PSR Lament

Over the years we've covered this subject a number of times and once again it's become the focus of attention with a recent HMI report revealing that:-  

• Less than half of all inspected court reports were deemed to be sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision making.

• There were notable differences in quality between the types of court report. Oral reports met the overall quality judgement in only four out of 10 cases, short format reports in half of the cases, and standard delivery reports in more than six out of 10 cases. 

• Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making.

Right from the introduction the HMI report proudly confirms:-

The provision of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) has been a key part of the Probation Service’s work since its very earliest days, providing advice and information to help judges and magistrates decide upon the appropriate sentences for those appearing before the courts. The importance of this work has been highlighted as follows: 

‘it can be argued that the provision of reports for the courts is – in some ways – the most significant task. Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are the primary point of contact for sentencers, who are the main customers for probation work.’ (Mair, 2016).

so it might come as some surprise to many that over the last 20 years or so all manner of interventions and policies have conspired to downgrade the task, marginalise it within the criminal justice system and make the task as difficult and unwieldy as possible. Once a key part of every field Probation Officers role and often informed by their extensive knowledge of a person's offending history, the task is now performed by dedicated court-based staff with limited time and no prior knowledge beyond that possibly gleaned from crap IT systems such as OASys.

Oh and this again as outlined in the HMI report put a tin hat on the whole thing:-

Over the last decade, under the Transforming Summary Justice and Better Case Management efficiency programmes, and in line with long-standing efforts to reduce the length of the court process, there has been a move away from the more thorough and detailed standard delivery reports (with their typical turnaround of up to 15 working days) and towards fast delivery reports, first towards oral reports (which can often be delivered on the day of request or within 24 hours) and later to short format written reports (turnaround time of around five working days). Following concerns about the numbers of people being sentenced without any form of PSR, there has most recently been a focus on reversing this downward trend, particularly for cases where a community order was most likely; in 2014, 85 per cent of community orders had involved a PSR, which had reduced to 45 per cent by 2019. Research shows that, at least for community sentences, completion of the sentence is more likely when a PSR has been requested and provided than where it has not (Ministry of Justice, 2023).  

Very much late in the day it now seems that dots are being belatedly joined up and realisation dawning that much of the mess we now find ourselves in is a direct result of having so successfully done away with a vital element of probation's work in informing sensible sentencing decisions. But it's all too late as the damage has been done by the absurdity of moving skilled PO staff into prisons under OMiC, thus breaking down the local knowledge base and de-skilling PO staff in the field who now struggle with the whole report writing concept and task.

In my view this HMI aspiration will not improve the situation one bit:-

The measures set out in the 2021 Target Operating Model for probation services aim to increase both the number of cases that receive PSRs and the quality of those reports, leading to increased sentencer confidence in the probation service and potentially helping to reverse the recent decline in the use of accredited programmes (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024). High-quality PSRs also have a positive impact in terms of supporting well-informed, analytical, and personalised post-sentence assessment and sentence planning, which is the starting point of the well-established and recognised ASPIRE model for case supervision.

Probation practitioners working in courts now use the Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) digital tool to ensure that ‘interventions recommendations and licence conditions address risk and need, are in line with policy and sentencing guidelines and supports consistency of practice, proportionality and the reduction of bias’ (HM Prison & Probation Service, 2021). The EPF tool contains a list of all available interventions and their eligibility criteria. Court officers can input the details of the individual before the court, such as risk levels, gender, age, geographical location and offence details, and the EPF provides a shortlist of interventions that are suitable and available to that individual.

Just more alphabet soup bloody processes and tools to add to an endless list of them, but failing utterly to understand and get to grips with fundamental flaws that now inhabit all aspects of probation work that have made it part of the problem and not any part of a solution. The new Labour Government promised a wide-ranging 'Probation Review' in their election manifesto and they'd better bloody get on with it before there's nothing much left of a once proud gold standard profession worth saving. 

At this point can I flag up the following quote from a blog from a former Probation Officer now working for Revolving Doors:-

As a former probation officer myself, I can say that probation officers took a real pride in these reports, and sentencers were immensely grateful for them. The other benefit was that if the person received a community order and was supervised by the probation officer that wrote the report, there was already a level of trust and good faith between them which helped set up a purposeful relationship which made meaningful work more likely.

I wholeheartedly agree! The blog continues:-

Failed reforms and increased time pressures

However, reforms aimed at expediting criminal case resolutions and improving efficiency, including initiatives like Transforming Summary Justice, promoted an increase in pre-sentence reports with quicker turnaround times. This shift led to a decline in the use of standard delivery reports, which typically take up to 15 working days, in favour of fast delivery reports, which take around five days, and oral reports, often completed on the same day or within 24 hours.

The problem with oral and fast delivery reports is that the interview happens over a very short period of time: often within the court building, with maybe just 20 minutes to spare and with the officer under pressure either to get back to the court and deliver the oral report, or to get to another person also waiting for their interview.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the officer is not able to build a relationship with the interviewee that allows them to extract the same level of information and so the assessment is less detailed and so, in our view, holds less validity.

The irony of this move towards speed is that it has happened in the context of mass court backlogs, meaning cases take longer than ever before. The rush to sentence is in contrast to the glacial progress of cases through the system.

Impact on the revolving door group

In 2022 we published the Probation Inquiry, exploring the experiences of those in the revolving door on probation, including in relation to court reports. Many people reflected on how rushed their interview felt, and how disappointed they were with the process.

However, others reported it as a transformative experience, where they had been able to disclose things they had never felt comfortable to before, including domestic abuse experiences, and others reported the report resulting to them finally getting them the interventions they needed. We think this demonstrates that report interviews need to be done over a good length of time – with opportunity for both parties to build a rapport.

It is worth noting that the Inspectorate also reported that Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making. It is our belief that short interviews do not allow for nuanced discussions around cultural and racial issues within the interview, disadvantaging those who already face discrimination within the justice system and society more broadly.

We believe the reduction in longform standard delivery pre-sentence reports has significantly contributed to the decline in the use of community orders by sentencers, with these decreasing by more than half (54%) between 2012 and 2022.

Reports no longer offer strong enough analysis as to why a specific community sentence will be so rehabilitative. This is just one of the reasons why we believe that the decline in standard delivery reports has significantly disadvantaged those in the revolving door group, whose offending is driven by unmet health and social needs.

Presenting for sentencing without the opportunity for previous convictions and former failed sentences to be contextualised seems more likely to end in a custodial sentence in our already calamitously overcrowded prisons, rather than with the targeted, rehabilitative non-custodial support our group so desperately need.

Return to more thorough PSRs to break the cycle

The findings of the Inspectorate’s report underscore the critical need for high-quality, detailed pre-sentence reports to support effective sentencing.

The shift towards faster, less comprehensive reports has unfortunately compromised the ability of sentencers to make fully informed decisions, particularly for those with complex needs, such as individuals struggling with substance use or mental health issues.

This trend not only undermines the goal of rehabilitation but also disproportionately impacts those who are already vulnerable, perpetuating the cycle of crisis and crime.

To break this cycle, it is imperative that we advocate for a return to thorough, personalised pre sentence reports that truly inform sentencing decisions and promote more equitable outcomes for all.

Kelly Grehan
Policy Manager