Pick of the Week 51

Over the last few years I've been disillusioned to the point of dismay. Then I replaced dismay with utter disbelief, which became outrage, then depression, which moved on to severe despair. I have learned to self medicate with various over-the-counter preparations including beer, wine & spirits. In any given 24-hour period I can now access ALL of the above emotions, in any order & without warning.

*****
I see today David Gauke is making much of the MoJ recruiting and exceeding the 2500 prison officers they said they would have by the end of the year. I guess the prison crisis has been resolved then!! He talks about finally being able to keep our prisons safe and as a consequence so too our streets. He talks about how all these new prison officers can finally start delivering the much needed rehabilitation (there's that word again) that prisoners need to turn away from a life of crime. I can't share his enthusiasm. Apart from all the prison officers being brand spanking new out of the box and many not going to hang about for too long once they see the reality, how can there be any realistic expectation of rehabilitation in someone's life when they're being released homeless, without the fundamental prerequisites needed to even claim benefits, and a barren landscape where support agencies used to be? It's not a crisis in our prisons Mr Gauke, the crisis is with society, and it's your government that's created it. You've just took to much away, and pulled the ladder up on far too many. This period of governance Mr Gauke will be remembered as one of the most shameful in modern history.

*****
So I left NPS a couple of years ago and now working for local authority and there is something I'm still not used to... so you go up a spine point (which already takes me half way up the band which means it only takes a couple of years to reach the top) and then ON TOP of that we get a pay rise. So badly treated in probation for so long re pay that this just feels so unreal to me. Perhaps in probation we just got used to it and learned not to make a fuss... seems so wrong now.

*****
Apart from the issues for staff and the disruption to their lives spoke about above, I really fail to see how OMiC will enhance the services that are on offer to offenders. Indeed I feel the removal of staff from the community into the custodial estate can only reduce the amount of services and support available in the community. I can't help but think all is not as it seems. There's a bigger picture somewhere, and I'm missing it. I'm reminded of the term "rehabilitation officer" mentioned awhile ago on here. Would the failure to recruit and retain prison officers be a variable with this? You can argue the case for less prison officers if you can say they're backed up by qualified professionals skilled in rehabilitation services. 

I'm struck also as another level of detachment seems to be being introduced. Caseloads will not only be passed back and forth between NPS and CRCs, but also now between custody based probation and services based in the community. If someone's sentenced to five years, how many 'supervisors" will have managed their case before they reach sentence expiry? And I personally find the idea of the prison governor 'line managing' probation staff very disturbing. I'd be very careful of what I discussed with probation knowing that the prison governor is actually the boss. Such an arrangement must only damage trust and impact negatively on any relationship building between PO and client. But perhaps if a case is going to be passed on so many times, then there's no reason to think about the relationship anymore. OMiC puts probation services further into the prison service model and it's concepts of what "rehabilitation" means, and that's not good for anyone.

*****
We need more probation behind bars. All the various attempts over the years to engage prison officers in rehabilitative work have had mixed outcomes. Some prison officers take to it, others are indifferent and some are hostile to the whole notion of helping prisoners to lead law-abiding lives. I don't see why Napo is being so negative. It seems to me that it's a multi-disciplinary model under the leadership of an SPO. What better way to get probation embedded in prison culture. As for staff having different employers, that's been the case in youth justice teams for a couple of decades and it's been operationally effective.

*****
I agree and also find the line management by the Prison Governor a worrying development. I've worked in a mixed Probation and Prison Offender Supervisor team and agree that is a model that can work well... until all the prison staff are taken off to line the route! I am concerned though at the loss of the SPO in name, now Head of Offender Management or somesuch, and the prison management hierarchy taking over. I would have liked to go back into a prison team at some stage but now am not so sure.

*****
So basically if you want to be a prison officer apply for an OMiC probation officer role. SPO’s managed by prison governors. Probably eventually replaced by prison senior officers. Avoid, avoid, avoid.

