The regulation of criminal justice: inspectorates, ombudsmen and inquiries

Regulating criminal justice: The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in the inspection of probation in England and Wales

“…For them to meet their core function they must therefore cultivate and maintain legitimate practices to garner 'cooperation, deference and compliance' from those they inspect Quinton, 2014: 1024). The legitimacy of independent oversight bodies such as inspectorates thus derives 'from the procedures they use to reach their decisions' (Rosanvallon and Goldhammer, 2011: 92) through winning the 'hearts and minds' of the executive and inspected service (Owers, 2010). Tyler's (1990) work on procedural justice theory suggests that people are more likely to comply with laws if they see the institutions that create and enforce them as legitimate.…”

“…In probation, the Ministry of Justice has adopted a similar ‘three lines of defence’ model which consists of inspection, internal quality assurance and contract management (HMI Probation, Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, 2018). This ‘redundancy model’ of accountability ensures that ‘effective regulation does not stand or fall on the performance of a single actor’ (Seddon, 2010: 263) and means that a multitude of actors are responsible for regulating criminal justice (Tomczak, 2021). Whilst this article deals with inspection it should be remembered that this is not the only way in which probation is regulated.…”

Electronic monitoring and monitoring probation: The case of Ireland

“…Second, based on the absolute size of the prison population in Ireland at any one time (c. 3600 persons in January 2018, Institute for Crime Policy Research, 2018), the existence of an Inspector of Prisons but not one for probation, which counts three times as many service users, is quizzical. A wider argument in support of introducing Irish probation oversight is that probation entails issues of proportionate punishment/ supervision, ensuring staff professionalism and agency conduct in accordance with due process (Owers, 2010). Judged in that vein, a domestic inspectorate would regularly check standards across these (Owers, 2010) where at present there are none.…”

“…A wider argument in support of introducing Irish probation oversight is that probation entails issues of proportionate punishment/ supervision, ensuring staff professionalism and agency conduct in accordance with due process (Owers, 2010). Judged in that vein, a domestic inspectorate would regularly check standards across these (Owers, 2010) where at present there are none. A compelling case that evidences each of these arguments is arguably already present in Ireland.…”

“…Other questions beyond voice, self-determination and reciprocity remain about probation values and accountability. First, given the current domestic approach to EM recounted above, how much have the traditional probation values been replaced by those of control, regulation and monitoring (Owers, 2010)? Second, how far is a change in probation values accounted for by the close funding and governance line between the Department of Justice and Equality and the Probation Service?…”