Ministry of Ineptitude and Vindictiveness

It's been a good week for Frances Crook of the Howard League, and yet another bad one for Chris Grayling and the MoJ, as explained here on her blog:- 

Books For Prisoners: Not a good week for the Ministry of Justice

It has not been a good week for the Ministry of Justice. On Friday it lost a judicial review that overturned its ban on books for prisoners, and on the Monday it had to pretend it had never banned journalists from attending a Howard League fundraising lunch. The ministry has become known for a mixture of ineptitude and vindictiveness.

The Howard League launched a campaign to allow books and other essentials to be sent in to prisoners following a ban introduced by the Ministry of Justice. The full story of the campaign is on our website and so I won’t go over it here. But, we did gain the support of top writers and it was a world media furore, making our justice system look ludicrous.

For years the charity has held fundraising events that are designed to educate people about prison issues, a key part of our charitable objectives. We were pleased to link with the Clink restaurant inside Brixton, to hold a fundraising lunch hosted by the High Sheriff of London. People made donations to our work and we gathered a glittering array of supporters, members, donors and some media types.

A couple of days before the event we heard that no journalists would be allowed to attend. So, we told them, and they got a little annoyed. Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian, emailed and Ian Hislop phoned the Secretary of State to complain, several times.

All of a sudden the decision was reversed. It had, apparently, all been a misunderstanding. So we had a very convivial lunch. Silly Ministry of Justice.

Details of the judgement are covered in this piece on the politics.co.uk website:-

Prisoner book ban judgement: Grayling's views found to be 'absurd' and 'strange'

We've gone through the judgement so you don't have to – and it is exceptionally bad news for Chris Grayling. Mr Justice Collins, in delivering the judgement that rules that the restrictions on prisoners' access to books are unlawful, reserves special criticism for the justice secretary. He notes that Grayling said on March 29th that prisoners were able to order books from Amazon using their prison earnings or money sent in by relatives.

"This I am bound to say was somewhat misleading," the judge states, "since it seemed to indicate that money sent in could be used with no constraints. In reality, that is not so since a prisoner cannot spend more than his or her weekly limit, however much is sent in by relatives or friends". Under the 'basic' tier, that is just £4 a week. Even under the top 'enhanced' tier it amounts to just £25.50.

The claimant referred to comments by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg that a ban on sending books to prisoners "would be ridiculous" and "outrageous". It was suggested that the clearly-stated principle that prisoners should be encouraged to read for education and rehabilitational purposes clashed with reality. 

The judge noted there's a loophole in prison rules which could allow the governor to bypass the incentives and earned privileges scheme's (IEP) "virtual ban". But they were dismissed by Mr Justice Collins, who said they "do not seem to me to have any relevance". A further loophole, which allows items to be permitted "in exceptional circumstances", was also examined. Did that apply to the case in question? To find out we need to look at the judgement in a little more detail.

The prisoner who brought the claim, Mr Justice Collins explains, was serving an indefinite sentence. She's a 56-year-old woman who was serving an indefinite sentence for a number of offences, including arson with intent to endanger life. Back in March this year she saw a neurologist because of lapses of memory resulting from epilepsy. At the time she was reading books by Alan Bennett, Monica Ali and the dialogues of Marcus Aurelius. She said she loved reading books. "She cannot stress how important they are to her," Mr Justice Collins noted. "Thus any restrictions on her ability to have available books which are not easily obtainable through the prison library operate particularly harshly."

The prisoner was serving her time at HM Prison Send, a closed category women's prison in Surrey. It has two libraries – and what Mr Justice Collins suspects is one of the best prison library services in the country. All the books requested by the prisoner were obtained for her. And it was pointed out there is reasonable access to the library and that it's open at sufficient times. All of these points served to undermine the suggestion that what the prisoner faced was a ban on books, Mr Justice Collins found.

A 'ban' isn't quite the right way of describing it. But what he did find was "a severe restriction on possession or acquisition of books which a prisoner can treat as his or her own". He noted not all prisons are as good as Send at providing a decent library service, blaming cuts for reduced staffing levels. Above all, he stated that "the IEP as now operated seems to fail to recognise that it is deprivation of liberty that is the penalty imposed and that any further restrictions must be fully justified".

On April 9th 2014 the prisoner's request for five books was refused. The books were Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, The Penguin Book of Saints, Elephant Bangs Train by William Kotwingle, Billy Bathgate by EL Doctorow and Portnoy's Complaint by Philip Roth.

These would have exceeded the prisoner's allocation of 12 books – despite the fact the prisoner had more than enough room for them in terms of the amount of space the permitted items for her cell would have taken up. "That seemed to me absurd," the judge said. Reports from the courtroom suggest it was this comment during evidence hearings that prompted the MoJ's retreat on the issue earlier this year. Government lawyers offered to take the judge's view back to their "client" immediately. Mr Justice Collins reportedly suggested this was a good idea, and the MoJ quickly changed the rules.

In his judgement today he adds he is "pleased" that the MoJ subsequently amended the rules to allow more than 12 books. This was all well and good. But it didn't change the fact that 'exceptional circumstances' were still required to allow the books to come into the prisoner's possession in the first place. And it is in assessing the lawfulness of this that Mr Justice Collins makes some of his most striking comments. His judgement here assesses the difference between having access to books and actually possessing them yourself. They go to the heart of what books are for. They are an affirmation of literature and culture and knowledge.

"What in my view has not been taken into account is that for many there is a need to possess particular books to be treated as their own property," he states in paragraph 36 of the judgement. "Some books are used as references, such as dictionaries' Brewer's Dictionary may well fall into that category. Others are regarded as those which need to be available to be reread or, such as for example a compendium of a particular author's works, to be dipped into frequently. It is possession which can matter as much as access. It is difficult to follow why books are included in IEP facilities when their availability to prisoners is regarded to be so important. There is no ban on books in the IEP but the severity of the restrictions clearly may prevent acquisition and possession."

Then comes the critical part of his ruling. He makes clear that "in the circumstances" the virtual ban on books is contrary to the intentions expressed by Grayling. Mr Justice Collins says he can't see any good reason "in the light of the importance of books for prisoners" to restrict books so harshly. Because "an action taken by a public body must not be such as fails to promote the policy and objects of the enabling power", the policy is judged to be "unlawful".