*****
Fundamentally there is a natural need for Probation expertise within Prison establishments. It is a shame that the environment is such that people are wary, understandably given political disregard for the profession.

*****
I agree that fundamentally there is a natural need for Probation expertise within Prison establishments. But if this is to be controlled and dictated by prison governance then there will be very limited capacity for “probation expertise” to do anything other than prop up the prison service.

*****
That is my sentiments exactly! I wonder if anyone has given much thought to how OMiC might impact on their relationship with their union? Prison Officers are barred from taking industrial action, and if the governors your line manager? Will those that get put behind the wall have to surrender their right to take action for the period of their secondment?  Just a thought.

*****
The SPO/Managers know they are stooges. They’ve read the small print already and do not care. NPS are good at recruiting people like this into its upper ranks.

*****
The OMiC model is fundamentally flawed due to the very fact that prisoners often move numerous times between prisons, either to achieve their sentence plan, security moves or simply to free up bedspaces. London prisoners in particular move numerous times, from the original holding prison, out to a prison in Kent, then back to a London prison for their "resettlement" (aka a keyworker asking them a load of questions and incorrectly recording the answer in a BCS Part 2). The model, or any commentator including NAPO here, do not address how consistency can be achieved when the "prison offender manager"(whether NPS PO or prison officer) changes so many times, with a final transfer to the community PO some months before release. I've seen countless cases where community transfers are badly handled because the transferring officer simply disappears as soon as they know the other area is seeing the person; SFO's remind us that transfer itself is a risk factor when not properly handled; and yet here we have a model that has transfers built into its very core.

*****
Rory Stewart was questioned by the justice committee this week about the number of people being released from prison homeless. His response was that it was the duty of prisons and probation to advise and signpost, but ultimately responsibility for housing lay with local councils. I guess that's just a statement of fact. Yet in the next remark by the justice committee it was revealed that many local councils in the UK have adopted a policy where anyone who gets a custodial sentence is deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless, and as such they had no obligation to those being released from custody. That position is surely only going to increase the number of rough sleepers.

*****
It was another coalition (i.e. Tory) cleansing policy alongside the 'hostile illegal immigrant' policy, namely to use the term "anti-social behaviour" as a blunt instrument for "managing our communities". Convictions for drugs, violence or other offences deemed to be 'anti-social' were used as reasons not to offer housing to people. I've sat in too many meetings where local authority housing officials simply refused to accept any responsibility to house people - usually whipping out a PNC printout & citing their history of convictions as the basis for refusal. Clearly there was collusion between the local authorities and the police, otherwise how were they getting PNC records?

Make them homeless because of their offending history, cite "intentionally homeless" as the basis - *well, they committed the offence so its their fault* - then hound them on the streets using by-laws and jail them under ASBO or equivalent anti-social legislation.

*****
It's not just government policy or that of local council's but the problem of people being released homeless from prison is also contributed to by probation itself. I ended up homeless upon release from prison because my OM refused point blank to let me move to another CRC area despite the fact that area had agreed to the transfer and I had guaranteed suitable accommodation in that area. There was absolutely no justification for the refusal as my crime was non violent, I had zero special conditions on my licence and no restrictions on where I could live. So I spent 3 months homeless in appalling conditions simply because this OM was determined to be as unpleasant and as unhelpful as possible.

*****
Graylings PR team pulled a blinder by issuing a carefully worded press release that fooled many into believing that Grayling had come up with the idea of the PI himself. Nothing could be further from the truth. The PI is the legacy of the Probation Chiefs Association with the assistance of the unions. It also got £50k startup from the MoJ that they matched with their own funds not from Grayling personally in the same way that staff associations have received funding. Had it not been nobbled by Graylings PR department we may well have the benefit of a properly functioning professional body that would have done much to safeguard the profession. 

