Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove

Long before Paul Boetang famously declared us to be a Law Enforcement Agency and set us on the path of enforcement and punishment, probation officers already had quite a degree of clout in terms of influencing sentencing and early release, together with initiating breach or recall. There was a high degree of discretion and judgement, but the powers were invariably used sparingly and carefully. But they were used and clients knew what the score was. It was this aspect of the work that basically divided us from our social work colleagues who were often not comfortable about it, although the training had been very similar and the qualification was identical.

I have previously discussed my views on custody and have stated that I have only ever recommended it once, as opposed to recognising incarceration as being inevitable. I have always felt there is a difference that is more than subtle, but more-recently qualified colleagues don't seem to feel the same way and do amazingly recommend custody quite frequently. If memory serves me correctly the latest sentencing statistics issued by the Ministry of Justice record the highest concordance rate for sentence recommendations as 89% - and for custody! I find this an incredible figure and worthy of some explanation surely?

Anyway, about the time I recommended custody. Admittedly it was some years ago, but I remember it well. It was a case of multiple sexual assaults on young boys by a man in his late 60's. By some mechanism this chap had oversight of a derelict industrial property being routinely broken into by young boys. On the pretext of trying to stop this he would detain them inside, put the fear of God into them and abuse them. As it happens several other men were doing the same thing. It was a guilty plea at Crown Court and I was politely advised by the mans barrister to consider a period of probation taking into account his age and health. He had previous convictions for Indecent Assault and some 10 years previously had been placed on probation. I was able to read the file.

The man duly attended at the office for his Social Enquiry Report, with his wife and appeared considerably out of breath, frequently using an inhaler and requesting water with which to take medication. I did not suggest that his wife attend, but decided to proceed with the interview in any event. On this occasion I felt discussing the offences first would be appropriate and his response was to deny committing any and indeed spent much time blaming the 'naughty children'. He stated that he had only pleaded guilty 'because the barrister told him to'.  As a result the interview was terminated and I explained I was not prepared to continue as I believed his plea to be equivocal and I intended to inform the judge. It should be self-evident that no work could be undertaken within the terms of a probation order if the client denied committing the offences. 

Several days later the barrister telephoned me and asked if I would kindly try again as I may have misunderstood his client. I suggested he come alone next time and this was agreed. At the second interview we had a similar bout of breathlessness and pill-taking but I succeeded in dragging out a sort of admission, albeit still with all the blame being put on the boys. He basically said they had lied. So what was I to do with this man? Any report suggesting probation again would be pushing at an open door. His family didn't believe he'd committed any serious sexual assaults, despite the victim statements.

The man himself attempted every form of minimisation and appeared a very poor candidate to face up to his offending. Other men had been involved, but never charged. What had he been doing over the last 10 years? This man, his family and all his friends were just expecting another probation order during which he could 'jog along' arguing the toss with his officer over what had and hadn't happened. He showed not one shred of remorse or concern for the victims. In my view this man had to go to jail even for a few weeks in order to mark the seriousness of the offences and send an unmistakable message to him, his family, his friends and the other perpetrators that were never charged. The judge duly obliged and he got eight weeks. I'm not aware he ever offended again.