He later adds that even the name of the IEP is strange. "In the light of the statement made about the importance of books and the absence of any intention to prevent or interfere unreasonably with prisoners being able to have access to books, to refer to them as a privilege is strange," the judge says.

This is a triumph for campaigners but, more, it is a triumph for the lawyers who have secured this victory. Today's judgement vindicates those who fought against the prisoner book ban – and leaves the MoJ embarrassed and defeated over one of its most unnecessarily harsh policies.

It's interesting to see a lawyer getting angry about Chris Grayling's appearance in front of the Justice Affairs Committee this week and subsequently venting their feelings on the firms blog site:-

Grayling has much to answer for

I know Chris Grayling is not a lawyer and that he is often criticised for his lack of legal knowledge and experience but he did a damn good impression of a top lawyer when he appeared today in Parliament to answer criticism of his reforms to the probation service, blamed by probation chiefs for two recent murders. It was so frustrating to watch as he escaped proper cross examination of the issues for the lack of knowledge of those charged with doing so.

For years the government has complained about the high reconviction rate amongst those released from prison after serving short term sentences. Successive Justice ministers have sought to blame the probation service and even today, Grayling, in defending his reforms, blamed for at least two recent murders and a host of other offences committed by people under the supervision of the new service, uses this same attack on the probation service by citing unacceptable levels of reoffending as justification for his reforms. No mention of a sorry then!

As said above, the perceived problem has always been re-offending rates of the shorter term prisoners. What he and his predecessors have not told you though, is that offenders released after serving less than 12 months are never ordinarily supervised by the probation service. This is a situation completely devised by government ministers, (presumably based on financial considerations because of the high numbers of released short term convicts, estimated at 200,000 that would require supervision) not judges or probation officers and is something that parliament could change but have thus far refused to do so. Now they have a willing private sector so can claim to be rightly addressing the issue.

The evidence that these reforms are intended as nothing more than a ploy to win votes must be the fact that this inadequate Probation service is left supervising the “High” risk offenders because the private sector will not take them on. And if the former probation service is unable to effectively monitor low to medium risk offenders, how is a CRC made up of woefully ill-equipped and inexperienced organisations with profit and only profit in mind and who will be taking over a reduced number of over-worked and under resourced staff from the probation service.

Today Grayling was unrepentant, preferring to save face than admit defeat, notwithstanding an 18 page letter from Probation chiefs, evidencing amongst other things the fact that the probation officer assigned to one of the would be murderers was not only a mere trainee but was also so over-worked that she could not maintain her home visits schedule for that and/or other offenders supposedly under her supervision. The offender in question who also killed himself had previously been convicted of a domestic violence offence. He ought to have been the subject of closer and more expert supervision.

Another probation officer was sexually assaulted by an offender she was supervising. His file carried with it a warning that he should not be alone with female probation officers. The probation officers in question and their supervisors did not ignore these warning, they simply did not know about them. The information on high risk offenders that the “probation service” holds is not available to the CRCs and their staff.

The CRCs are only meant to be dealing with low – medium risk offenders so this should not matter. However, that is where we have been lied to again. Offenders convicted of domestic violence offences are, like others often made to complete a “programme” of rehabilitative work. Many domestic violence offenders are rightly categorised as High risk yet as the “programmes” side of the newly reformed service falls within the remit of the new CRCs, the employees of these new services are often unwittingly working with High risk offenders in respect of whom they have no prior knowledge.

My wife is a probation service officer and she delivers one such programme to domestic violence offenders. Until recently, she would access all the information held by the service on her intended delegates as would her management. Now such information is not available to her. This is obviously a dangerous situation to exist. These concerns amongst others were properly raised by those opposed to the reforms, they were protested, marches were held and legal challenges brought. It was all ignored by the Lord Chancellor and his department and the tragedy is that the empirical evidence that they were right is now available for us all to see and so soon after implementation.

Sadiq Khan, writing on the Left Foot Forward website, sums up the Opposition view, but I can't help feeling it all sounds a bit unconvincing and feeble:-

Privatising probation puts public safety at risk

If this government has its way, by next May 80 per cent of people leaving prison or on community sentences will be supervised by private companies with no track record in this area. These companies will take over the day to day running of most of the probation service, on ten year contracts costing the taxpayer around £6billion.

All of this is happening despite no testing having been done to see if the new system will work. There’s been no piloting so we don’t know if the new way of working puts public safety at risk. The new payment model has never been used on this scale before in criminal justice anywhere in the world. It’s a reckless gamble that’s already leading to chaos -offenders going unsupervised, experienced staff demoralised and despairing probation officers opting to walk away.

No wonder experts, including the Ministry of Justice’s own officials, have been warning against these reforms ever since they were first announced. I’m not saying the old way of working was perfect. Far from it. Much more needs to be done to reduce re-offending, and it is right that those on short sentences are going to get rehabilitative support instead of being left to their own devices. But what the government is proposing goes against the grain of everything we know makes a difference in cutting re-offending.

Evidence shows that close co-operation between all of the key agencies – police, prisons, probation, local authorities, charities, employers, trainers and the private sector – really does lead to lower re-offending rates. What doesn’t help is carving up responsibility between different agencies, which increases the likelihood of failures, leads to confusion and creates a stifling bureaucracy.

Failures in probation put public safety at risk. To guard against this, a strong, independent chief inspector of probation is a crucial check and balance to prevent things going wrong. But Chris Grayling, in his arrogance, appointed a chief inspector with links to two of the companies that are preferred bidders for almost a third of the contracts. At a time when the chief inspector needs to be at their most vocal, serious questions are being asked about whether the current incumbent can perform the role free of fear or favour. Serious questions need answering about Chris Grayling’s judgement in making the appointment in the first place.  

To make matters worse, Grayling’s dogma and ideology have led him to insert poison pill clauses into the contracts with the private companies, which would provide them with a massive windfall. So insecure is he about his legacy that he wants to make it as difficult as possible for any successor to unpick his half-baked reforms. Should a change of government wish to walk away from his mess, the taxpayer could be lumbered with a compensation bill worth £400million. This is not value for money for taxpayers.

