Home » Criminal Justice System
Category Archives: Criminal Justice System
Let’s pretend to care*
As regular readers will now I often blog about violence, both institutional and interpersonal, often with a focus on girls and women. In my most recent entry focused on Violence Against Women and Girls [VAWG], I created a male character, Jimmy who I followed from birth to adulthood. This was fictional, but as I noted at the time, what I described is oh too familiar to many women and girls.
Usually, people don’t appear to care about the women and girls subjected to sexism, misogyny and violence of all kinds. You’ve only got to look at newspaper headlines and the commentary below to know that SHE is probably making it up, making mountains out of molehills, attention seeking, after all why would any man be interested in HER! It’s bound to be lies, you can’t say anything these days without someone taking offence, false allegations to blackmail some poor chap, ruining boys and men’s lives, no wonder they’re attracted to the likes of Andrew Tate (who despite some issues, apparently still manages to talk some sense, blah blah blah)! Note that this regular commentary comes from men and women alike…
Organisers and campaigns such as Fixed It, This Ends Now, #UseYourRedPen, Fix That |Headline and Hacked Off strive to rewrite misogynistic headlines, to argue again sexist advertisements, to complain about the portrayal of women in the media. Media, where women are simply appendages to men, or objectified as body parts to be gawped at, or their victimisation is less interesting than the men who harm them. These are worthy campaigns, well-meaning and designed to bring about positive change, but the deluge just keeps coming and coming If you don’t believe me, here’s a couple of recent examples: the world champion and Olympian Simone Biles is taken seriously ill, but is she central to the news report? No, she is described as a ‘NFL wife‘ as if her marital status mattered more than her identity. Another example, closer to home, Kingston council, in an equalities report wrote that electric bikes ‘‘may increase women’s access to cycling and physical activity by making it easier for women to meet their traditional domestic responsibilities, as well as stay looking “nice” on a bike’. Or what about the Northampton councillor who said that ‘some women should never have left the kitchen’. Half hearted apologies inevitably follow, no offence was meant, it’s been taken out of context, I will do much better, urging women to take pity on their plight. Nevertheless the constant flood of misogyny continues unabated.
This misogynistic nonsense runs throughout society unnoticed and unquestioned. Even when we pretend to take it seriously, for example, the government’s “commitment” to halve VAWG in a decade is vague and confused. As the Women’s Social and Political Union [WSPU] t made clear over a century ago, it is “deeds not words” that change the world. But it appears that many. in our society simply have no idea of the problems faced by girls and women, or if they do, they simply don’t care.
That is until very recently, when three teenage boys escaped custodial sentences despite convictions for the rape of two teenage girls. Suddenly, everyone has a view, the law is too lenient, the judge is out of touch, something must be done etc etc etc. On the surface, all of this interest is very laudable, but will anything change?
What message does this send to boys? They’re untouchable, their only mistake was in getting caught. And in getting caught, there is plenty of support to speak eloquently on the impact of their neurodiversities, their anxieties, their learning challenges, their friendship group. As the judge put it: these young boys ‘had low intelligence’, and a ‘limited understanding of consent’ adding that ‘peer pressure played a large part in what went on’. He praised the boys for their engagement with the CJS throughout the process, noting that ‘I think of you as very young and none of you have been in any big trouble before’. As @5teveh noted last week, the focus is on support, rehabilitation, an opportunity to reintegrate with society.
But what of the other children in the case, what message does this send to girls? They’re expendable, they should put up and shut up. No mention of their challenges, no recognition of what it took for those girls to report the violences unleashed upon them. No opportunities for support, other than that provided by woefully underfunded charities, no interest in their neurological development, their anxieties. No opportunities for reintegration, but another opportunity to let them know that they are what Simone de Beauvoir (1949) titled The Second Sex, their needs continually subjugated and secondary to those of men and boys.
We created and continue to create the conditions where violence against women and girls is normalised, part and parcel of British society. We might think we care deeply about the girls who were raped, but that care doesn’t extend to the 1. 9 million women who were the victims of rape or attempted rape, recorded in the Crime Survey for England and Wales [CSEW]. Neither does that care extend to the 739,000 women subjected to sexual abuse recorded in the same survey. It doesn’t even seem to extend to victims of femicide such as those recorded in the Femicide Census. Even when we pretend to care, like former minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, MP Jess Phillips, the language is all wrong, the victims in the case above are children, not as she described ‘young women‘. By describing them using adult terms, we automatically attribute greater responsibility to the daughters and not the sons. In doing so we show an understanding of childhood vulnerabilities for the boys, but not the girls.
If we really care, we have to consider what kind of society accepts that over 50% of its population are worth less?
*The kind of problems identified above are not unique to VAWG. Similar issues are apparent in relation to race, ethnicity and immigration but I need to leave that for another day.
Share this:
The demise of the punitive state – you can’t have your cake and eat it
The sentences passed down to three teenagers for serious sexual offences and the subsequent furore over the perceived leniency hit the headlines recently. I think I should add right now this blog is not intended to pass judgement, pardon the pun, on the sentencing, lenient or not, nor is it intended to convey my feelings on that particular case. We are after all only provided with information by the press, who quite frankly have a field day when they think there’s a story to be had. My take on the political machinations and other commentary is that it is premature and for the most part self-serving. There is a judicial process and that should have ben allowed to take place before everyone jumped on the bandwagon of indignation and finger pointing.