I know for a fact that Graylings supporters clap their hands every time the PI gets a bashing on here and by bashing the only association for ex chiefs and others in positions of influence and power to rally around the Probation profession has been left high and dry and bereft of another avenue of support. It takes a bit more thought to get past the taint of Grayling at its inception and look at its potential. Saying something, that is run on a shoestring by well meaning people, is a dreadful organisation is your opinion and you are entitled to it but actively campaigning against other voices that largely agree that TR was a disaster seems like campaigning against and demonising allies who are doing their bit in their own way. Individually you’d probably find much in common with those currently involved with the institute however you choose to make them the villains.

*****
I watched Rory Steward give evidence at the Justice Committee last night. He is a cool customer but I thought his face belied that coolness. He appeared to me to know everything that's wrong and what needs to happen to put things right, but I really got the impression he was caught between a rock and a hard place. Too many demands on CRCs to conform to any expectation of a minimum level of practice and standard of delivery and they'll either demand a fortune or pick up sticks and walk away. Without some level of considerable improvement in delivery of services by CRCs the inspection reports and failings are just going to go from very bad to much much worse. I'm just making a point. Not expressing any sympathy for Rory. 

He did say that there needs to be improvement and an expected level of good and acceptable level of delivery from CRCs, a baseline for an acceptable standard, so who will decide that? I think what he needs to do as a matter of urgency is impose a minimum expectation on time spent face to face with clients, and stipulate how often that should occur. In truth, I don't think it would hurt the unions cause to make the same call. After all it's just a call to allow probation staff to do their work properly, and it's sure to cause the private companies huge headaches with their inadequate models of delivery. The way things are and the direction of travel means just demanding competent delivery is a protest in itself. And just for my own understanding, is there a reason why the Probation Institute, the Centre of excellence, have never been called to give their opinion to the state of play or respond to the publication of the inspectors report?

*****
What a load of tosh. As a court CDO I can tell you Courts do not up tarriff and highlights how far from the coalface the Centre are. It is a feeble attempt to try and slow down the rise in the prison population and will have the opposite effect. Don't know about you colleagues however I am sick and tired of having to deliver whatever political whim the present gov wants to roll out.

*****
We have been here before. Before the 2003 criminal justice act, the suspended sentence had fallen into disuse. That happened because they were too popular with the courts and led to breaches and imprisonment. From a slow start – less then 500 in 2005 – the growth has been exponential. I doubt whether it's got anything to do with the development of a 'punitive culture' as that culture seen ingrained in the system, The suspended sentences was known as the sword of Damocles. We go round in circles.

*****
I watched parliament tv and Justice Select Committee and my view was that the government will try to Polish the Probation turd they have created aka Transforming Rehabilitation revolution. I lost count of how many times Dame Glenys reiterated that the system was flawed in her view. The Prison Inspector more shockingly asserted that Prison Governors had given up on rehabilitation and were prioritising safety with the resources they had. Of course the government representative waved an academic book (I hate academic references being abused, remember Matinsen and Nothing Works) to evidence the need for change, the difficulties in transition and no new big changes which would be upsetting for staff morale! Meaning the government is to try and make TR work, rather than admit it's all been a terrible mistake.

*****
If there is an issue with SSOs being imposed inappropriately then the problem is not of Probation's making, the Courts are not and never have been bound by a report proposal. The fault, certainly in the Magistrates Court, would be with the Clerk as legal advisor. I find it difficult to believe that there are many, if any "illegal" SSOs imposed at Crown. The letter does though raise a good question about Probation and Courts and whether we should return to the position of never recommending custodial sentences. The problem though is that we were criticised for that as well on the basis of being naive or giving people, facing inevitable imprisonment, false hope.

*****
From a post the other day. "For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable." And now the suspended sentence is taken off the card. I fear that once you start limiting the options available, you begin to limit the possibilities of finding appropriate avenues that lead away from offending. I think it's also a sign of how probation services are being morphed into a more punitive arm of the CJS. What ever happened to professional judgement?

*****
Crown Courts began to use more SSSOs instead of Probation Orders as a way of enabling a community order with more teeth for higher tariff offenders without being criticised for handing out a soft option. The replacement of Probation Orders with Community Orders just confused sentencers and they opted for what they understood and where they felt they retained some control - hence lots of SSSOs and demise of COs.