There is still a chance that the mess created by Grayling’s privatisation is so great that the wheels come off. If so, I’ve made very clear that any unsigned contracts will go straight in the bin if I become justice secretary. What’s more, if the contracts are signed, I’ll be asking the best and brightest experts to pore over them to find a way out that doesn’t lumber the taxpayer with the bill for Grayling’s windfall for the private companies. Let those bidding be on notice – I won’t simply inherit this this government’s plans, no questions asked.

The fact is there is an alternative if only the government had been prepared to look for it: local, publicly run probation trusts acting as commissioners of what works to cut re-offending. Each trust close to their local area, free to work with the public, private and voluntary sector to keep the public safe. Whitehall restricting its role to setting tough stretching targets, and a no nonsense zero tolerance regime in place for those trusts that fail. What’s more, as my discussions with probation trusts confirmed, most trusts would have taken on short sentence prisoners within their existing budgets if only they’d been asked – there was no need to privatise the service.

We can only conclude that the government’s plans are ideologically driven. Outrageously, the Lib Dems have gone along with Grayling’s plans to reward the same companies that have time and again let down the taxpayer. They are propping up the same payment model that failed so spectacularly in the Work Programme. Public safety is too important an issue to take risks with, but that is precisely what this government is doing with its reckless probation privatisation. 

Dame Ursula got a rough time from the Public Accounts Committee on the effects of Legal Aid cuts, as discussed on the Law Society website:- 

MoJ chief admits cuts rushed through without research

Leading civil servants at the Ministry of Justice have admitted they did not have the time to research the potential impact of cuts to civil legal aid. During a lively session before the House of Commons public accounts committee (PAC) this morning, MoJ permanent secretary Ursula Brennan said the government’s decision to cut £300m from the legal aid budget was ‘imperative’.

When pressed by committee members to explain the evidence basis for the subsequent Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act which came into force in April 2013, Brennan said the timescale did not allow for evidence-gathering in advance. ‘The government was explicit it needed to make these changes swiftly,’ she told MPs. ‘It was not possible to do research about the current regime. ‘The piece of evidence that was overwhelming was the level of spending. The evidence required was that government said we wish to cut the legal aid bill.’

Brennan said research on the impact of LASPO had to wait until after the legislation was implemented but she rebutted the opinion that the measure had denied people access to justice. The permanent secretary also conceded that she does not know the cost of the reforms for other government departments, such as health, as no research has been carried out.

Committee chair Margaret Hodge accused the department of ‘endemic failure’ and criticised Brennan personally for not exercising her ‘proper powers’ to stop changes being implemented without an idea of their impact. ‘The thing that really distressed me is how you embarked on this with so little evidence,’ she said. ‘When you were changing the rules you had no idea the impact it would have.’

Hodge at times appeared frustrated with responses from Brennan, at one point accusing her of being ‘waffly’ and pressing her for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. Another committee member, Conservative Richard Bacon, admonished Brennan for answering on behalf of other witnesses.

Conservative MP Stephen Phillips said it was impossible to tell if the government had achieved its £300m savings target if the MoJ did not research the impact of cuts on other departments. ‘How do you know there is not £100m of mental health costs flowing from these reforms?’ he asked. ‘How many economists are there in the MoJ? Dozens? It would be possible to work out the cost to other departments.’

Finally, as our day in court rapidly approaches, I see the intrigant has written to Chris Grayling again:- 

Dear Lord Chancellor,

So, you won the vote in the House of Commons on judicial review a few days ago. Congratulations: that is another one in the eye for all those ‘Rule of Law’ johnnies. They really are boring, banging on about it all the time. Your persuading the Commons to reverse the House of Lords amendments on judicial review to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill is a triumph.

The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the government acts according to the law. You said in the debate that most government departments face judicial review regularly. There are two alternative remedies for this state of affairs: 

(1) government departments could act within the law, or  

(2) government departments could carry on acting unlawfully whilst judicial review is curtailed. 

You have wisely chosen to take the second option. Or as you put it in the debate “we need to restore common sense to the way in which the judicial review system works, and that is what we are working to do“. How popular you will be with your friends and colleagues in government.

You said about judicial review in the debate “it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions.” How wrong you were! It is a misstatement of what judicial review is there to do. The government should only act in accordance with such power as the law confers upon it. If a government minister, in the exercise of her powers, acts unlawfully then the courts via judicial review declare it so. 

The courts, too, cannot act in excess of the power the law confers upon them. Both the government and the courts are subject to the rule of law. So, the courts are not ‘above’ the elected government as you said, but the government (like the court) is governed by the rule of law. Thank goodness you are not a lawyer or you may have had to explain the constitutional position correctly in the debate.

As a result of your excellent changes, whilst: 

– the Monarch is subject to the law, 

– the courts are subject to the law, 

– the citizens of the state are subject to the law 

government ministers will be able to act unlawfully without being stopped. I particularly liked this nonsensical part of your speech in the debate: 

"As Lord Chancellor I take my responsibility to uphold the rule of law very seriously, but I do not believe that the way in which it has evolved in relation to the current use of judicial review is consistent with or necessary to uphold the rule of law."

Mr Justice Collins after a judicial review in the High Court ruled today that the government’s ban on sending books to prisoners in England and Wales is unlawful. He declared he could see “no good reason” to restrict access to books for prisoners. 

Thank goodness that in the future your unlawful decisions won’t be subject to these interfering busybodies. The Executive can now make the law and break the law. This self-serving state of affairs is also called, rather amusingly, tyranny.

Yours, with an authoritarian salute,

the intrigant.

Guest Blog 12

Get Over Yourself

I'm currently on sick leave due to work-related issues. As I write this I'm on a brief visit to family, exchanging seasonal gifts & explaining my predicament. They have no idea about probation-related issues, they are generally Tory friendly because it suits their business-oriented lifestyle. The consensus is that I'm "too sensitive", "too involved" & "ought to get a life"; "get over yourself & get a proper job." They don't want to hear.

The family I'm visiting live in a busy city where they have to triple lock every door & window, have two alarm systems & their children cannot leave the house without a known adult accompanying them. They live in a middle class bubble, inside comfortable homes, their own air conditioned offices (directors of businesses) & large cars with tinted windows. Their food shop is ordered online & delivered. They eat out, but usually with friends at expensive restaurants where they can drive or go via taxi - or they go to friends' homes when caterers are often employed to cook, serve, clear up then clear off. Their children go to carefully selected academies, driven there & back or taken via bespoke arrangement.

