Government justice plans in spotlight

Earlier in the House of Commons there were gasps of horror when an MP raised the case of a paedophile let out on day release by a secure mental health unit, who went on to try and rape a ten year old boy.

You can read the full story here. It concerned one Shaun Tudor who was being held at St Andrew’s Healthcare in Notts.

The unit is the UK’s largest not-for-profit mental healthcare charity providing secure services and care for 70 men with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders.

The MP asking about it was Sherwood’s Mark Spencer who used the case to question the Government’s plans to encourage more charities and private sector companies to start projects to rehabilitate criminals and then pay them according to the number who cease offending.

Crispin Blunt responded: “That case referred to a patient who was detained under the Mental Heath Act – when unescorted leave required both the approval of the secretary of state with a risk assessment and with a recommendation from a responsible clinician.

“There are no proposals for companies to be making these kinds of decisions.”

None the less the case does raise questions about giving the private sector and charities any sort of supervisory role over criminals – particularly given the background of companies like G4S.

Blunt blunted

I’ve a feeling that Justice Minister Crispin Blunt is in a bit of a spin about proposals to offer anonymity to rape suspects.

The coalition have already moved their position on this one – from a policy which offered people charged with rape anonymity to one which offered people arrested for rape anonymity, but only until they are charged.

Labour women are making a feminist stand on the issue, but there is actually little support for the coalition’s current position from its own benches – many don’t see why rape suspects should get protection that other suspects are denied.

While people these days might argue that MPs don’t have real life experience, there are certainly enough lawyers in the House to make an informed judgement on the issue.

So if the coalition want to move anonymity forward it sounds like they are going to have to further alter their own position.

That might mean possibly dropping it altogether, surely too embarrassing to consider, or maybe going totally in the other direction and giving anonymity to people arrested for any offence, but only until they are charged.

Either way the original idea looks like a dud and the situation will need spinning to avoid it looking like a defeat.