*****
We need our politicians to have the courage and intelligence to recognise that what we need is effective community sentences and not 'tough' ones. Tough is not getting us anywhere and never has. I notice the Sun is at it again today. Offenders having a 'treat' putting on a theatre show working alongside an Opera company. So the Opera company employee are working whilst the prisoner are having a 'treat'. Dumb is really in the ascendancy.

*****
Good point. Effective is the key word and language that needs to be used. A lot has been said about the use of language that surrounds the Windrush scandal this week. Creating a 'hostile' immigration policy is not the same as creating an effective one. When policy is based on being tough, hard, hostile it is very rarely effective and can have very serious unforeseen consequences. The Tories use such language to assist the implementation of many of their policies such as welfare cuts. It divides people. It's nasty politics.

*****
Ms Corby is clearly a good friend of the MoJ: "In May 2013, the Secretary of State announced his decision to split the probation service by 31st March, 2014 into the new National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC). Since this announcement, the LPT board has taken the view that it is our responsibility to implement the wishes of the Secretary of State to the best of our ability".

*****
Aggrieved by debate about Suspended Sentence Orders (SSO). A SSO is a custodial sentence, suspended. This means, according to sentencing guidelines, that the custody threshold has been crossed but not necessarily inevitable. The previous belief in Community Sentences was that there was a robust community option for the Courts' to consider. The community option was more onerous than the SSO according to guidance. As a former Probation Officer I used to articulate this concept in post sentence reports to the Courts'. In other words, if minded to Community Sentence Order then here are reasoned options and if custodial more onerous community sentence option versus less onerous SSO. Ultimately the Courts' decide but they valued Probation assessment and sentencing proposals. I guess there have been a few changes since I last wrote a pre sentence report for a Court to consider?

*****
The Parole Board followed their usual procedures, the secretary of state did not object and did not include hearsay evidence into the dossier and therefore it was unsurprising that there was no judicial review launched by the secretary of state. But other alleged victims, backed by a vociferous media sought a review. The High Court responded to the public clamour with that handy expedient known as 'exceptional' and told the Parole Board that it should have examined all the hearsay evidence relating to those allegations that were not part of the original indictment. This is not something that is normally part of the parole process and not something the secretary of state normally expects from the Parole Board. The high court performed legal gymnastics, because of the notoriety of the case and the need to pacify the public and the media. The adage that hard case make bad law applies. There was nothing irrational about the original parole decision. But in its wisdom the High Court has decided that a hearsay test that did not previously apply must be applied in the future. How to do this in practice whilst ensuring fairness is not something that has been explained by the judges.

*****
The crux of the matter is this for me; "Of course, as the High Court judgement pointed out, it would be surprising as a matter of common sense if, out of all the accusations made against Mr Worboys, the only true ones were the ones of which he was convicted. However, if reliance is to be placed on other offences, they need to be established by proper processes and procedures, and it is important that those procedures and processes should be adhered to (as the panel clearly tried to do)."

At the same time as the Parole Board were considering Warboys case, there was a number of rape cases being dismissed for non disclosure of critical evidence, and even scientific evidence was being found to have been corrupted. If those aspects are being brought into question what threshold should hearsay be measured by?

*****
Lets face it Worboys should be released. Basically they cocked it up originally. They should of heard all the cases if they had supporting evidence and a reasonable prospect of conviction (most didn't). However they decided on the (unlawful) Indefinite sentence. A because it sounded good B due to political pressure ERGO they didn't do a proper job and used an unlawful sentence. None of which is Worboys fault. If they Parole Board think he isn't a risk he's done his sentence and should be released. He can't be retried as that's both unfair and unethical. Morals of story, do it PROPERLY in the first place. If you disagree you just believe in the revenge system which is nothing to do with due process. If you don't think he deserves due process then neither do you. PS I daresay a condition he shouldn't be a taxi driver might be a good idea.