They are not unusual. They are comfortable but not especially wealthy. I suspect they represent a significant swathe of 'Middle England' and they were very excited about the changes to stamp duty because within hours of the announcement they were already planning how much they would save if they buy a more expensive house (???).

Why am I bothering to write about my family like this? Not because I dislike them - they frustrate me but I love them dearly. It's because I think, as involved in probation as we are, we have to put ourselves, our professional roles and our work into some context others can make sense of. Our working week is spent immersed in crisis management, in emotional turmoil (our own as well as others'), in conflict & under stress. TR has only served to increase both the intensity & the number of stressors. Our view of the world is informed - some might argue 'infected' - by this immersive experience, and I find Jim's blog has helpfully exposed that in a number of ways.

We need to reflect on this, because whilst we are a passionate and committed collection of professionals who are regularly exposed to powerful experiences, we appear to others to be disproportionately incensed by issues which run off others' backs, e.g. Grayling & TR, McDowell, prisoners' rights, etc etc. It seems we are regarded by many as the tiny, irritating, squeaky voice of militant do-gooders, lefties, pinkos. No-one pays us much attention. Grayling has no idea what we do - he's made that clear many times over, not least before the Justice Committee this week - yet he's still Secretary of State & Lord Chancellor. How? Why?

I think that's another area where we're left wanting... we don't understand how someone whose behaviour mirrors that of some of our most difficult clients can get away with it so publicly. We're charged with challenging bullies, we're committed to stopping abuse; yet we're being bullied & abused, we're left incapacitated & frightened & raging, and we run the risk of (as suggested by Joanna's blog) normalising & incorporating this fear & anger into our daily routine... And then we get sick.

I'll be okay. I have a strong support network. I'm angry. I'm distressed, but I'll be okay. As I spend time placing myself, my situation & my profession into a wider context, I get stronger. It doesn't dilute the issues - it just makes it easier to spread the word in a meaningful way.

Anonymous PO

End Game

It would seem that we are rapidly approaching the end game, as indicated by the latest statement from Napo today:-

Probation Union Anger as Secretary of State Ignores Dangers

Today Chris Grayling the Secretary of State for Justice has announced that he will proceed to the award of contracts for the Probation Service despite evidence that it is unsafe to do so. Napo, the trade union and professional association for probation staff has repeatedly provided evidence to the Secretary of State that his newly tested reforms are placing the public at risk and believes he is ignoring the unions concerns to pursue an ideological plan that is running to an election timetable rather than in the public interest.

Napo has issued Judicial Review proceedings against Mr Grayling which are due to be heard in the High Court on 10th December. The union’s argument is that the reforms are unsafe and the Secretary of State should not proceed to the next stage (awarding then signing contracts to preferred bidders) until it is safe to do so and the huge flaws in the system such as staff shortages (through increasing sickness since reforms were introduced in June - up over 60 % in space of 4 months), inadequate IT systems and the loss of offender records have been resolved.

Ian Lawrence, Napo General Secretary, said: "we cannot believe that in the face of the evidence, Grayling is still planning to proceed. His own testing processes have highlighted that there are still significant areas that need to be improved to make these plans anywhere near safe. To award contracts now is irresponsible and clear evidence that this is purely about ideology and not about public safety. He continues to ignore the expertise of our members who are absolutely clear that the service is currently in chaos and that handing over the management of offenders to the private sector at this time represents a danger to the public."

Napo understands that the contracts are due to be signed off later this month with new providers taking control in February 2015. ‘Poison pill’ compensation clauses in the contracts mean that they cannot be cancelled by incoming governments without the tax payer having to fork out 10 years’ worth of profit in compensation.

In addition, the following Press Release was issued by Napo on Tuesday:-

Secretary of State tells parliament he will proceed to a decision on selling the probation service despite being unaware of serious safety concerns

The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, was questioned by the Justice Select Committee (JSC) this morning about the safety of his proposal to sell off parts of the probation service to private companies – a decision he is due to make tomorrow.

Having spent £15million on private consultants, Mr Grayling insisted that he would proceed to make the decision tomorrow, before the High Court considers the safety of the proposal (at a hearing on 10-12 December 2014) and despite serious risks to public safety raised by Napo (including two recent murders committed whilst offenders were inadequately supervised).

Napo, the Union for Probation Officers, has four important concerns about Mr Grayling’s evidence to the JSC. 

First, Mr Grayling told MPs on the JSC that he had only just heard of the two murder cases, even though Napo sent him the details on 20 October 2014, again on 22 October 2014, and again on 6 November 2014.

Second, in making his decision tomorrow, Mr Grayling plans to rely on the
unpublished report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, Paul McDowell. Mr Grayling plans to do this even though he recognised before the JSC that Mr McDowell is married to the managing director of Sodexo Justice Services, which stands to be awarded 6 of the 21 probation contracts. Napo considers that it is wrong for Mr Grayling to rely on confidential evidence produced by the husband of the Managing Director of a company which stands to make hundreds of millions of pounds from the sale. 

Third, Mr Grayling has sought to keep secret the evidence collected by the Ministry of Justice. He has obtained a confidentiality order which prevents the test results from being published. Napo has applied to the High Court to lift the confidentiality order.

Fourth, the Government’s tests – insofar as they are in the public domain - clearly show that the new system is unsafe. For example, the Government’s evidence shows that:

• There is a serious shortfall in the number of qualified Probation Officers, with significant vacancies across every region of the UK. This means that the supervision of dangerous offenders is being allocated to under-qualified staff with unmanageable workloads.  

• The Government¹s new probation computer system is not working. Because of data protection concerns, probation officers working for the new companies will not routinely receive risk assessments for high risk offenders and sex offenders. This puts probation officers and the public in serious danger. For example, Napo has notified Mr Grayling of a female Probation Officer who was recently seriously sexually assaulted when she met alone with an offender. Computer records identified that offender as someone who should not be left alone with women, but she was prevented from accessing that record and did not receive the warning. She has suffered serious ongoing psychological harm.