I think I probably digressed a little. The purpose of the blog is merely to point out that there are a number of issues within the criminal justice system that we as a society, have never managed to resolve. Politicians kick the criminal justice football around dependent on the fickleness of the public whilst at the same time trying to manage an administrative and financial burden. The prison estate costs money, punitive attitudes towards offending is costly when it leads to custodial sentences. Given the public finances, there is a sound argument to utilise non-custodial sentences as much as possible. There is an abundance of academic literature that points to the fact that prison does not work (include in that youth custody). There is an abundance of literature that suggests that criminalising young people severely diminishes their chances in life and leads to reoffending. So many criminologists will point to the futility of prisons and even advocate complete abolition. Given the recent prison over crowding crisis, it is little wonder that the Justice Secretary called for a reduction in custodial sentences. Nothing new there though, they do that these politicians from time to time, dependent on the crisis and the public mood. Whipped up by the media of course. The whole system is in chaos and that chaos impacts real people, defendants, offenders, victims and a myriad of other people, rarely considered. What of family, friends and those people involved in the cases in one way or another.
What is the purpose of the criminal justice system? If the purpose is justice, what is justice and can it really be achieved? Does justice consider the impact of the crime on the victim or on the offender or both? Should what happens to the offender really matter or matter more than the victim’s feelings? I wonder how many decisions are made, not on the basis of what is right, but on what is viewed as administratively convenient and affordable. How does the system satisfy the victim and the public and at the same time give offenders the best opportunity to turn their lives around? Why have prisons? Is the purpose punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, public protection or something else? To be honest, I don’t think we really know. If you are a victim of crime, then you may have a particular view in the aftermath of the crime. That view may or may not change over time. You might suggest it all depends on the crime, but then what crime is more important, more serious, more deserving of attention? We ask our judiciary, to make judgements about this, often with their hands tied by political motive and public opinion. Go one way, and you’ll have the abolitionists, anti-custodial mob lamenting the rise in the prison population, the punitive society and penal politics. Go the other way and the mob will be baying for your blood, life should mean life, not 12 years, hard labour, throw away the key, bring back capital punishment.
I don’t know the answer, but I don’t suppose that anyone will be opposing a custodial sentence for the teenage boys. No one will be brave enough to put their head above the parapet. There are too many interested parties ready to take a pot shot and public opinion, whatever that is, will be brought to bear. What was it John Stewart Mill said, ‘Beware the tyranny of the majority’. I know one thing; you can’t on the one hand be in the abolitionist camp and then on the other call for a review of the sentences meted out because you find the crime committed so appalling. I really don’t think you can have your cake and eat it.
Just for the record, given the nature of the offence, I really don’t think the key should ever be found.
Images
L-R HMP Wormwood Scrubs and a delightful cake
Share this:
Are we any closer to justice for Grenfell?
June 14 2026 will mark 9 years since the disaster of Grenfell Tower. This week the Metropolitan Police Service [MPS} announced that they are planning to ‘seek criminal charges against 77 companies and people‘. They are hopeful that the CPS will reach a decision in time for the 10th anniversary commemorations in 2027. This is the culmination of almost 9 years of MPS investigation, c. 11,400 witness statements, 56 interviews under caution, involving 100s of police staff and costing many millions of pounds. In addition, the Grenfell Inquiry (already archived) disclosed over 320,00 documents, received over 1,600 witness statements, and held more than 300 hearings, costing the nation many more millions of pounds. So how is it, that after all this work, all the posing and answering of questions, all the soul searching, discussion and debate, we still seem to be no further in finding justice for the 72 people who died, the many who were harmed, both mentally and physically, those bereaved and their families and friend? Additionally, everyone saw this disaster unfold before their very eyes, whether they were at the scene or vicariously though the media. We all instinctively know what was experienced that night was avoidable, a human made tragedy, a crime, Whilst there is no one law which addresses the scale of this disaster, nevertheless all who bear witness recognise the horror, the injustice and the need for accountability.
Stormzy spoke for many at the Brit Awards in 2018, identifying those responsible as criminals, pointing out that the Criminal Justice System knows very well what to do with them. Many other artists, such as Edwin (below), Chris Ofili, Big Zuu and Lowkey (ft. Kaia) to name but a few, have also utilised their medium to make space for those critical perspectives to be seen and heard. You would think for a country famed for the spread of its CJS throughout its empire and created on the basis of Cesare Becarria’s principles of celerity [swiftness], certainty and severity, that justice would be not only done, but seen to be done. After all millions of people, both home and abroad, witnessed the events of that horrific night and they are watching to see that justice is delivered.
But to return to the start of this blog entry, the MPS announcement has received mixed responses, some are cautiously optimistic that change may eventually come. But many more are frustrated at the time this has taken, the lack of urgency demonstrated by successive governments, the perceived likelihood of any successful prosecutions, the list goes on. Grenfell United capture much of this in their response to the MPS ‘announcement.
Grenfell United are right to be concerned about the resourcing of the courts. In 2025 the National Audit Office reported that the Crown Court had a outstanding caseload of 67,284. This further increased by December 2025 to 80,203, who knows where it stands now. Just think of all those lives suspended in limbo – victims/survivors, defendants, witnesses, the bereaved and their families/friends – left waiting, unable to move on, unable to reach closure, unable to assess whether justice has been achieved. An institution at breaking point.
So does this mean that we’re now living in a lawless society where anyone can commit crime, no matter how serious, and get away with it? Not really, it just means that the CJS has a different perspective on violence and harm, going for what, in Criminology, we would describe as “low hanging fruit”. Rather than make sense of the complexities contained within Grenfell tower, there are many other crimes to be solved, ones that make the data look impressive. If you don’t believe me have a look at the list below:
- Omega Mwaikambo
- Reis Morris
- Eamon Zada
- Alvin Thompson
- Koffi Kouakou
- Daniel Steventon
- Moses Ettienne
- Antonio Gouveia
- Derrick Peters
- Elaine Douglas
- Tommy Brooks
But what do these names have in common? It may surprise you to know that they have all been convicted of crimes in relation to Grenfell Tower. However, not one of these people were involved in the building, maintenance or oversight of the Tower, neither were they involved in the response on the night or its aftermath. Instead, these people have been convicted of different crimes, ranging from posting photos of the dead on social media, to false claims to residency in Grenfell allowing them to access financial support, to running a cannabis farm within the Tower.
