Super prolific criminals - new data

At present more crime means less time - but there's an opportunity here to improve justice and cut crime at a low cost.

A while back I wrote a research note for the think tank Onward, which looked at super-prolific criminals - people with very large numbers of previous convictions.

Research published in 2019 by the Ministry of Justice (but rather buried on their website) highlighted that roughly half of all crimes are now being committed by 10% of offenders:

“Offenders considered prolific between 2000 and 2016 accounted for only 9% of the offending population but received just over half (52%) of all convictions and under a fifth (16%) of all cautions during their criminal pathway”

And within that group:

“The most prolific offenders (those with 50 or more previous cautions or convictions) accounted for 2% of the prolific offender population and 9% of all offences committed by prolific offenders which resulted in a caution or conviction.”

… which suggests that that 4% of all crimes are being caused by 0.2% of all criminals.

While these people are a huge problem for society, there is also an opportunity here - as well as being just, the option to take these people out of circulation with longer prison sentences creates an option to reduce crime at a relatively low cost.

However, that is not what the criminal justice system is currently delivering.

I decided to update the report by asking a bunch of parliamentary questions - but before I got to write up the results here the Telegraph had clocked the replies from the government and have put them on the front of today’s paper - which is great - this should be a massive issue.

NB all stats in this piece refer to England and Wales

Super prolific offenders spared jail

Since 2007 there have been over 50,000 occasions on which people have been spared jail despite having over 50 previous convictions, including 4,000 people who had over 100 previous convictions (PQ 1360). If we include cautions, there were 64,000 occasions on which people with 50+ convictions and cautions were spared jail.

There were 315,000 occasions where people were spared jail, despite over 25 previous convictions. If we include previous cautions as well, the total is even greater: 382,000.

These people are spread across the country, and it is easier to imagine the impact when we think about particular places. For example, there were 10,763 times people in Hampshire were spared jail despite 25+ previous convictions and cautions: 21,700 in Manchester, 6,000 in County Durham and so on (see annex).

There were nearly 39,000 occasions when people convicted of violent offences who had more than 10 previous offences were spared jail over the same period (PQ 1362).

There were nearly 10,000 people (9,688) convicted of violence against the person, and who had over 25 convictions who were given sentences that were not immediate custody. There were 532 such people last year (PQ 1357).

Looking at people who repeatedly commit the same crime, over the last three years we have seen people spared jail despite:

• 21 convictions for burglary 

• 7 convictions for carrying a knife

• 34 convictions for common assault 

• 7 convictions for sexual assault 

• 14 convictions for robbery 

… and similar for other offence types (PQ 1356).

In terms of the trend - having seen a welcome increase in jailing of prolific offenders until the middle of the last decade, the share of highly prolific offenders given an immediate custodial sentence on their next conviction has been dropping recently.

Of those with over 100 previous convictions it fell from 48% in 2020 to 38% in 2023. For those with 76-100 previous convictions it fell from 49% to 42% over the same period.

Many people will think it odd that the numbers below are nearly all below 50% for people with huge numbers of previous convictions…

…And odder still that people with 100 previous are not more likely to be jailed than those with 25-50 previous convictions (PQ 1359).

More crime less time

The strange phenomena of "more crime less time" continues for various offences. Those convicted of violence against the person, theft, drug offences, common assault and battery, knife possession and assaulting or resisting a constable got shorter prison sentences if they had more previous offences.

For burglary, offenders got similar sentences no matter how many previous they had while for robbery the profile was hump shaped - those with a middling number of previous offences got longer than those with none but those with large number of previous offences (more than 75 convictions) got shorter sentences than those with no previous (PQ 1358). There’s no obvious rational for this.

The layperson like me would expect all these lines to slope sharply upward, and for the courts to punish those who have committed many previous crimes more harshly. Not only does this not happen, but in many cases th

e opposite happens.

If you compare the sentence length between the periods 2014-2018 and 2019-2023 the average has gone up, though typically more for people who have fewer previous offences.

Those who are jailed

As well as looking at those who are not jailed, we can look through the data the other way, and look at the previous offences of those who are jailed, which is another illustration of the concentration of crime.

Last year someone was jailed who had had 47 previous community sentences (PQ 1348). Something similar is true most years - there are people racking up vast numbers of community sentences before finally being jailed. 

For every offence type other than drugs, the average number of previous convictions which those who were jailed have has increased compared to 2007. People jailed for burglary had 26 previous convictions on average. Those jailed for robbery typically had over 14 previous convictions, and those jailed for assault on a police officer had an average of over 19 convictions (PQ 1352).

The numbers involved are significant. In 2023 there were 2,320 people jailed for burglary who had over 50 previous convictions and cautions for any offence, and 1,951 people jailed for common assault who had more than 50 previous. 4,783 people jailed for common assault had more than 10 previous convictions and cautions (PQ 1351).

Many of these people are going round and round, with multiple community sentences, suspended sentences and very short prison sentneces. But so far the system has resisted attempts to get a grip.

Minimum sentencing: defeated so far in parliament and the courts

In 1997, Michael Howard attempted to introduce a statutory minimum sentence for prolific burglars, but this move was defeated in the Lords, and the Conservatives left office that year.

A more recent example is Section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, which came into force in July 2015, adults convicted for a second time or more of carrying a knife must receive a minimum six month prison sentence.

But to get it through Parliament (particularly the Lords) a clause was inserted saying this would happen unless there are “particular circumstances” which “would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.” But this loophole has been used much more than Parliament intended.

The share of repeat adult knife carriers not jailed went down after the legislation but more recently has gone back up, from just over 30% to 40%. And because more people are being convicted, the absolute number convicted for a second time but not jailed is higher than before the legislation.

Conclusion

Most people would generally expect people with large numbers of previous convictions to be jailed most of the time if they commit further serious offences - but most are not.

Most people would expect those who are jailed and have many previous convictions to get longer sentences than people with fewer, but in general they do not - in fact more often the reverse is true.

The cost of endlessly arresting and processing and putting people through the courts is huge. And successful clear up rate for most crimes is always low. In 2022/23 in England and Wales the proportion of crimes (excluding fraud and computer misuse) resulting in a charge and/or summons was 5.7% - not much above one in twenty. And the proven reoffending rate is very high.

So, from a technocratic point of view the policy solution is to jail the highly prolific offenders who commit such a large chunk of crime for longer. For this opportunity to be grasped realistically we will need to grow the number of prison places. But it will also require a rebalancing of attitudes in the judiciary.

Annex