Guest Blog 11

Zersetzung

Political differences inspire passion, but the mendacity and self-interest of this government leaves one feeling that the most extreme sense of outrage is merely proportionate to their craven disregard of the democratic process in pursuit of the ends of their privateering paymasters. An analogy that comes to mind is not any democracy but a dictatorship or an obviously corrupt authoritarian regime supported by repressive, often covert means, such as in Stasi Germany. Zersetzung was the name for the modus operandi of the secret police or Stasi as it repressed opposition through psychological means as well as brutality and spying.

Until this dismantling of our profession, I never really appreciated how governments will maintain power through the black arts of psychological manipulation and the use of surveillance to suppress people. Probation Officers have been forced into contorted mind-sets, and into silence, working against their better knowledge and instincts, and the gagging, so reminiscent of the Eastern bloc, is merely one obvious sign of this. As a consequence, I have heard first-hand accounts of division, resentment and mistrust amongst those who have been colleagues for years, reminding us of Stasi methods that would successfully turn members of a family against each other. 

So, on this blog, most people still working are rightly fearful of losing their employment and post anonymously, and people have been warned to be careful on social media. Yet the Stasi could never draw on the kind of surveillance culture which now operates through the internet, spying and blacklisting on people who protest. Living in Cheltenham, I am always conscious of an arm of the state potentially watching our every move. Recently, for instance, I asked a friend of mine to sign my forms for social work registration and her partner, half jokingly, advised her not to as she may be adversely affected by our association, so maybe he knows something I don’t!

Somehow, though, like the moral vision of an individualistic, selfish society, we have become naturalized to this suppression of the democratic right to protest so we scarcely notice it any more. We now bear a resemblance to the oppressed in such despotic regimes, unable to do what we feel is right, self-editing our responses in compliance with the thinking of those in power, and stopped from whistle blowing by the threat of losing employment. The media too play into their hands. While we are well aware of the dominance of the right wing press, those who have tried to tell our story have been pulled up short by the gagging of anyone who knows what is going on. While I have racked my brains to find out how we could get around this, by disguising voices and faces, the real story should have been the gagging itself, how we became the victims of a corrupt censorship and found ourselves unable to speak out.

However, in the midst of all the sinking mire of corruption, gagging and lies, Napo has surpassed expectations and stood up for us. Whatever the result of the Judicial Review, I congratulate both Napo and the members who have shown bravery in coming forward with their evidence. It shows how dearly we need to reinvigorate our unions, widen union membership and give voice to those who are silenced, so that we can have in the future governments who can serve our children.

Joanna Hughes

BIONIC

For those not immediately aware, BIONIC is the acronym that stands for 'Believe it or not I care' and is the naff and dated catchphrase of the American outfit destined to shortly run the CRC in London. A wag yesterday suggested it might stand for 'Believe it or not it's crap' which seems to fit perfectly with the omnishambles we find ourselves mired in. 

It might also be attached to Chris Grayling, whose arrogance, ignorance and contempt were plainly on show yesterday when he went before the Justice Affairs Committee. I thought this rather neatly summed things up:-

Chris Grayling, what a star! Winging it before the Justice Committee, submitting papers just hours before via email, telling them even he hasn't read the paperwork so they shouldn't complain about it to him, being argumentative, belligerent & supremely arrogant - even blaming the Committee for their poor choice of printer ink. Doncha just love him?

Pat Waterman had this to say:- 

TO NAPO MEMBERS:

The Wonderful World of Mr Grayling

When Mr Grayling first announced his plans, I promised members that wherever he was going to be I would try to be there too. So this morning David Raho and I went to a meeting of the Justice Select Committee where Mr Grayling, Mr Selous and Mr Spurr would be answering questions.

When we arrived Justice Minister Mr Selous was attempting to defend the MoJ’s failed policies in respect of the Prison Service. He was being assisted by NOMS CEO Michael Spurr The Justice Committee made it clear that the MoJ’s responses were far from satisfactory in that they had failed to predict the current crisis. I lost track of how many excuses were made but apparently the current crisis in our prisons is everybody else’s fault.

The committee had apparently asked Mr Grayling to attend three weeks earlier but something else had come up that was more important than answering questions about TR.

When Mr Grayling finally appeared he was immediately rebuked by the Committee Chair, Sir Alan Beith, for only supplying the paperwork that they had requested (which included Testgate Five) the previous evening. John McDonnell MP asked how they were supposed to have a meaningful discussion when they had not had a chance to read the papers.

It was noted that Mr Grayling may have had the papers in his possession since 27th November. He maintained that he had only just received the papers himself. Mr Spurr looked surprised as he no doubt had supplied them in good time.

Mr Grayling went on to say (despite a barrage of complaints from Justice Committee members that they had only just received the paperwork) that he would make the decision tomorrow whether or not to proceed to share sale.

If Mr Grayling is to be believed then he too had only just received vital paperwork that would presumably need several days to digest. Given the serious consequences of making a mistake maybe he ought to take advice before making the decision whether or not to proceed to share sale.

But Mr Grayling does not seem to need time to consider evidence before he makes a decision.

The Liberal Democrat MP Sir Alan Beith was not amused and declared that Mr Grayling’s behaviour, in respect of keeping the committee informed, was ‘not satisfactory’.

Mr Grayling stated that with regard to his TR plans ‘good progress had been made’. He praised probation staff for working hard to make his plans a reality

Mr Grayling was also anxious to tell the committee that there is no increased risk to the public as a result of TR because since 1st June there has been a decrease in the number of persons the probation service supervises.

You will, I am sure, be pleased to know that in the Justice Secretary’s view you have all had less work and there has been a decrease in the number of SFO’s. He also stated that in his view the real risk to the public was the 50,000 prisoners released who he claims have gone on to commit 11,000 violent crimes.

These figures were not challenged but we know to take most of what Mr Grayling says with an increasingly large pinch of salt. Mr Grayling also stated that there are 500 extra fully qualified PO’s. At this point MP’s had to be reminded to take it in turns to challenge the Justice Secretary.

Mr Spurr sprang to his assistance and explained to him, in front of the committee, that they were in the process of training new staff and that they had recruited a number of temporary staff in a desperate attempt to plug the gaps caused by experienced staff leaving at an unprecedented rate.

Mr Grayling clearly does not know the difference between probation service staff and frontline practitioners. ‘They’re all qualified to do risk assessments aren’t they?’ he said. Mr Spurr again did his best to try to rescue Mr Grayling from his own lack of knowledge.