Let’s consider just two of these, survivor Omega Mwaikambo who took photos of a dead victim and posted them to facebook. Within two days of the fire’s outbreak, he was sentenced to three months imprisonment. A man who had lost his home and his belonging, traumatised, is incarcerated. Another example, on 6 March 2018, not even a year after the disaster, courts were able to sentence another survivor, Eamon Zada, to a 12 week suspended prison sentence plus a community service order of 200 hours for growing cannabis.
What this list above tells us is that the CJS has an appetite for justice, it can act with celerity, certainty and severity, when it wants to. It can recognise harm and culpability, but again, only when it wants to. At this point we also need to recognise the repeated well-founded allegations that the CJS operates with partiality and discrimination both in terms of race and gender. Much as I hate to think of crime in terms of triviality/seriousness, recognising the harms inherent in all crime , it is hard to comprehend that for the CJS, the crimes detailed above are seemingly more important than the lives of the former residents of Grenfell Tower.
To answer the question posed in the title, I would say no. Until the CJS, institutions, government and indeed, society changes its view on what is harm, what is crime and who are the dangerous members of our society, we can expect this injustice to continue and unfortunately, be repeated again and again.
Share this:
A new model for policing: same old rhetoric, same old politics, same old reality
The Home Secretary’s White Paper ‘From Local to National: A New Model for Policing’ promises a complete revamp of policing in England and Wales. The Northamptonshire Police Federation website provides a fairly good synopsis of what the white paper contains. Although one does hope that they didn’t resort to the use of AI to produce it otherwise they may find themselves going the same way as the beleaguered former chief constable of the West Midlands Police.
When listening to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’ address to parliament regarding these reforms, I am reminded of a timeless quote from Robert Reiner regarding a former Home Secretary, Michael Howard’s address to parliament regarding another Home Office police reform White Paper back in the early 1990s. Michael Howard had stated that ‘the job of the police was to catch criminals’ and Robert Reiner, if I remember the quote correctly, stated that this statement was ‘breathtaking in its audacious simple mindedness’.
My bookshelf used to be full of Home Office White papers regarding police reform. If I went through every one of them, I would find almost all the suggestions, in one form or another, being put forward by this Home Secretary. It is like revisiting my former reality, change for change’s sake to detract from a poor performing government. Although no one could have guessed that Lord Mandelson would quickly hog the news and railroad the political landscape.
The police don’t do themselves any favours, you’ve only got to look at the headlines over the decades to know that. But of course, policing is not easy and sometimes hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons is inevitable. Rarely do the police hit the headlines for the right reasons, not because there aren’t plenty of right reasons, they simply aren’t newsworthy. However, every failure or perceived failure is ammunition for the ambitious politician and police reform is always a headline grabbing option and a distraction from other politically difficult and damning matters.
Let’s be clear, policing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Policing relies on the public; it relies on other institutions within the criminal justice system and outside of it and it relies on good governance. If the police are underfunded, then the service they deliver to the public is substandard and this then dents confidence in the police which in turn impacts public co-operation. If the other institutions within the criminal justice system are poorly funded such as the courts, then it doesn’t matter what the police do, cases do not get to court in a timely manner, the public withdraw their support and cases collapse. If prisons are overcrowded due to lack of funding and other issues, the courts can’t function correctly and the public lose confidence. As an aside remember the furore around the wrong prisoners being released and the number of prisoners wrongly released over a year. Funny how that seems to have disappeared from the news.
But the problems for policing and the rest of the judicial system pale into insignificance when compared to the issues with underfunding in areas of social services, welfare, the NHS, education and so much more. It is easy to point to policing when the key areas that impact the public the most are decimated. People don’t just commit crime because they are greedy, they don’t resort to violence for absolutely no reason. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that if you stop supporting young people, stop giving them hope for a future, stop keeping them engaged in meaningful activities when they are out of school then you will see crime and anti-social behaviour spiral out of control. And of course, its not just young people that feel the impact. Not so long ago there was a movement towards defunding the police. The ideas behind the movement were sound but I think perhaps a little naïve. But what was right was the idea of pouring more money into welfare and youth services. Crime is so much more than just policing, and the police have very little control over it, despite all the rhetoric.
As for policing, the white paper is just a rehash of the same old ideas and another way of wasting public money, not dissimilar to that in 2006 when another Home Secretary decided on police mergers which saw millions spent before the idea was shelved as too expensive. The police have adapted to issues identified by HMIC prior to the proposed mergers in 2006. Collaboration between forces works well, saves money and enables smaller forces to deal with large scale issues. There is no evidence anywhere that big is better. In fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it may not be.
If the police have retracted from neighbourhood policing it is because of underfunding. Austerity measures introduced in 2010/11 decimated police forces and their ability to deliver both neighbourhood and response policing. Neighbourhood policing became a luxury and coincidentally was also the area where instant savings could be made. Police Community Support Officers could be shed because unlike police officers, they can be made redundant. As for vetting, something that has grabbed the headlines, well what did you expect? Cut the budgets and those important but less immediate functions are also decimated. Add to this the political pressure to recruit 20,000 officers in a short space of time and you have a recipe for disaster.
I do wonder whether those chief officers that support the latest police reform agenda do so because they really understand policing and its history or because they are naïve or ambitious or perhaps a bit of both. To return to Robert Reiner, the reforms are quite simply ‘breathtaking in their audacious simple mindedness’ and the sooner they are shelved the better.