*****
His sentence requires it to be evidenced he is safe and his risks reduced, ie his propensity to offend. We have to assume his penis remains intact and he still likes women. It’s not enough that he only began admitting his offending 2 years ago and then completed a mandatory programme for sex offenders to prove he’s “changed”. The probation officers and prison psychologist were right to oppose his release on the basis he needed more time and intervention. The Parole Board was wrong to grant release because IPP sentences are no longer popular. I have no interest in the jargon from this jumped up QC as legal reps will change their tune with every client; I can imagine how far the truth was stretched in Worboys defence.

*****
It's odd that Capita haven't made an appearance in the Windrush scandal. They have after all the contract to find and remove immigrants deemed to be illegally in the country. They also have contracts with HMRC Job Centres so will have made decisions on peoples right to work or rights to claim benefits. Maybe they've made decisions on one contract knowing it will also create an outcome for another contract?

*****
It's always the potential unintended consequences that need to be considered before any change to penal policy is implemented. I think of governors being instructed to dumb down criteria for tagging. It may free up prison space, but it leaves a greater number of problematic prisoners, those that have no address to be tagged too, which in turn leads to a greater proportion of prisoners being released homeless when they reach their release date.

*****
The bottom line is that judges and magistrates should not be telling Probation what sentences to recommended. It is only because probation management is so weak that “the Council and Probation service have cooked up a plan to stop suspended sentences being recommended in Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs)”. This meddling in sentencing recommendations should be avoided and the Sentencing Council should instead be feeding back to probation in cases where Suspended Sentences are being incorrectly/illegally recommended. Unless the law is changed Probation Officers in Court should continue to recommend Suspended Sentences in appropriate cases.

Also, the only “noises coming from the Ministry of Justice” are about increasing electronic tagging and far “promising”. There is no plan to improve probation support, or access to housing, employment, etc. The prisons may well reduce inmate numbers, but what will be the impact on the community services Ill-resourced to adapt. Methinks, Rob Allen is talking out of his rear end.

*****
Another time, another place - the role of probation in the courts was regarded as pivotal. It was an informed & challenging role which maintained a necessary 'tension' that helped to keep sentencing decisions 'honest', i.e. no collusion over target-driven or politically directed outcomes. Sentencers had an experienced, qualified probation presence to refer to in open court, in chambers or at liaison meetings. Reports were skilfully written professional documents. The independent voice of the probation perspective was regarded with respect by sentencers & solicitors/barristers; it provided an important foil to the combative arguments of defence & prosecution.

Lazy, ignorant & politically compliant probation management collaborated with NOMS to delete this role, thereby removing the proactive gatekeeper role which held sharp-end influence (& thus some control) over the core work of the Probation Service. Probation is now just another puppet organisation which jerks around at the behest of a politically expedient outstretched executive arm.

*****
Do not take this out on PSO's in court (or any others for that matter ) who have been forced to complete reports against their better judgement because management have been far too "lazy ignorant and politically compliant "and collaborated with NOMs. Just on another note a great many experienced PSO's/case managers have a lot more than JUST GCSE's in fact we've got a lot more about us than a lot of the PO's that have qualified in recent years and as things are going in future years! TR is a sad sorry state of affairs.

*****
There has always been a hardcore of “great experienced PSO’s” but I think it’s fair to say the majority do not have the qualification and experience of qualified PO’s. It is a fact that PSR’s are now mostly FDR’s. FDR’s are completed by PSO’s. PSO’s do not require GCSE’s. It is indeed a mess.

*****
Likewise and my point in question is that many many moons ago the PO training was of a much better quality, it has now been watered down. I work with a great many PO's who have GCSE's coupled with a degree and are still completely useless as they have no life skills or experience and cannot function in their role without following a "rule book" to the very letter as they are incapable of using their own professional judgement - it's not about the need of GCSE's it's a need to get the correct staff into the correct roles back to the good old days when there was a complete difference between PO's and PSO's.