Mr Grayling also claimed that regular meetings and consultations had taken place with the trade unions and that there had only been one single incidence of public safety being compromised..

The matter of “conflict of interest” was raised with regard to the Chief Inspector of Probation and his wife’s appointment as a Senior Manager in Sodexo. Mr Grayling said he had followed Cabinet Office guidelines and maintained he had only known about the potential conflict of interest two weeks ago. Justice Committee members appeared incredulous as they were told that Mr Grayling did not have involvement in the bidder selection process.

As I have said before, having been a Probation Officer for over thirty years, I know when someone is “making it up as they go along” and so it was with Mr Grayling this morning. In response to a question about the rising suicide rate in prisons he said he was “touching wood and keeping his fingers crossed” that there would not be any more.

Does this inspire confidence?

For those of you who would like to hear the meeting in full here is the YouTube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S_G7Rt2x5U&sns=em

Pat Waterman
Branch Chair

This from the Guardian website:-

Justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has told MPs he will press ahead with a decision on Wednesday to privatise the probation service, despite renewed public safety concerns and before the outcome of a high court challenge next week.

Grayling admitted that a conflict of interest row surrounding the sell-off has become more acute after the wife of the chief inspector of probation was promoted last week to run the company that is to take over the largest number of probation contracts.

Grayling told the Commons justice select committee he accepted there was a conflict of interest involving Paul McDowell, the chief inspector of probation, and his wife, Janine, who was promoted 10 days ago to managing director of Sodexo Justice Services, which has preferred bidder status for six of the 21 probation contracts.

The conflict of interest places a question mark over Paul McDowell’s future as chief inspector, and Grayling is to address the issue before the sell-off takes place.

Grayling also said the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, who has proved a robust critic of prison conditions, would not automatically have his term extended next July but instead would have to re-apply for the post.

Under the £450m-a-year probation sell-off, the supervision of more than 200,000 low- and medium-risk offenders will be taken over by the private and voluntary sectors in 21 community rehabilitation companies. It is the most radical justice privatisation undertaken by the coalition government.

Grayling told the committee that his probation reforms were “firmly on track” and he would formally take the key decision on Wednesday to name the date for the sell-off early next year.

Arrogance, contempt, ignorance - all epithets that fit easily where Chris Grayling is concerned. There he was on Monday night, sat on the green leather front bench, contemptuously ignoring opposition speakers during the debate on restricting Judicial Review. Later the same night, he sends documents to the Judicial Affairs Committee, knowing full well there will be no time to read them before his appearance the following morning. To add insult to injury, he admits he hasn't bothered to read the stuff either.

Regular readers will be aware that this particularly slippery customer got away with misleading Parliament back in July when claiming that names were not picked out of a hat for the purposes of 'sifting' probation staff into either CRC's or NPS. The Summer Recess seems to have saved his bacon on this and all I can say is that Parliamentarians seem to have very short memories. It's not the first time he's been accused of misleading Parliament either.

It's interesting to see that the national media have at last picked up on the 'mackerel and dumplings' prison story we discussed last week and Eric Allison of the Guardian senses Grayling's interfering, incompetent hand in it all:-

Grayling’s response to an ‘unhappy prison’ has spectacularly backfired

A three-week trial at Blackfriars crown court has ended and 11 prisoners have been acquitted of mutiny and criminal damage. The charges followed an incident at HMP High Down, a category B prison in Surrey, in October 2013, when the men barricaded themselves in a cell and demanded to see the governor. After hours of negotiations, a riot team stormed the trashed cell and ended the protest.

On the mutiny charge, the jury undoubtedly returned the right verdict. It is a serious crime. These men were indicted with “engaging in conduct intended to further a common cause of overthrowing lawful authority” at the jail. Excuse me; the men barricaded themselves into one small cell, crammed like sardines. How would they overthrow the regime from there?

On the criminal damage charge, it seems a surprising verdict to acquit them – the jury was clearly in sympathy with the defendants. What is more shocking is that there was no word in the national press of this trial and the verdict. I was alerted to it by blogger Alex Cavendish who blogs at prisonuk blogspot and the comprehensive coverage in the local paper.

"Barricading up” is a common form of protest in jails. Cells are small and prisoners can easily use beds and other furniture to block access. In prison, I barricaded up twice. Both times, I was, correctly charged with disobeying a lawful order to remove the obstacles. On both occasions, I was dealt with by the prison governor and incurred sanctions. That route was open to the High Down governor, or he could have asked a district judge to come in and adjudicate. The judge could have given the men an extra 28 days inside.

But this matter was taken out of the governor’s hands. The decision to charge the men with mutiny was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, but it it is hard to imagine that justice secretary Chris Grayling was not involved. Perhaps he thought jurors would have been appalled by prisoners defying authority and convict them. If so, he has scored a spectacular own goal.

The prisoners were complaining that the quality of their lives had reduced dramatically after High Down was chosen to pilot a policy “New ways of working” aimed to make prisons more “meaningful”. In effect, it was a cost-cutting exercise. Staff were cut and prisoners spent longer in their cells during the day. Prisoners’ association time was cut. Prisoners use the telephone during association and they would not have taken kindly to having this vital link to the outside world restricted. The punitive policy smacks of Grayling.

The governor of High Down, Ian Bickers, told the court the changes were “not of our making. They were forced on us. We were trying to implement the new policy, which was done wrong by headquarters,” he said.

Post-trial, former prisons minister and local MP, Crispin Blunt, said in view of the governor’s evidence the acquittal was unsurprising and he questioned why the prosecution was brought? The smart money says it was orchestrated by Grayling, this incompetent minister, who refuses to take advice from people with experience of the penal system. High Down is probably best known for running The Clink restaurant for staff and visitors which provides training for prisoners who may want to work in the catering industry after release. But earlier this year, a report by the Independent Monitoring Board at the prison said 2013 had been a “dreadful year” for the jail and the changes had produced “an unhappy prison”. Grayling didn’t listen, he never does.

Later today we are promised a Commons statement by this incompetent, arrogant and ignorant minister as to whether probation privatisation is deemed safe to proceed with, despite all the lies, misinformation and making stuff up as he goes along, like the 500 'extra' probation officers and caseloads having reduced by 20%.   