Share this:
What price justice?
It was reported in the news a couple of days ago that a super complaint has been lodged against the police in England and Wales in respect of their handling of sexual offence cases (The Guardian 15.12). Not long before that article was published, another gave us the news that prisoners have erroneously been released from prison (BBC 5.11). These stories sandwiched another, that concerning the abolition of trial by jury for offences attracting anything less than three years imprisonment (BBC 02.12). The rationale behind these proposals is the reduction of the appalling backlog of court cases awaiting trial.
These stories beg the very simple question what an earth is going on with the criminal justice system? To say it is in crises would be an understatement. The system is broken, and it is hard to see how it can be fixed but perhaps it isn’t difficult to see how it got into its present state.
The justice process is complex and above all else, for it to work effectively, it is costly and by its very nature, it is inefficient. And this has presented problems for successive governments over decades. The conundrum, how to deliver a cost effective, efficient criminal justice system. Put simply the mantra seems to have been how do you achieve cheap justice?
The various components of the criminal justice system are interdependent, when one part fails, it has a knock-on effect to the others. Each part of the criminal justice system has seen so called efficiency and economy drives over the decades, and the consequence has been a cut in service across the board.
How many times do we hear complaints that the police just don’t turn up when a crime is reported or that they are disinterested? But have a look at the sustained cuts in budgets, the burgeoning costs of policing as the social and technological worlds change around us and the constant reprioritising of policing efforts and, it is little wonder that there is no one to turn up or that the crime you are reporting just isn’t important enough. Or maybe the people that do the policing are simply just worn out, disenchanted and frustrated by a system that fails their efforts at every turn. They even conspire to fail themselves.
And what of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? Understaffed and under crude directions to enforce tests and codes to minimise court cases as best they can. With a little bit of research, you can find complaints against the CPS relating to the changing of the threshold in relation to sexual offences. To some extent CPS lawyers act as judge and jury before a defendant is even charged. Economic perhaps, effective, no. This has a knock-on effect to the police who then pre-empt that decision making. No point in sending a file to the CPS just to see it knocked back. The CPS must of course also have a mind to the backlog in the courts, no point sending a case there if it won’t be heard for months, if not years on end. And then the courts. The consistent closure of courts, both magistrates and crown over the years beggars belief. There is no local justice now, if you are defendant, witness or victim, you will be travelling miles to get to the allotted court. And if you do make it, the chance of your case being heard on that day is a lottery. As for legal aid, a pipe dream. Defendants in court trying to defend themselves and having to be assisted by the court clerk because quite frankly, they do not have a clue. But then who would? All of this presupposes the case gets to court in a timely fashion. You try remembering what happened 3 years ago when cross examined by a solicitor or barrister.
And prisons, well, overcrowded, understaffed and failing to provide anything but the basics, if that. Many a report suggests a crumbling prison estate and inhumane conditions within prisons. There has to be something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows prisoners to walk out the gates and then sees vast sums of money and resource poured into trying to find them. Efficient, or effective, not really. As for rehabilitation, don’t even bother thinking about it.
And what of you and I, the public? What faith do you have in the criminal justice system? Is it little wonder that victims will not report crimes, and if they do, they quickly lose interest in supporting a prosecution. If the police rely on the public to help them investigate cases, what hope have they got if the public have no faith in them or the rest of the system?
The problem with successive governments is that they have been too keen to cut costs without understanding or caring about the impact. And they are too quick to judge when things go wrong, pointing the finger anywhere but at themselves. They fail to see the system as a whole; they just seem to fail to see.
Justice costs money. Cutting cases that can go to trial by jury simply displays a lack of interest in justice or incompetence in governing or perhaps both. A government that fails to deliver justice for its citizens is failing in its fundamental duty as a government. The problem is, it’s not only this government that has failed us; the failures go a long way back and any attempt to fix the issues requires a fundamental shift in policy and a significant injection of public money that is just not available. Well, that’s what they will have us believe anyway.
Share this:
UK Justice v The Demonic and Others
The sanctity of a civilised court room demands rationality, but the laws of the distant and not so distant past in this jurisdiction are entrenched in the uncanny. Rules safeguarding the impartiality of the jury are grim “wards” against the spiritual chaos that once dictated verdicts. The infamous case of the Ouija Board jurors, aka R v Young[i] only thirty years ago is not merely a legal curiosity: it is a modern chilling echo of a centuries old struggle defining the judiciary’s absolute commitment to a secular process that refuses to share its authority with the spectral world. The ancient rule, now applied to Google and the smartphone, has always been simple: the court cannot tolerate a decision derived from an unvetted external source.
When Law Bowed To The Supernatural-Ancient Past?
For millennia, the outcome of a criminal trial in Britain was terrifyingly dependent on the supernatural, viewing the legal process as a mechanism for Divine Judgement[ii]. The state feared the power of the otherworldly more than it trusted human evidence.
Prior to the 13th century, the determination of guilt was not based on evidence but on the Judicium Dei [iii](Judgement of God). The accused’s fate lay not with the court but with the elements of the earth itself.
The Ordeal of Hot Iron: The accused would carry a piece of red-hot iron. If their subsequent wound was judged “unclean” after three days-a sign of God withholding his grace-the accused was condemned to death. The burden of proof was literally placed upon a miracle.
The Ordeal of Cold Water: This was an essential test in early witch-finding. If the bound accused floated, the pure water was thought to reject them as impure agents of the Devil, condemning them as guilty. The collapse of these ordeals after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 was the first, forced act of separation between the secular law and the spiritual realm, necessitating the creation of a human, rational jury[iv]
Legislating against the Demonic: The Witchcraft Acts
Even after the rise of the jury, the judiciary was consumed by the fear of the demonic. The Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft and dealing with evil and wicked Spirits 1604 (1 Jas.4 1. c. 12)[v] made contacting the demonic a capital felony, ensuring that the courtroom remained a battleground against perceived occult evil.