*****
The training has gradually depreciated and the quality of training is currently at its lowest and is shortest in length. It is still heads and shoulders above PSO training. Your initial and recent comments suggests you’re a PSO and you believe you’re heads and shoulders above “completely useless” PO’s. This may be the case in your office but I doubt anyone would agree generally. In my experience most PSO’s with these views are not very competent overall and fail to realise length of service does not put them above newly qualified PO’s, who usually come with degrees and enthusiasm, and upon qualification have relevant experience. In contrast, PSO's have historically been poorly trained and are currently being recruited without qualifications or experience. I'd suggest thinking about this when not bitching, gossipping and harping on about the “good old days” and brexit!

*****
And you sound just like a group of Court PSO’s in my office. Very good at taking Court results and telling everyone how long they’ve worked there, but not much else. Being in the same job for 20 years is not something I’d be boasting about. With managers constantly on our backs it’s a shame we have so much division amongst staff.

*****
The point about pay scales, bands and increments is well made. I left a few years ago after being qualified as a PO for a decade or more and still was not past the mid point of my scale. Whereas those that had started earlier and whose experience was not re markedly greater were at the top and several thousand pounds per year better off. Cumulatively that adds up to tens of thousands as the years tick by. Experience matters I would assert. Having a single increment delayed beyond its due date is a further injustice.

*****
Keep at them. I am NOT a union, although once upon a time I was a member. Due to little help I decided to plug away on my own. I too have questioned about the pay point, predictably no answer. Also started a grievance over pay protection. As the NPS/SSCL will not or cannot provide me with assurances that they will calculate my pay protection 12 months back at the point of transfer to a lower grade. Also will not tell me how they will calculate my future earnings to get a sum. Have already tried to start a grievance over the new AP Rota but at the time was told as it did not affect me it could not go ahead. When it is introduced to our AP then I will be resubmitting. Working 5 weekends out of 7 is not on. As for OCS providing night cover another joke with no sign of anyone being employed by them other than the NPS night worker who had to move over to them or leave.

*****
Have you forgotten that probation officers already work in prisons! A small minority and always forgotten by our community counterparts Only now are they bothered because they might have to stop drinking tea and actually work with those offenders who need our help and assistance! The only moan I hear is they can't have their phone! Prisoners self harming and contemplating suicide need the understanding of us! Not running scared! We recall people all the time back to these places but most wouldn't work in there themselves. Hypocrites!

*****
Haha. We all know prisons are the elephants graveyard for probation officers - but not any more! It’s more like you will now need to do some work rather than sitting in you OMU office dead to the world. With OMiC you will be doing the work and no more passing the buck - Community PO’s no longer required! In addition, see how long before you’re required by your governor-whipped SPO to double-up as prison officers and unlock doors!

*****
“We recall people all the time back to these places but most wouldn't work in their themselves. Hypocrites!” What a dumb statement, luckily you won’t need to use your brain much as an OMiC PO come prison officer. I tell sick people to go to hospital and send my rubbish to the dump, I wouldn’t want to work there either.

*****
It's easy to cite NPS drugs as being at the root of all evils in the prison system and being a main contributor to the rise of deaths in custody. They play a part undoubtedly, but they're also being used as an excuse to mask many other failings. Access to healthcare, and access to the correct medication is in my opinion a serious issue that needs urgent attention. Apart from not being able to access healthcare facilities when needed, many drugs that are prescribed in the community are not being allowed in prisons. The assumption is that drugs that are used to control pain, or drugs that are used to treat many mental health issues have the potential to be misused in the prison environment, and so are simply not prescribed. Given the high number of those people in prison that have mental health problems, it's hardly surprising that some will take their own lives if they are denied the medication necessary to control their conditions. Unfortunately, I think prison health care is going to become much worse, and so too the consequences of inadequate provision will grow.