Napo in the News

As Chris Grayling gets ready to go before the Justice Affairs Committee later this morning, Napo manages to grab the headlines on the BBC with news of an 18 page letter sent to him by Ian Lawrence. 

It seems the MoJ only have one tired and hackneyed response nowadays to anything said about TR - "Reoffending rates have been too high for too long, and we must act now to turn the tide on this unacceptable problem".

This on the BBC website:-

Changes to the way offenders are supervised in England and Wales may have contributed to two murders, says the probation officers' union. Napo said that in one case a man who killed his partner then himself had been under the supervision of an "overworked" trainee officer.

The union urged the government to halt the changes, which involve contracting out the monitoring of some offenders. The Ministry of Justice said it would "robustly" contest the allegations.

By early next year, private firms and voluntary groups will be responsible for the supervision of 200,000 low- and medium-risk offenders. As part of the changes, offender management was split between different agencies six months ago. But Napo says that move as well as staff shortages are putting public safety at risk.

In an 18-page letter to Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, the union highlights a recent case of one offender "with a history of domestic violence" who went on to murder his partner before taking his own life. It claims the trainee allocated to undertake home visits to the man was "too overworked" to visit every four months as required.

Another probation officer was "unable to spend sufficient time working with an offender", the letter alleges, because of an "excessive caseload". "Left without suitable supervision, the offender committed a murder while under supervision of the CRC," it added.

Community Rehabilitation Companies - or CRCs - will supervise low- and medium-risk offenders under Mr Grayling's plans. The contracts are worth about £450m a year over seven years.

The union is concerned staff working for the CRCs do not have full access to offenders' records to assess the risk they pose. The union pointed to a case in which a probation officer was sexually assaulted on a visit, and said that "defects in the ICT system" prevented her seeing a "risk flag that the offender should not be seen alone by female officers".

In his letter, Napo general secretary Ian Lawrence said the union did not believe the MoJ had enough evidence "to show that it is safe to proceed" with the transfer of shares in the CRCs to the winning bidders. 

But a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the department had tested its changes to the system at "every stage". We will be robustly defending the allegations made by Napo and expect new providers to be in place and delivering services by early 2015," the spokeswoman added. "Reoffending rates have been too high for too long, and we must act now to turn the tide on this unacceptable problem. "It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing."

PSR Special

It all started with a casual throwaway line in Saturday's blog post:-

Finally, I continually hear depressing news regarding increasing numbers of judges who are willing to sentence for quite serious matters without the need for full probation reports. The Recorder of a major northern city apparently feels there's no problem and it's much quicker and cheaper to weigh off a manslaughter charge on an FDR. It's so short-sighted and unprofessional. I cannot help but wonder if we've been wasting our time over the years and if they ever really understood the purpose of a full PSR.......   

I share your concerns vis a viz full PSR and wonder where we are going with this trend? I was passing through a Court last week and was told that the Judge is now sentencing without ANY report!

It's quite clear where it is going...removal of reports altogether. It was proposed a long time ago and is not far off being implemented. The removal of legal representation and then the pre sentence report...all part of a plan..the rise of the rich and the punishment of the poor.

I'm not so worried about FDRs as long as they are done on an adjournment, in fact I have seen some better, more detailed FDRs than full reports. It's the oral reports based on short interview with defendant in court with limited CPS papers & no Children's Services or police checks. Someone the other day said that DV was the fault line running through TR & I couldn't agree more yet some courts are requesting & getting oral reports in DV cases. This is so, so wrong & colleagues in NPS should be refusing to do them in any case where there is a victim at risk of harm. 

Under TR unless checks are done or diversity factors such as mental health or learning disabilities are picked up at PSR stage the chances are they never will by CRC. And the reality is that in an interview in court, generally under 30 mins, checks won't be made & diversity won't be explored.

A little bit harsh on those of us in CRCs!! We're still perfectly competent members of staff, you know. I would agree that failure to pick things up at PSR stage makes life for supervising officers significantly more difficult, however. We are getting an increasing number of cases through with reports that have significant gaps in them, many of which are resulting in wholly unsuitable orders being made.

Male with mental age of 8 sentenced to Supervision and ASAR requirement (alcohol module) - sentenced via FDR - should be interesting!!!!

Sorry I didn't mean to infer that CRC colleagues weren't up to the job far from it! My concern is in the point you make about inappropriate orders being made such as someone with a learning disability being placed on a group or domestic abuser simply being given stand alone UPW with no opportunity to address offending behaviour. Also I am well aware that some of the new CRC will push to have service users pushed off to voluntary sector or for reductions in reporting requirements to reduce costs & Max profits. If diversity issues aren't flagged up at PSR it makes it more likely the incorrect order will be made or leave the CRC, at best, playing catch up.

For cases where custody's inevitable I've always scratched my head at wondering what the point of a 3 week adjournment was apart from giving Judge background information on the defendant and background on the circumstances surrounding the offence. I always thought that we were duplicating the defence barristers work. So, I can see the point of these types of cases not having a report. With regards to FDRs on all other cases I'd say is hit and miss. I'm coming across a lot of 'skeleton tickbox' type ones and to me they're a bit pointless. 

Surely the essential point of the full PSR is to bring a probation officer's expertise and analysis to the party, and which gives perspectives which invariably the defence solicitor and barrister will not have picked up on. I've lost count of the times I've had to lead them by the hand and point out factors they've missed that could be used as mitigation for example. Learning Disability is something that often gets missed in my experience, and mental health issues. 

Then there's the role the report plays in informing the prison and subsequent probation staff about the person in order to assist sentence planning. Finally, as you say, information regarding the offence and helping to put that into the context of the person and the reasons for the offence commission.

The trouble is a lot of this was clearly far too nuanced for judges who seem have got it into their head that the PSR was a defence document designed to try and argue against custody and therefore wasn't necessary if custody was going to be inevitable. And before anyone says what about OASys - you know my views on that pile of useless crap! (JB)

All I can think of is that defence reps don't pick up on things, then that is not Probation's problem and like you said we're not here to mitigate for them. Why are we doing their job? The judges have sentencing guidelines so again, no reason for Probation to get involved in that and I had a short intake of breath when you suggested that the PSR could be of benefit to prison staff for sentence planning - there are OMs inside who should be doing that - why should a field team OM or court PO write a report to help inform sentence planning when the person is going to be sitting in prison for +12mths, prison should be doing it surely? The courts is one area I do think Probation could be a bit leaner staff wise and I appreciate I'm probably in the minority with this.