The Pendle Witch Trials (1612): This event is a spectral stain on UK legal history. Ten people were executed based on testimony that included spectral evidence, dreams, and confessions extracted under duress. The judges and juries legally accepted that the Devil and his agents had caused tangible harm. The failure to apply any rational evidential standards resulted in judicial murder.[vi]
Even the “rational” repeal in the Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5),[vii] which only criminalised pretending to use magic (fraud), haunted the system. The prosecution of medium Helen Duncan in 1944 under this very Act, for deceiving the public with her spiritualist services, demonstrated that the legal system was still actively policing the boundaries of the occult well into the modern era, fearful of supernatural deceit if not genuine power.
The Modern Séance: R v Young and the Unholy Verdict
The 1994 murder trial of Stephen Young[viii], accused of the double murder of Harry and Nicola Fuller, brought the full weight of this historical conflict back into the spotlight. The jury, isolated and burdened with the grim facts of the case, succumbed to an uncanny primal urge for absolute certainty.
The jury had retired to a sequestered hotel to deliberate the grim facts of the double murder.During a break in deliberations on the Friday night, four jurors initiated a makeshift séance in their hotel room. They used paper and a glass to fashion a crude Ouija board, placing their life-altering question to the “spirits” of the deceased victims, Harry and Nicola Fuller.
The glass, according to the jurors’ later testimony, moved and chillingly spelled out the words “STEPHEN YOUNG DONE IT.”
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Taylor CJ, ruled that the séance was a “material irregularity” because it took place outside the official deliberation room (in the hotel). This activity amounted to the reception of extrinsic, prejudicial, and wholly inadmissible evidence after the jury had been sworn. The verdict was quashed because a system based on proof cannot tolerate a decision derived from ‘the other side’
The core rule remains absolute: the verdict must be based only on the facts presented in court. The modern threat to this principle is not possession by a demon, but digital contamination, a risk the law now treats as functionally identical to the occult inquiry of 1994.
The Digital Contamination: R v Karakaya[ix]
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) was the formal legislative “ward” against the digital equivalent of the séance.
The New Medium: In the 2018 trial of Huseyin Karakaya, a juror used a mobile phone to research the defendant’s previous conviction. The smartphone became the unauthorised medium. The Legal Equivalence: The Juries Act 1974, s 20A (inserted by CJCA 2015)[x] makes it a criminal offence for a juror to intentionally research the case. In the eyes of the law, consulting Google for “defendant’s past” is legally equivalent to consulting a ghost for “who done it.” Both are dangerous acts of unauthorized external inquiry.
The Court of Appeal, in R v Karakaya quashed the conviction because introducing external, inadmissible evidence (like a prior conviction) created a real risk of prejudice, fundamentally undermining the fair trial principle raised in Young.
The lesson of the Ouija Board Jurors and the digital contamination in R v Karakaya is a chilling warning from the past: the moment the courtroom accepts an external, unverified source—be it a spirit or a search engine—the entire structure of rational justice collapses, bringing back the judicial catastrophe of the Pendle Trials. In 2025, the UK criminal justice system continues to fight the ghosts of superstition, ensuring the verdict is determined by the cold, impartial scrutiny of the facts.
[i] R v Young [1995] QB 324
[ii]R Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (Oxford University Press 1986). (https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/lhsemelh/materials/BartlettTrialByFireAndWater.pdf)
[iii] J G Bellamy, The Criminal Law of England 1066–1307: An Outline (Blackwell 1984) p42
[iv] Margaret H. Kerr, Richard D. Forsyth, Michael J. Plyley
The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Spring, 1992), pp. 573-595
[v] https://archives.blog.parliament.uk/2020/10/28/which-witchcraft-act-is-which/
[vi] https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Pendle-Witches/
[vii] Witchcraft Act 1735 (9 Geo. 2. c. 5) https://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statutes/eighteenth-century/1735-9-george-2-c-5-the-witchcraft-act/
[viii] R v Young [1995] QB 324
[ix] R v Karakaya[ 2020] EWCA Crim 204
[x]The Juries Act 1974, s 20A https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/20A
Share this:
What should criminologists talk about?
Recently, Criminology with Psychology graduate, now PhD student @zo3conneely wrote an entry focused on the rise of the Reform Party in British politics, which you can find here. In response, we received a comment via social media, asking what this entry had to do with Criminology. As we always say in Criminology, all questions are welcome and valid, after all, for many of us our mantra is ‘question everything’! From a lay perspective, the question indicates a particular understanding of academic disciplines, it presupposes that Criminology has a very narrow focus. In this view, criminologists should stay in their own lane and focus purely and simply on what is commonly understood as crime, i.e. actions which are against the law.
But hang on, doesn’t that fall under the purview of those who study or practice criminal law, something neither I not Zoe have undertaken? Alternatively, is it the business of those who work in the field of criminal justice, investigating and processing those believed to have been involved in law-breaking? Again, not something either Zoe or I have experience of. If my colleagues in law and criminal justice are the experts in actions against the law, where does Criminology fit in and why include a discussion on political parties such as Reform in a blog dedicated to the discipline?
