High Sheriff sets sights on youth reoffending rates
A new county high sheriff says she wants to support work to stop young people reoffending "because we can't just keep building more prisons".
Gulshan Kayembe, from Felixstowe, has been made the High Sheriff of Suffolk for 2025/26.
The role is a 12-month independent, non-political royal appointment.
Ms Kayembe, who has a background in education, said: "When you look at who is in prison, especially men, significant numbers have been excluded from school - so what is it that we don't do to address the underlying needs?"
The title of High Sheriff dates back to Saxon times, with the holder responsible for law and order and collecting taxes.
Nowadays, there are 55 High Sheriffs across England and Wales who support the judiciary, crime prevention agencies, emergency services and the voluntary sector.
Ms Kayembe was formally sworn in during a ceremony at Ipswich Crown Court on 27 March, taking over the role from Yvonne Gilchrist-Mason OBE.
Her work is supported by the Suffolk Community Foundation, which hosts the annual High Sheriff Awards.
Latest government data shows that almost six out of 10 offenders jailed for less than a year go on to break the law again.
Speaking to BBC Radio Suffolk after her first month in post, Ms Kayembe said: "I have decades of experience in education which tells me there are groups of pupils who are more vulnerable when it comes to getting into bad company.
"There are organisations in Suffolk that do wonderful work, and I'm interested to visit them, and bring that community voice together with the services.
"So more decisions can be taken by being informed with what is being done on the ground by communities themselves, so we can focus more of our work and collaborate more effectively."
Hannah Bloom, chief executive of Suffolk Community Foundation, said: "Gulshan is well known to the foundation as a previous trustee and also in her role as chair of Ipswich Community Media.
"We look forward to working with her to help promote her theme of 'Equity through Prevention', which will focus on working collaboratively to prevent children and young people offending or leaving education."
Follow Suffolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
'Tough on crime' policies behind prison crisis, says review
Charities honoured at High Sheriff awards
Suffolk High Sheriff Facebook
Suffolk Community Foundation
GK Learning
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
Police Search for ‘Nighthawkers' Who Desecrated Archaeological Site
Police are investigating illegal metal detecting activity at a historic archaeological site in Devon, the BBC suspects dug multiple holes at the Lydford Castle, a 13th-century site, before using their own metal detectors to hunt for artifacts in an act known as 'nighthawking.' Lydford Castle is a sprawling compound which featured Saxon town defenses, a Norman earthwork castle, and a use-built prison which later became infamous for its grievous suspects were "stealing from all of us and damaging something which is often irreplaceable,' said Mark Harrison, head of heritage crime for Historic England. Harrison warned that while most metal detectorists respectfully follow Historic England's rules, those who shirk them threaten the country's archaeological history."Significant progress has been made tackling heritage crime, but there is more that can be done," Harrison noted. "With the support of government, the hard work of the police, and the help of the community and volunteers, we can help ensure that our heritage is protected and preserved for future generations."Police in Devon and Cornwall are still searching for the suspected nighthawkers. "We were notified following a report of a number of holes recently being dug at the English Heritage site Lydford Castle and Saxon Town without permission,' the authorities said in a statement. "At this time, there are no viable lines of enquiry; however if further evidence comes to light, the incident can be re-visited." Police Search for 'Nighthawkers' Who Desecrated Archaeological Site first appeared on Men's Journal on May 27, 2025
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
Germany targets teens allegedly plotting attacks on migrants
German federal prosecutors launched a crackdown on a suspected far-right extremist cell accused of planning violent attacks, authorities said on Wednesday. In a series of early morning raids, police took into custody five male suspects between the ages of 14 and 18 in the states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg and Hesse, the Federal Prosecutor General's office said. The group they are accused of being a part of calls itself the Last Wave of Defence and is alleged to have plotted attacks targeting refugees and political opponents. "The members of this organization see themselves as the last resort for the defence of the 'German nation,'" the office said in a statement "Their goal is to bring about a collapse of the democratic system in the Federal Republic of Germany through acts of violence, primarily against migrants and political opponents." Four of those detained are accused of membership in a terrorist organization and one of supporting such an organization. The Federal Prosecutor's Office also lists attempted murder, arson and property damage among the charges. Police also began searching 13 properties in the states of Saxony and Thuringia in an operation related to three further German nationals who have already been remanded in custody, prosecutors said. Three of the detained are said to have been ringleaders of the group, which is believed to have been founded around April 2024. In February, investigators in Saxony foiled a suspected planned attack by the group on an asylum shelter in the town of Senftenberg, in the state of Brandenburg near Berlin, thanks to a tip-off by a journalist. That same month police searched a flat and another property in the Saxon city of Meissen, recovering explosives, brass knuckles, one-handed knives, ammunition, alarm guns and airsoft guns, according to prosecutors in Dresden. A 21-year-old German man, who was detained that day, is suspected of having procured the weapons for an attack on the asylum facility in Senftenberg. According to the public prosecutor's office, the explosives were industrially manufactured pyrotechnics. German Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig said it was "particularly shocking" that the five people detained on Wednesday had all been minors at the time the group was founded, stressing the need for policies to counteract the radicalization of young people.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion - Injunction junction: Trump should lose the birthright citizenship case
