An important sentencing case, with the judiciary expressing now familiar despair:

"The position at which I have arrived and which I will explain in detail in a moment is one of which I despair. It is simply unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law for it to be well nigh impossible to discern from statutory provisions what a sentence means in practice. That is the effect here. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as indeed under many statutes before it, the imposition of consecutive sentences for different offences was permissible. The power to impose consecutive sentences appears to derive from common law. It is re-enacted in section 154(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which provides that a sentence imposed by the Crown Court shall take effect from the beginning of the day on which it is imposed unless the court otherwise directs. The court is accordingly impliedly empowered to direct that an element of successive sentences shall be served consecutively. "

This case seeks to resolve the release point for short terms prisoners who are eligible for release on HDC. Home Office policy was ruled unlawful.