150 bail hostels built in secret
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:54AM BST 01/05/2008

Hundreds of bail hostels are being covertly set up in residential areas across England and Wales to house criminals released early from overcrowded jails.

Getty
Mr Hanson admitted that in some cases, Clearsprings had not consulted local people and authorities about the hostels.
About 150 hostels run by a private company under a government contract will open over the next month, despite there having been little or no consultation with local people.

The hostels, in major cities and market towns, will house offenders released before the end of their sentences and suspects awaiting trial.

Unlike state-run facilities, they will not be constantly staffed, leaving offenders unsupervised for much of the day.

Article continues advertisement
That led to warnings that the public was being put at risk unnecessarily.

The hostels will be run by Clearsprings, a property management firm based in Rayleigh, Essex. Sites for hostels include Bath, Rochester, Dudley, Durham and Stafford.

The hostels are rented homes and will house no more than four people. As they are in residential areas, they do not require planning permission – thus avoiding planning disputes with local residents.

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "It's wrong to house prisoners in residential areas simply because the Government failed to provide enough jail spaces, but doubly wrong that local people are never consulted.

"Placing offenders in housing where they receive almost no supervision or support is no way to provide effective rehabilitation and places the public at unnecessary risk."

The plan also sparked anger among local councils and probation officers, who claim they were not consulted by the company about the siting and opening of its new facilities.

Ertan Hurer, a councillor in Enfield, north London, said he was furious that his council had not been consulted about the 13 hostels being set up in the area. Residents would feel "absolute horror" about the plans, he said.

"Clearsprings has said that the people would be low-risk, there is no guarantee that they will not commit an offence.That is a serious problem that needs to be looked at."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "There must be proper planning processes for this sort of project and if there are not, that is unfair on local communities."

David Hanson, the prisons minister, defended the scheme, insisting that those housed in the hostels were a "safe risk" to the community and claiming that only people awaiting trial would be placed there.

"It's for people who have not been found guilty. The courts rule they are a safe risk to be put into the community while waiting trial."

However, the Clearsprings website made clear that some would be convicted criminals freed early from jail.

The company said: "The bail accommodation support services scheme will provide accommodation and support for offenders who are nearing the end of their sentence and are eligible to be released on Home Detention Curfew."

Under that scheme they are fitted with electronic tags.

Clearsprings said the scheme "excludes offenders with convictions for any sexual offence, cruelty to children or racially aggravated offences".

Mr Hanson admitted that in some cases, Clearsprings had not consulted local people and authorities about the hostels.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Clearsprings is under a contractual obligation to consult in areas where they open bail accommodation. Any reports that it has failed to do so will be investigated.

"Those in Clearsprings accommodation are innocent until proven guilty. Defendants who pose a risk will continue to be held on remand."

Channel 4 News reported that, only weeks ago, a senior government member indicated there could be as many as 800 beds in 350 hostels.

Adam Swellings, 19, was on bail when he and two other teenagers kicked Garry Newlove, 47, to death outside his home in Warrington last year.

Anthony Joseph stabbed Richard Whelan to death on a London bus in July 2005 only hours after leaving prison.

Anthony Rice, 40, a convicted sex attacker, murdered Naomi Bryant nine months after completing a sentence for attempted rape. He had absconded from a bail hostel.

Almost 90 prisoners were freed early every day in March, the highest number since the scheme began last summer.

If used properly Bail Hostels are very good.

No everyone in goal is a bad person(Check the OAP's not paying council tax, because its food or Council tax)

Lets assume, I get kicked out of my marital home, I end up technicaly homeless and have a row with the wife, the Police get called. The nick me for breach of the peace. I need Bail, Oh oh, I'm homeless, of to CraigInches I go.

So now I am a real criminal, A Profesional person locked up in Jail because the system failed me.

If they are keeping these hostels for 3 maybe 4 people, then yes, its a good idea. However if its a huge thing the size of a Cyrinians or YMCA place, then no thanks.

Why not build these places next to the cop shop/ Local Prison, not in housing estates.?

In answer to Lassen.

Because, outside of the TWO Wilson Labour gov't's, this current Brown gov't is THE worst we've ever had: they think nothing of finding any way they can of keeping those found guilty of a crime (regardless of the crime they committed) out of prison and in public circulation.

Whilst there's a lot to be said for rehabilitation (IN prison), current laws and sentencing simply ignore the well-being of the wider (non-criminal) society, who'd very much prefer that criminals be kept off the streets and under lock and key so they can't be tanning your house whilst you're on holiday or robbing you at knife-point in the street for your watch/wallet/car keys etc.

No other gov't has such a woeful record on not spending on prisons, and certainly not building new ones. It's a perennial favourite to bitch-n-moan about how our taxes are spent but, with the exception of The Guardianistas amongst us, the one topic that virtually everyone (regardless of political hue) agrees on is more/bigger prisons, tougher laws and longer custodial sentencing. Rehabilitation can come as a secondary priority. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Simple as.

Hear what you're saying about OAPs and the council tax mate, but if we begin to start being selective in the laws to which we chose to adhere, then we'd never get anything done.

______________________________________________

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."

Forgot.

Today's voting day!

Now the area/ward I live in (i.e. the local council) is LibDem - whereas the constituency (our MP) is so badly Labour that they could put an orangutan in a donkey-jacket up for election and as long as it wore a red/Labour rosette, they muppets round here would vote for it.

Well I feel like they're both going to get a deservedly good hiding in today's polls.

Just of to vote now.

______________________________________________

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."

"they could put an orangutan in a donkey-jacket up for election"

I thought that they often did! :{

Tommy,

My understanding of the Bail thing is its for people pre trial, so its innocent untill guilty.

Yes we should be selective who we lock up, after all every case is heard on its own merrits. Locking some one up in jail cos he has had an arguement and tempers are high are not the right thing to do. Lets face it, we could all end up in jail.

Lassen wrote:

"Tommy,

My understanding of the Bail thing is its for people pre trial, so its innocent untill guilty.

Yes we should be selective who we lock up, after all every case is heard on its own merrits. Locking some one up in jail cos he has had an arguement and tempers are high are not the right thing to do. Lets face it, we could all end up in jail."


I think you've missed my point mate: I'm a big fan of the rule of law - and part of that is the fact everyone (regardless of their alleged crime) is innocent until proven guilty. I'm in no way suggesting we change that (Lord knows the Barons had a deuce of a time getting King John to sign the Magna Carte - incorporating Habeas Corpus - at Runnymede) as it's a liberty too hard-won and come by.

Please, let's stick to what I wrote, instead of how you're misinterpreting it.

I never said that we should should be selective in whom we lock up: I said we can't be selective in those laws which we, as citizens, choose to observe/ignore or adhere to. If we don't, regardless of how mad we might think any given law is, we have to take responsibility and accept the consequences. Big Boys' Rules mate.

Let's take your point about 'locking someone up just coz they've had an argument'. Agreed, it's crazy, it doesn't work and it ends up with minor infractions resulting in criminal records.

But the police don't get the luxury - anymore - to use their discretion: ever since that colossal fuckwit David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, changed the law so that EVERYTHING became an arrestable offence, no questions asked, no quarter given. If you're annoyed at this (as any sane person should be), then get rid of this ridiculous, nanny, stealth-taxing, tinker-with-everything-and-change-nothing gov't under we suffer today at the next general election.



______________________________________________

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."