Loading... Please wait...

Mobile phone use can seriously damage your liberty

PrisonBy Andrew Neilson

Yesterday the Crime and Security Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons and buried deep within it, with almost Sir Humphreyeqsue reliability, is concealed clause 41. The debate didn’t really touch upon the issue other than to say that prisoners shouldn’t be allowed access to mobile phones and this issue is beside the point. The new provision will punish prisoners caught with a mobile phone by making possession of a mobile phone a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in prison.

Thanks to the economic crisis, the Ministry of Justice is currently trying to cut £1.3 billion from its budget by 2012 and may find itself facing further squeezes to spending after a general election. Given quite a bit of these savings will have to come from the prisons budget, a measure that could extend long-term sentences by two years and increase the prison population by thousands is far from helpful. Every year a prisoner spends in jail costs the taxpayer at least £41,000 and if you throw in the cost of the new jails the government is going to have to build to accommodate the increasing prison population, this seemingly innocuous clause may cost the government a million pounds for each of its 74 words.

This new law is not a ban on mobile phones for prisoners. The government already has this; it is done through prison internal rules, the prison service orders. There is also already a ban on prison officers bringing mobile phones into prisons. This new law is redundant; prison officers already have the power to confiscate mobile phones and prevent their use.

The government may say that criminalising mobile phone use will serve as a deterrent, yet this argument is unconvincing. The average long-term prisoner who has a mobile phone is desperate. They are responding to being locked in their cell for up to 23 hours per day with nothing to do and no one to communicate with. Spending years separated from their families, it is unlikely that the threat of adding yet more years to their sentence will trump the simple human need for immediate contact with loved ones. 

While mobile phone use is associated with the problem of drugs in prison, offences relating to drug dealing and possession already cover this issue without adding further legislation.  Ultimately, most prisoners are not on their phone running their criminal empires; they are calling their families and while preventing mobile phone use in prison may be a worthwhile objective, criminalising people for a five minute chat with their children is not.

The Howard League for Penal Reform believes that the government would be better engaged in attempting to stop mobile phones entering prisons in the first place, rather than laying down further criminalising legislation. This misguided clause will simply serve to place yet more tension on a prison system that is already facing unsustainable pressure, as the justice select committee reported on only last week. You would think after more than a decade of legislating without regard for the effect on prison numbers, ministers would be wary of making the situation any worse.  Sadly, you would be wrong.

Share


Posted on Jan 19, 2010 at 11:07am


7 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
I see that they can bother themselves with something not needed but not bother themselves with something they do need, ie, prisoners human rights to vote.

The HRA has already been used when a prisoner had his phone confiscated and destroyed. It should have been placed in his stored property.

If prisoners do not get the vote before the next general election, it could lead to up to 63,000 claims for compensation totalling £60-120M. How much for riot torn prison if they are denied justice any longer.

Labour, get your head out of your rear end!
John Hirst @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
I wonder if it would be technically feasible to work with mobile phone providers to establish a "no call zone", either through identification of the call location (which I, perhaps naively, thought happened automatically using the trangulation technique) and blocking if it zeroes in on a point within the prison grounds), or by establishing a local transmitter which would be automatically "locked onto" by phones within the prison (by default I understand that phones always lock onto the strongest signal), and could be blocked or monitored as considered appropriate and legal.
Jobless Dave @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
Hi Hannah

its because what they need to do will be unpopulor with the Daily mail .


Danny
ricki lake @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
Danny you've actually highlighted one of the most important issues here - as Andrew mentions in the article, the issue of how they get into prisons in the first place isn't being addressed, nor was it touched on in the debate yesterday. Unfortunately it's easier to make the argument based on isolated case studies than it is to tackle the issue head on.
Hannah McFaull @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
Hi Phillip

Or the gaurds complain about there lack of commision lol.

Danny
ricki lake @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
Hi Ricki

well said.

Whats the betting Prisoners sue under the Human Rights Act if there mobiles are taken fom them?

Phillip Wells @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago
hi Labourlist

I heard some of the debate yesterday , though it was dominated by the dna database (mainly) , I think the other thing we should look at is mental illness, Many in prison have one or more mental illness, and locking up for 23 hours a day will only increase the problems ,They need proper rehabilatation and education, But it seems chasing headlines is still the number one proirty.

danny
ricki lake @ 32 weeks and 2 days ago