However, the answer is more complex than the original question would indicate. The answer is also much longer than the question. Criminology has been described as a rendezvous or umbrella discipline, a space where everyone can gather to discuss crime from all perspectives. This includes disciplines as diverse as Drama, History, Literature, Philosophy, Psychology as well as many others, including Politics. It is therefore, expected that those who write for a Criminology blog will be drawn from a diverse range of academic backgrounds, for instance, whilst I have a BA and a PhD in Criminology, my MA is in the History of Medicine. For my fellow bloggers, their academic journeys will also be reflective of their curiosity and their developing academic knowledge and skills. It is therefore anticipated that each academic brings their own unique academic knowledge and personal experiences to the discussion table. It is this which enables Criminology to take a holistic approach, we don’t and should not seek consensus, but incorporate as many diverse views as is possible. Only then can we gain a real understanding of the phenomena we call crime, criminality, victimisation, and of course, the responses to such.
But what of crime itself? Do we all have a shared understanding of what ‘crime’ is? After all, much of the time we don’t see crime, only potentially some evidence that is has occurred. Furthermore, it depends very much on time and space. If we were living in 1960’s Britain, suicide, abortion and homosexuality would all feature heavily in our list of crimes. However, suicide was decriminalised in 1961, and abortion and homosexuality were partially decriminalised in 1967, with the latter further decriminalised in 2003. Likewise, if we were to look further afield we would crimes listed in statute books that we do not have here, for example adultery is a crime in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and was only repealed in Taiwan in 2020. Thus it is quickly evident that crime is not static, it can change drastically through time and place. We also have to recognise that crime can be decriminalised and recriminalised, for example the overturning of Roe vs Wade in the USA, removes the constitutional right for those pregnant to access abortions. If it taught us nothing else, the Covid-19 pandemic showed us rights can be granted and rights can be taken away, which means that criminologists need to keep a very careful eye on both the past and the present.
Whilst my colleagues in law have as their focus current legislation and how it is practised, and my colleagues in criminal justice seek to ensure that the law is enacted and used to the letter of that law, criminology is much freer. After all, we need to know who is making those laws and why. Whilst we can answer quite simply parliamentarians, this does not tell us very much. We also need to know who, for example only 14% of the current parliament belong to the Global Ethnic Majority, a smaller percentage than the population proportionately. Of these 90, 66 are drawn from the Labour Party, 15 Conservative and 5 Liberal Democrats. Likewise, at the 2024 election 40% of MPs are women, despite women making up over 50% of the UK’s population. Let’s not even get started on the disproportionate number of privately educated MPs, or the lack of visibility of disability, sexuality and so on…. Needless to say, the UK parliament does not look like the vast majority of the British public. Yet these are the people make our laws, and if we don’t understand that as a criminological issue, we will soon come unstuck.
We all need to understand what is happening once those laws have been passed, who is delivering justice for the UK? Whether we look at Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, we find a predominance of white men, only when we look at the magistracy we begin to find some real diversity. But don’t forget magistrates are unpaid, lay members of the judiciary, so it is perhaps unsurprising that women make up 57% of this particular field. So what about criminal justice practitioners? If we look at the police for England and Wales, over 91% are white, 65% are men. In relation to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service [HMPPS], over 54% are female, yet these are predominantly based within probation, not the prison service. So we begin to see that the people making, enacting and facilitation legislation and criminal justice do not look very much like the country’s population. Criminologically, this matters, how can we hope to tackle serious social harms like Violence Against Women and Girls [VAWG], homelessness, poverty etc when people have neither knowledge nor experience? Can we really talk achieve just outcomes if the people responsible do not look, sound like us, have very different, often privileged backgrounds which mean we have little shared experience?
Hopefully, this entry has gone a little way towards explaining why the discipline of Criminology (and of course, this blog) maintains an careful eye on politics, among a huge range of other interests. Don’t forget, Criminology is a positive discipline, focused on what could be, what ought to be, a fairer society for all of us.
Share this:
The Journey of a University of Northampton Criminology Graduate
On this Jubilee year, I ponder and reflect on my 3 years as a joint honours Criminology student, and where my life journey has taken me since
In 2012-2015, I did joint honours Criminology and Education studies, and later did the LLM in International Criminal Law and Security at from 2015-2017.
My journey as a Criminology Student alumni has lead me to all sorts of unique pathways.
Having a background in notetaking and student support at different universities, I worked for 6 1/2 years as a Co-op Member Pioneer (8th January 2018-10th August 2024), where, in the community I served, I supported the local police with crime related issues, and mediated between them and the public on crime issues that mattered to them and helped to support the police, as blogged about here ‘As a Member Pioneer Supporting the Police’ . Whilst this role was about connecting communities, supporting charities, causes and local people, I saw the opportunity to help the police and the community on crime related issues.
From December 2019-June 2020, I worked for 6 months in an addiction recovery unit. Here, I learned about addiction on a more deeper and personal level. I was one of 2 members of staff who were not addicts, and so the experience was eye-opening! The staff who had ‘come clean’ from their addictions would talk about their lives before becoming clean, and how they would resort to crime to fund their addictions. It was a vicious cycle for them as they were fighting traumatic battles which lead them down the route of addiction, and could not find their way out.
I was trained on taking phone calls, and spoke with so many devasted individuals who had lost their sons, daughters, husbands and wives to addiction, and were desperate to get them the help they needed. Seeing families torn apart by addiction, and meeting with new clients who had come in to get help and learning about their stories revealed deep sufferings and traumas, some of which were life-changing events, and harrowing cries for help.
I audited medication on a daily basis, worked with the Addiction specialist doctor to make sure all new clients had been seen to, and prepared folders for each client which the support team used in their care plans. I would also create certificates for all clients who had completed their time at the unit, and celebrated in their success.
When COVID struck, I was put on furlough, and later made redundant – such is life XD – Onto my next adventure!
Where am I now?
Fast forward to March 2021; after completing a lengthy job application and job interview, I landed myself a job in the Civil Service working for the Ministry of Justice! I do casework, work with the Judges on progressing cases, I clerked a few hearings previously too. Everyday is different, and every case I work on is different.
