Impact case study database

4.1 Promotion of procedural justice theory to policymakers

For years Hough has promoted the concepts of trust in justice and legitimacy to the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, police forces and the College of Policing, encouraging them to assess their policies and practices against the criteria of public trust in justice. [Redacted] comments that Hough was regarded by the Home Office as [redacted] [ Sources to corroborate the impact:1]. One example, in 2016 Hough was specifically encouraged to contribute evidence to the Justice committee’s inquiry into the role of the magistracy, [redacted] saying [redacted] [ Sources:2a].

Government recognition that procedural justice ideas are relevant to criminal justice policy is evidenced by the following references to Hough’s research:

• the evidence review produced by the Justice Analytical Services unit of the Scottish Government What Works to Reduce Crime?: A Summary of the Evidence (2014) cited Hough’s research ( i,ii,iv) noting that Hough’s contribution had been to demonstrate how procedural justice theory had been tested in the UK, and to measure the extent of trust in justice across Europe. It comments that Hough’s finding that perceived legitimacy is more strongly correlated with willingness to comply with the law than certainty of punishment, “ suggests that formal methods of deterrence may not be quickest or the most economically viable method of securing compliance”. The evidence review was produced to support the Scottish Government’s strategic thinking on crime reduction policies [ Sources:3a].

• the report produced by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee Crime reduction policies: a co-ordinated approach? (2014) highlighted procedural justice as one of two specific areas which “ should have a greater bearing on approaches to reducing crime” as a result of receiving evidence from Hough and other academics. The report’s proposal for a justice reinvestment approach (diverting funds to alternatives to incarceration) referenced Hough’s finding that under austerity, the public prefer less costly procedural justice solutions to custodial sentences [ Sources:3b]. Hough gave both written and oral evidence to this inquiry, reminding it that in 2012 the NAO had commented that Hough’s research on procedural justice was “ interesting from a value for money perspective” and that the NAO recommended that the Justice Committee should “ watch carefully for further publications” from the Trust in Justice project ( ii) [ Sources:3c].

• The report produced by the Justice Committee in 2016 The role of the magistracy (to which Hough was encouraged to respond, see above) reiterates and attributes several points from Hough’s evidence (that the public were poorly informed about the magistracy and that magistrates are volunteers drawn from the community; that there is widespread dissatisfaction among magistrates with the level of training on sentencing guidelines; and that closure of local courts could undermine the public perception of legitimacy of magistrates) [ Sources:2b]. Recommendations that appear to have been informed by Hough’s evidence include those to increase diversity amongst recruits to the magistracy; to review and improve magistrates training; and with respect to court closures, to ensure that alternative venues are not too far out of the majority of the court users’ territory [ Sources:2c].

4.2 Adding the criterion “legitimacy” to HMIC’s inspection regime

Hough was instrumental in the Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) adding legitimacy to its annual inspections of police forces in England and Wales from November 2014. The new regime (named PEEL the Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy Assessment) was commended by the National Audit Office as an example of an inspection regime evolving to meet new demands [ Sources:4a]. HMIC advised that it had benefited from “ constructive assistance .. of..the College of Policing.. and senior academics” to design PEEL [ Sources:4b].

A recent text on impacts on policing refers to PEEL as “ arguably the most important..impact” of procedural justice theory in the UK, and confirms Hough’s key role thus “ The establishment of this novel regulatory framework (PEEL) built on a long period of engagement between HMIC and some of the key people listed above; most notably Mike Hough, who worked with HMIC on various projects from the late 1990s. Crucially, academics working on PJT in the UK were not simply writing reports and papers and waiting for them to circulate, but actively engaging with policy-makers and practitioners – taking a seat at the table, as it were, and actively engaging in policy development” (Bradford, 2020) [ Sources:4c].

4.3 Influencing the Sentencing Council policy towards lower level terrorism sentences

In October 2017, Hough suggested less harsh sentencing options for the least serious offences, in his response to the Sentencing Council’s Terrorism Guideline Consultation [ Sources:5a]. His proposal was specifically noted as “ worthy of consideration” by the Justice Committee [ Sources:5a]; and the Sentencing Council agreed with Hough that these less harsh options “ may better rehabilitate offenders” [ Sources:5b].

In March 2018, the Sentencing Council confirmed in its response to the consultation that it “responded to these comments by including high level community orders as an option within the Encouragement of Terrorism; Membership; Support; Funding; Failure to Disclose Information; and Collection guidelines” [ Sources:5b]. Comparing sentences awarded for the least serious terrorism offences before and after this change (March 2018) shows an observable shift from short custodial sentences towards community orders. In the year to end March 2018, 60 individuals were convicted for terrorism offences, two receiving sentences of less than one year, and four receiving non-custodial sentences. For the year ended March 2019, there were a similar number of convictions (56), and the corresponding figures were none receiving a sentence of less than one year, and eight receiving a non-custodial sentence [ Sources:5c].

4.4 The police Code of Ethics and Police Leadership

The College of Policing confirm that Hough’s research has been used to inform both the police Code of Ethics (2014) and the College’s leadership review (2015). It cites (i) and other Hough research in its “ sources of information used in developing the Code of Ethics” [ Sources:6a]. And the College’s evaluation of research supporting the leadership review confirms some specific contributions, that Hough’s research led to the inclusion of “fairness” and “respect” as policing principles in the Code; and provided insights into the contributory factors of chief officer misconduct, for the leadership review [ Sources:6b].

4.5 Evaluation of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) confirming its contribution to the increased adoption of evidence-based policing

Nine “What Works” centres created to improve the design and delivery of public services, collectively cover policy areas accounting for approximately £250 billion (GBP250,000,000,000) of public expenditure in England and Wales; but the College of Policing’s What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) is unique in having evaluation inbuilt from the outset . Two of the consortia who bid to undertake this evaluation specified Hough as their evaluator, recognising the pre-eminence and relevance of his expertise.

Hough’s three year evaluation (between 2014 and 2017) to assess the impact of the centre on key stakeholders and review the usage of research evidence found that the centre had led to significant increased adoption of evidence based policing and more positive attitudes to the concept in the police service. He also found a lack of knowledge in the service of the centre’s resources. [Redacted] confirmed that Hough’s findings [redacted] [ Sources:7].

Hough also urged the College to commit to maintaining the currency of the evidence base of the centre’s Crime Reduction toolkit. His evaluation prompted the College to commission further user testing of the toolkit, and influenced its approach to the development and maintenance of the toolkit (adopting an ethos of continuous testing and improvement), an approach which [redacted] confirmed [redacted].

[Redacted] confirms that Hough’s evaluation also informed the following College decisions:

[redacted] [ Sources:7].