Thursday 16 June 2011

Justice Affairs Committee 10

Thursday 7th June saw the Committee taking evidence from a further range of people, including John Thornhill Chairman of the Magistrates Association. I was particularly struck by this opening exchange:

Q556 Karl Turner: Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen. Very generally then, I wonder whether the Probation Service has changed over the last five or 10 years. It was initially established to provide a service to the magistrates’ court. Has that changed in any way?


John Thornhill: In terms of whether those services have changed, the changes are that there have been developments and improvements in those services. You refer in the document here to a reduction in custodial sentences over a particular period of time. I think that is partly due to the fact that a wider range of services have been provided for magistrates to impose community orders with attendant programmes. Also, the quality of reports and assistance that is now given in the courts has significantly developed over the years and it is now possible if we are lucky enough to have a probation officer in court-we are in Liverpool-to engage in a dialogue and debate with the probation officer, the defendant and defendant’s representative about what might be appropriate penalties, punishments or disposals that could be used in the courts. So, yes, we believe that the Probation Service has considerably improved in the last 10 years. It has changed its focus. It was social services at one time. It is no longer that. It is a deliverer of sentences and, overall, a very positive deliverer of sentences.

With the greatest respect to Mr Thornhill, I don't think this paints a fair representative picture. He refers to the quality of reports and assistance in court having been 'developed' over the years and being lucky enough to have a 'probation officer' in court. Well I think the trend in reports over the period has been one of steady decline, both in the quality of SDR's, the inexorable move towards inferior FDR's and the removal of Probation Officers and their replacement with less experienced and often unqualified Probation Services Officers. 

Later on he says:-

We talked about fast delivery reports. We welcome that. In my court, where we have probation in attendance, I can get a fast delivery report in one or two hours and deal with the offender. That is in the best interests of justice. But what about the court where the Probation Service is 30 or 40 miles away? What we need to do is look at how we can use the Probation Service effectively to get a fast delivery report, even if it means using modern technology via video links, so that the court can sentence expeditiously and in a proportionate way.

Of course there is a place for FDR's, but surely this was the time for the Chair of the Magistrates Association to flag up concern that NOMS have recently instructed Probation Trusts to make the FDR the standard pre-sentence report. Probation Officers are finding it increasingly difficult to justify to their managers the preparation of a full SDR, for which 7.5 hours is allowed, rather than an FDR, requiring only 2.5 hours maximum. There is growing evidence that officers who attempt to challenge the use of the cheaper and inferior report are being bullied and pressurised by managers. Unless this issue is brought up as a matter of urgency, SDR's will all but disappear and serious offences will be dealt with on the basis of a 'tick-box' FDR. 

5 comments:

  1. Jim,

    At the final session of the JSC Inquiry earlier in the week sitting alongside the Minister CB were 2 of Noms Snr Commissars..( the session was audio only-surely not to protect identities!)..this v point on concerns at 'tick box ' rpts was aired by the Committee.. trotted out was the refrain from the lofty detachment of Noms .. we aim to give practitioners & trusts greater discretion to determine the types of rpts courts need -contra PI 05/11!!.

    For me Jeremy Corbyn MP went straight to the point- In 5 yrs time will there be a PS? .. Minister.. abridged response .. " Offender Management ..of course"...

    Regards
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry jim I have said this before and nothing you have said has changed my mind. It's not the report that stops people offending but the order based on good probation practise. And here is something else i have wanted to say for a long time. As a pso with over twenty years experience the difference between a po and a pso at this moment in time is about seven thousand pounds and that's all qualified or not the standard of my work is as good as anybody elses in this organisation and better than some. If we were paid on results Iam quite sure that I along with other pso's would be far richer than many so called "qualified" in system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The purpose of a report is to provide sentencers with as complete a picture of the offender, their circumstances and the reasons for committing the offence as possible. FDR's can and never will be able to do that to the same degree as full SDR's. It's not just about trying to reduce reoffending - it's about getting the diagnosis right and hence the strategy.

    There's a limited role for FDR's of course, but what is being proposed is the almost complete removal of SDR's and that is a retrograde step. Clearly we are not going to agree on this, especially as SDR's are necessarily the remit of PO's, or should be.

    I take your point about the difference between PO and PSO and it has been aired on here a few times. It's basically the same argument as PCSO's, Associate Prosecutors, Legal Advisers etc etc. There are good, bad and indifferent colleagues at all levels in all organisations. I'm sure you will understand if I say I've met PO's and PSO's who have drawn their salaries under false pretences. Lets just leave it like that. Thanks for commenting though.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't think we are all that far apart because sentencers do require the complete picture of circumstances reasons and recommendation. That's where an oral report and timely intervention in the magistrates court works better than the pointless tick box of the FDR which seems to have been devised without asking sentencers what they require. Furthermore I believe that all Crown C ourt reports should return to the written full PSR basis which gave these points and should only be compiled by probation officers. You will be glad to hear that I do know my place as a PSO and believe that all oral reports at the magistrates court should be done by probation officers and not by my own grade as I obviously accept that qualifications and working for them do ultimately count. To do that
    though they would have to bring a few of the old school out of retirement because the current lot have not got the skills and ability because for the last ten years under Iam ashamed to say my political party they have been concentrating on locking up some of the most vulnerable people in our society .

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree. I don't think we are far apart at all.

    Thanks,

    Jim

    ReplyDelete