I process new claims and with the support of the Legal Officers, issue directions to the parties if any other information is required. I oversee the progress of cases and ensure all correspondence is up to date, all orders have been issued, and the case is ready to be heard.
Each day is different, and I love everything that I do working for the justice system.
Share this:
#UONCriminologyClub: What should we do with an Offender? with Dr Paula Bowles
You will have seen from recent blog entries (including those from @manosdaskalou and @kayleighwillis21 that as part of Criminology 25th year at UON celebrations, the Criminology Team have been engaging with lots of different audiences. The most surprising of these is the creation of the #UONCriminologyClub for a group of home educated children aged between 10-15. The idea was first mooted by @saffrongarside (who students of CRI1009 Imagining Crime will remember as a guest speaker this year) who is a home educator. From that, #UONCriminologyClub was born.
As you know from last week’s entry @manosdaskalou provided the introductions and started our “crime busters” journey into Criminology. I picked up the next session where we started to explore offender motivations and society’s response to their criminal behaviour. To do so, we needed someone with lived experience of both crime and punishment to help focus our attention. Enter Feathers McGraw!!!
At first the “crime busters” came out with all the myths: “master criminal” and “evil mastermind” were just two of the epithets applied to our offender. Both of which fit well into populist discourse around crime, but neither is particularly helpful for criminological study, But slowly and surely, they began to consider what he had done (or rather attempted to do) and why he might be motivated to do such things (attempted theft of a precious jewel). Discussion was fast flowing, lots of ideas, lots of questions, lots of respectful disagreement, as well as some consensus. If you don’t believe me, have a look at what Atticus and had to say!
We had another excellent criminology session this week, this time with Dr Paula Bowles. I think we all had a lot of fun, I personally could have enjoyed double or triple the session time. Dr Bowles was engaging, fun and unpretentious, making Criminology accessible to us whilst still covering a lot of interesting and complex subjects. We discussed so many different aspects of serious crime and moral and ethical questions about punishment and the treatment of criminals. During the session, we went into some very deep topics and managed to cover many big ideas. It was great that everyone was involved and had a lot to say. You might not necessarily guess from what I’ve said so far, how we got talking about Criminology in this way. It was all through the new Aardman animations film Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl and the cheeky little penguin or is it just a chicken? Feathers McGraw. Whether he is a chicken or a penguin, he gave us a lot to discuss such as whether his trial was fair or not since he can’t talk, if the zoo could really be counted as a prison and, if so was he allowed to be sent there without a trial? Deep ethical questions around an animation. Just like last time it was a fun and engaging lesson that made me want to learn more and more and I can’t wait for next time. (Atticus, 14)
What emerged was a nuanced and empathetic understanding of some key criminological debates and questions, albeit without the jargon so beloved of social scientists: nature vs. nurture, coercion and manipulation of the vulnerable, the importance of human rights, the role of the criminal justice system, the part played by the media, the impetus to punish to name but a few. Additionally, a deep philosophical question arose as to whether or not Aardman’s portrayal of Feathers’ confinement in a zoo, meant that as a society we treat animals as though they are criminals, or criminals as though they are animals. We are all still pondering this particular question…. After deciding as group that the most important thing was for Feathers to stop his deviant behaviour, discussions inevitably moved on to deciding how this could be achieved. At this point, I will hand over to our “crime busters”!
What to do with Feathers McGraw?
At first, I thought that maybe we should make prison a better place so that he would feel the need to escape less. It wouldn’t have to be something massive but just maybe some better furniture or more entertainment. Also maybe make the security better so that it would be harder to break out. If we imagine the zoo as the prison, animals usually stay in the zoo for their life so they must have done some very bad stuff to deserve a life sentence! Is it safe to have dangerous animals so close to humans? Feathers McGraw might get influenced by the other prisoners and instead of getting better he might get more criminal ideas. I believe there should be a purpose-built prison for the more dangerous criminals, so they are kept away from the humans and the non-violent criminals. in this case is Feathers considered a violent or non-violent criminal? Even though he hasn’t killed anyone, he has abused them, tried to harm them, hacked into Wallace’s computer, vandalised gardens through the Norbots, and stole the jewel. So, I think we should get a restraining order against Feathers McGraw to stop him from seeing Wallace and Gromit. I also think we should invest in therapy for Feathers to help him realise that he doesn’t need to own the jewel to enjoy it, what would he even do with it?! Maybe socializing could also help to maybe take his mind of doing criminal things. He always seems alone and sad. I’m not sure whether he will be able to change his ways or not but I think we should do the best we can to. (Paisley, 10)
I think in order to stop Feathers McGraw’s criminal behaviour, he should go to prison but while he is there, he should have some lessons on how to be good, how to make friends, how to become a successful businessman (or penguin!), how to travel around on public transport, what the law includes and what the punishments there are for breaking it etc. I also think it’s important to make the prisons hospitable so that he feels like they do care about him because otherwise it might fuel anger and make him want to steal more diamonds. At the same time though, it should not be too nice so that he’ll think that stealing is great, because if you don’t get caught, then you keep whatever you stole and if you do get caught then it doesn’t matter because you will end up staying in a luxury cell with silky soft blankets.
After he is released from prison, I would suggest he would be held under house arrest for 2-3 months. He will live with Wallace and Gromit and he will receive a weekly allowance of £200. With this money, he will spend:
£100 – Feathers will pay Wallace and Gromit rent each week,
£15-he will pay for his own clothes,
£5-phone calls,
£10-public transport,
£35-food,
£5-education,
£15-hygiene,
£15- socialising and misc.