*****
I think OMiC will see probation staff walking the landings, escorting prisoners from education and visits, and absorbing loads of paperwork normally done by prison staff (actually under HMPPS and seconded to the custodial estate you become prison staff).
Whilst I think your point of view is a noble one, be careful what you wish for.

*****
There are PCCs that have been pretty outspoken on crime and justice issues in their regions. I think of Vera Baird who seems to have taken a very active role since she took office. There are others that I feel have achieved their position without having any real interest in crime and justice. The success of putting 'oversight' of justice issues in the hands of PPCs is really dependent on who the PPC is. Some I feel will make the call, not because they want 'oversight' but because its a way to download funding to local councils. I wonder too how local mayors would react if PPCs were responsible in total for the 'oversight' local crime and justice issues. 

*****
Our cultures are too different and we wouldn’t be ‘probation’ any more. We’d be more subservient to the police than we are already. The police ‘offender managers’ would further poach our work until PO’s no longer requires. ARMS would be the new OASys. Supervision would become an interrogation. And probation would become more racist than it already is. That’s just for starters and without even mentioning most PCC’s have an interest in revenue!

*****
With automatic release at the halfway mark, and the need to reduce the prison population seeing a push to release everyone possible on tag, there is nothing to be gained by the state or the individual in imposing a short prison sentence. In fact, the cost and resources taken up by imposing a short custodial sentence by far outweigh any benefit. There may have been benefits to imposing short custodials if TR did what it said on tin when it was being sold, and a wrap around system after release with help and support being made available. That ship has long sailed, leaving short sentences pretty pointless, if not counter productive. Yet I find it quite ironic that the private sector was recruited on the basis of finding ways of reducing reoffending, (so the story goes), and now any changes to sentencing policy has also to consider how to maintain the profits of the privateers. Whether it's suspended sentences, community orders or short custodials that's under consideration for change, the policy makers have to be very mindful of keeping the numbers being channelled into CRCs at a level where the privateers will not just up sticks and walk away. I don't think it's right, but sentencing policy at the low end is being informed by private companies with vested interests.

*****
They’re making it up as they go. To tell probation officers not to recommend Suspended Sentences in cases where they are legitimately available is illegal in itself. I have seen the ‘guidance’ from Sonia Crozier who states because Suspended Sentence have been recommended in cases where the custody threshold has not been crossed, “consequently PSRs should not propose a Suspended Sentence Order as a sentence even when the Courts indicate that a custody threshold had been crossed”. She is clearly nothing more than a government lackey or stooge allowing this government to blame the prison crisis on probation officers recommendations.

*****
In olden times, when PSRs could be lengthy documents prepared after one or two interviews containing carefully constructed arguments, I used to enjoy having the availability of deferred or suspended sentence options as part of the probation toolkit. In certain cases they could be most efficacious.

A SSO for a first time serious offence over the custody threshold left the Sword of Damocles hanging. It didn't involve the confusion of secondary elements of punitive or rehabilitative intervention, just "your one & only chance; another tiny slip & you're gone".

Or maybe 6 months' deferment where there was the very real prospect of a turnaround in someone's life, e.g. a confirmed bed at a residential rehab with monthly reports to the judge. Or perhaps to facilitate a validated, documented job opportunity - again with the offer of interim updates.

I had one case who finally achieved employment pre-sentence which meant he worked out of area on site. His boss drove him on a 200 mile round trip every fortnight to report to see me at 8pm (the only time he would realistically be able to get to the office). A persistent offender prior to this, I never saw him in court again after judge felt he'd proved himself & issued a large fine when sentence was finally dealt with. Last I heard he'd started his own groundworks company & was employing about 80 people.

But the key to making it work was being able to undertake detailed assessments pre-sentence, to have the time to put a valid & verifiable argument together which demonstrated knowledge of & respect for the defendant, the law and the sentencer.

With all this digital bollocks I wouldn't be surprised if a case now swipes through a series of questions & screens on an ATM at the CRC office, pushes a button marked "Finish", whereupon a report is electronically delivered to the court clerk for sentencing that afternoon.