The birthright citizenship case argued before the Supreme Court last week was not about birthright citizenship at all, even if the issue was the elephant in the room. The right to birthright citizenship is a no-brainer. It finds its basis in the text of the 14th Amendment, a statute of Congress, four Supreme Court cases and more than a century of executive interpretation. The government, in its oral argument, all but conceded that the named plaintiffs had the right to interim relief — staying President Trump's blatantly unconstitutional executive order pending trial on the merits. However, it argued that the nationwide preliminary injunction ordered by three district judges, left undisturbed on appeal to their respective circuit courts, should benefit only the named plaintiffs, not plaintiffs similarly situated throughout the country. The conservative justices appeared to ignore the venerable legal maxim, arguably guaranteed by the First Amendment, that 'where there is a right, there is a remedy.' At oral argument, Justice Clarence Thomas attempted to argue that nationwide injunctions have a shallow history. He might have thought it was a recent innovation, the creation of some 'woke' judge in Massachusetts, not embedded in our legal history and tradition. He said the nation had 'survived until the 1960s' without the use of nationwide injunctions. While some legal scholars have challenged that assertion, pointing to examples as far back as 1913, Thomas appeared skeptical about the widespread use of the injunctions at that time. Legal devices to make judgments that bind absentee plaintiffs are not new to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The power to bind absentees finds its origins in the English 'bill of peace' dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries. This procedural device allowed for a single court case to settle disputes affecting numerous people, even if they didn't directly participate in the lawsuit. The bill of peace is said to be the ancestor of today's class action in the U.S. The issue of 'universal' (nationwide) injunctions has been with us since before the first Trump administration and has been used against both parties. One district court judge has been able to block a massive government program across the country — such as President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration rule (blocked by a Texas trial judge), Trump's first-term 'travel ban' (blocked by a Washington trial judge), President Joe Biden's student loan debt relief program (blocked by a Texas trial judge) or Trump's second-term orders to school districts to stop diversity, equity and inclusion policies (blocked nationwide by four different trial judges). Trump's position boils down to simply this: The courts are not a co-equal branch of government. They have no authority to nullify a president's policies with a nationwide injunction. The courts have no explicit constitutional power to invalidate an act of Congress either. But Chief Justice John Marshall seized that power when he wrote in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that it is 'emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.' And judges have been doing it ever since. It is true that some district courts may have at times gone off the reservation with nationwide injunctions that look like executive orders. There could be good reasons to question their discretion. One might think that the Trump administration could have waited for a case that tees up the issue in a principled way — where there are differing interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes, constitutional issues that haven't been resolved in previous cases or splits in the federal circuits — instances when it might be reasonable to limit a lower court's order just to the parties. There are good reasons to question whether trial courts should have such sweeping powers, and if so, whether only in a limited set of cases. But the Trump administration weirdly chose to resolve this issue as part of the birthright citizenship 'debate,' where his executive order is so blatantly in contravention of the Constitution, settled law and over a century of executive interpretation. Trump would impose an invented rule that would cause chaos. If successful, he may deny thousands (including many infants) of a workable procedure to obtain urgently needed medical care under Medicaid and otherwise vindicate their constitutional rights. Is a class action a reasonable alternative to bind absentees to a judgment? Justice Brett Kavanaugh was intrigued with this idea. Apparently in his world, it is acceptable to bog plaintiffs down in such procedural niceties. Trump's solicitor general suggested that the requirements for nationwide class certification are 'rigorous,' including sufficient numerosity of class members, typicality of claims, common questions of law and fact, and conflicts of interest between the named plaintiffs and class members. This is a dead giveaway that the government would oppose class certification when it comes to birthright citizenship. The government would certainly seek class discovery, which might unfairly reveal the identities of those it would strip of citizenship. The inescapable truth is that class actions take time, and time is something that many of those adversely affected by the executive order don't have. If ever there was a case for nationwide injunctions, this is it. Trump's executive order is unconstitutional on its face. The plaintiffs have made out all the criteria set by the Supreme Court for a preliminary injunction in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts in 2008. There is an overwhelming likelihood of success on the merits. There would be irreparable harm to the plaintiffs absent an injunction — infants could be deported or denied social services like Medicaid available only to citizens. The balance of equities tips in plaintiffs' favor since there is no harm to the government if a preliminary injunction issues, which merely preserves for the time being a status quo that has existed since 1868. The injunction is in the public interest — not much of an issue here. A Pew Research poll reports that overall, 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's executive order. The plaintiffs presented an extraordinary case that merits an extraordinary remedy. Trump should lose the case. James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