During this time, Feathers could also be home educated in the subjects of Maths, English etc. He should have a schedule so he will learn how to manage his time effectively and eventually should be able to manage his timewithouta schedule. The reason for this is because when Feathers was in prison, he was told what to do every day and at what time he would do it. He now needs to learn how to make those decisions by himself. This would mean when his house arrest is finished, he can go out into the real world and live happy life without breaking the law or stealing. (Linus, 13)
I think that once Feathers McGraw has been captured any money that he has on him will be taken away as well as any disguises that he has and if he still has any belongings left they will be checked to see whether he can have them. After that he should go to a proper prison and not a Zoo, then stay there for 3 months. Once a week, while he is in prison a group of ten penguins will be brought in so that he can be socialised and learn manners and good behaviour from them. However they will be supervised to make sure that they don’t come up with plans to escape. After that he will live with a police officer for 3 years and not leave the house unless a responsible and trustworthy adult accompanies him until he becomes trustworthy himself. He will be taught at the police officers house by a tutor because if he went to school he might run away. Feathers McGraw will have a weekly allowance of £460 that is funded by the government as he won’t have any money. Any money that was taken away from him will be given back in this time. Any money left over will be put into his savings account or used for something else if the money couldn’t quite cover it.
In one week he will give
£60 for fish and food
£10 for travel
£50 for clothing but it will be checked to make sure that it isn’t a disguise.
£80 for the police officer that looking after him
£15 for necessities (tooth brush, tooth paste, face cloth etc…)
£70 for his tutor
£55 for education supplies
£20 will be put in a savings account for when he lives by himself again.
And £100 for some therapy
After 1 year if the police officer looking after him thinks that he’s trustworthy enough then he can get a job and use £40 pounds a week (if he earns manages to earn that much.) as he likes and the rest of it will be put into his savings account. Feathers McGraw will only be allowed to do certain jobs for example, He couldn’t be a police officer in case he steals something that he’s guarding, He also couldn’t be a prison guard in case he helped someone escape etc… If at any point he commits another crime he will lose his freedom and his job and will be confined to the house and garden. When he lives by himself again he will have to do community service for 1 month. (Liv, 11).
Feathers McGraw has committed many crimes, some of which include attempted theft, abuse towards Wallace and Gromit, and prison break.
Here are some ideas of things that we can do to stop him from reoffending:
Immediate action:
A restraining order is to be put in place so he can’t come within 50m of Wallace and Gromit, for their protection both physical and mental. Penguins live for up to 20 years so seeing as he is portrayed as being an adult, my guess is he is around 10 years old. His sentence should be limited to 2 years in prison. Whilst serving his sentence he should be given a laptop (with settings so that he can’t use it to hack) so he can write, watch videos, play games and learn stuff.
Longer term solutions:
When Feathers gets out he will be banned from seeing the gem in museums so there will be less chance of him stelling it. He also will be given some job options to help him get started in his career. His first job won’t be front facing so Wallace and Gromit won’t have to be worried and they will get to say no to any job Feathers tries to get. If he reoffends, he will be taken to court where his sentence will be a minimum of 5 years in prison.
Rehabilitation:
I think Feathers should be given rehabilitation in several different forms, some sneakier than others! One of these forms is probation: penguins which are trained probation officers who will speak to him and try to say that crime is not cool. To him they will look like normal penguins, he won’t know that they have had training. He also should be offered job experience so he can earn a prison currency which he can use to buy upgrades for his cell (for example a better bed, bigger tv, headphones, an mp3 player and songs for said mp3 player) to give him a chance to get a job in the future. (Quinn, 12)
The “crime busters” comments above came after reflecting on our session, their input demonstrates their serious and earnest attempt to resolve an extremely complex issue, which many of the greatest minds in Criminology have battled with for the last two centuries. They may seem very young to deal with a discipline often perceived as dark, but they show us an essential truth about Criminology, it is always hopeful, always focused on what could be, instead of tolerating what we have.
Share this:
Does compassion have a place in Criminology or is this a forgotten element in Justice?
In recent months, I’ve been thinking about the idea of compassion and its diminishing presence in societies. Let me start by saying this blog wasn’t prompted by any specific event, but rather by observing the increasing prevalence of hate speech in media and public discourse. More and more, we are seeing this troubling pattern manifesting across all levels of society – from world leaders mocking marginalised populations, citizens spreading hate speech online, media outlets amplifying divisive rhetoric in the name of balanced reporting, workplaces failing their employees on many grounds, public institutions are becoming more and more intolerant of the ‘other’ – extending into criminal justice systems where overcrowded prisons, harsh sentencing guidelines, limited rehabilitation programmes, and the stigmatisation of former offenders all continue to reflect this absence of compassion.
Against this backdrop of increasing hostility, the teachings of Pope Francis (1936 – 2025) offer a powerful counterpoint that resonates beyond religious boundaries. He consistently championed respect, dignity, and compassion towards all people. You don’t have to be religious to recognise the universal truth in his words: “A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.” This intersection of justice and mercy naturally leads us to examine criminology through that very compassionate lens, because the moment we strip compassion from our criminal justice systems, the consequences become counterproductive. By this, I mean rehabilitation becomes secondary to punishment, criminogenic factors become ignored, recidivism rates become affected as former offenders encounter insurmountable barriers to reintegration and so forth.
The question I want you to ponder over this sunny weekend is: What defines us when compassion vanishes from our interactions? When hatred becomes our default response? Personally, I believe compassionate approaches to criminology do not weaken justice – they strengthen it by addressing root causes while maintaining accountability. I won’t elaborate further here, but if you’re interested in exploring these concepts more deeply, consider enrolling in my new module launching this September on global perspectives of crime, where a comparative approach to understanding and responding to crime will also be explored.
Have a lovely sunny weekend!
Thoughts from the criminology team 