"Why are we doing other peoples jobs?" It's a good question, but I've been doing just that ever since I started out as a green probation student on a practice placement! I've always seen my job as a PO as applying sticking plaster to try and repair damage and failings everywhere, for the benefit of clients and on behalf of the state. A sort of catchall service of last resort. (JB)

The point about a PSR is that if done well it captures the situation before the defendant's uncertainty is removed by the sentencing decision and especially the details - length - financial orders - conditions of supervision. And not just the defendant's attitude but that of those closest to him and sometimes the wider supports, such as an employer.

In some cases it will make not a jot of difference to a sentence - but it might identify some feature that is immediately relevant post sentence, such as the practical - elderly parent needing to have care provision, dog, children and more. Then there are psychiatric situations, it maybe that there are grounds for a forensic psychiatric report that are not obvious but make all the difference in the long run. Then there are the things like vulnerability to suicide so that immediate steps can be taken to alert those who can minimise the risk.

Then, of just as a great a value is the immediate post sentence interview - the attitude on first discovering the actual sentence and the difference between the attitude when the situation was uncertain, of defendant and those closest.

It maybe rare to get good opportunity to do it all but when it happens it can be vital to the relationship between the client and the whole probation service and especially the one to one relationship. That stuff is MOST relevant in custody cases when parole is under consideration.

That some have posted here that it is unnecessary is sadly revealing about the style of probation now practiced and accepted as good enough in some places. I suspect the deterioration in this aspect of the work is partly responsible for the increased suicide numbers in prison I stress partly - other things are always more relevant, because if a probation worker did not detect a high risk, somewhere else in the chain of reception someone should have had the opportunity to tease out a higher suicide risk - if they interview properly - hopefully the old - 'you're not thinking of doing anything silly' type questions - that I heard when working in a prison are no longer asked?

I was nodding all the way through reading through this. You are right. I trained in 2005 through DipPS route which is much later than a lot of my colleagues. But reading through some of the other comments today about not needing PSRs it leaves me wondering have things really changed so much in the last 10 years? I'm feeling very old. And sad.

PSRs - the most important document in the world of probation. That was how I was introduced to report writing in 1992. My apprenticeship In the profession began as a Probation Officer's assistant. One of my earliest tasks was to read every report prepared for the court on my MPSO (money payment supervision order) duty days. Later I was asked to help with the gatekeeping of Crown Court reports (as proofreader). Those experiences ensured my depth of knowledge. When I trained, sponsored by the Home Office, report writing skills were revered and central to the role, i.e psr, parole, deferred sentence, etc. Judges AND magistrates (lay & stipendiary) read and acknowledged the contents of reports. Often I was asked to attend to speak to a report in both court settings, being quizzed in open court by judges about my proposals on numerous occasions as they worked towards their decisions. Equally I could find myself in chambers with a judge & both barristers, being offered a cup of tea & being asked to explain my thinking for a particularly radical or uncommon proposal.

Those were the days when probation officers were respected professionals. Sadly those days are long gone. I agree with much of what you say on the PSR issue. Standard PSRs are incredibly important for more serious offences, and certainly for complex offenders, and over the years I have spent much time liaising with relevant partners in order to produce a thorough and comprehensive report. I always explained to offenders that the report aimed to be objective, and was intended to assist the Court in the sentencing exercise. Unfortunately, many report writers have tended to argue unrealistically against custody in the proposal, hence the perception amongst many players in the court process that the PSR is a second tier defence.

The assumption made is that all reports were arguments against custody. Some of the best & more complex reports I ever read were acknowledgements that jail was all but inevitable, nevertheless offered several pages of insight, observation & suggestion as to how that jail term might usefully be spent - I think its now labelled 'sentence planning' - with ideas as to what might happen post-jail. Nothing new under the sun, its now been fragmented into a series of computer based codes and tickboxes designed by logarithms & formulae & 1s & 0s. 

The guidance was to offer the Courts alternatives to custody, not to argue against custody, particularly if custody was inevitable. The report content was to provide objective analysis and offer suggestions towards the possibility and viability of reducing the risk of continued offending. The report was read by the person it concerned, consequently the content could and did have considerable impact on their response and subsequent ' engagement 'with the sentence. Now many reports are subjective, ridden with all the negatives the interviewer could 'identify' from the interview. Every possible 'risk' extrapolated, every 'deficit' highlighted. Proportionate sentencing proposals an apparent mystery.

I had the impression from an anon comment in a recent post that to current court staff their role was about second guessing what Mags might be thinking and making proposals accordingly. Is there no challenging of Mags thinking nowadays and getting sentences down tariff? As an old dinosaur PSR writing was the best part of the job for me. Of course you have to acknowledge cases where custody is likely, but a good report can often affect length of sentence, or on occasion lead to a judge taking a chance on a non custodial disposal. Good, persuasive report writing seems to be an increasingly lost art. 

Information that I heard about from someone is that one and a half hours is the allocated time allowed for fast delivery reports. A ridiculously small amount of time as in many areas OASys generated reports are the exception rather than the rule. Most report writers would spend at least five hours on an FDR from reading CPS, researching past response to supervision, reading previous reports, liaising with other agencies etc. The real issue is that if, as a report writer, you spend longer than an hour and a half in total you don't get and credit on the current work load management tool. 1.5hrs is totally unrealistic. 

Oral reports are being done in one hour fifteen minutes, including interview and delivery, it can be done as the court team manager attests...it is however a tick box report with no annotation.

All that's happened is that the full assessment process has moved from pre to post-sentence. The majority of this work will have to be undertaken by CRC colleagues given the way probation has been split. Frustrating for clients who previously would have spilt all about their lives to the PSR author. So they do a bit at court, a bit at induction and then more at the first interview with their supervising officer. Life used to be so simple when you carried on working with those clients that you'd interviewed for a PSR. How would we feel if we kept being pushed from pillar to post before being settled in a relationship with a line manager for example? The system developed in probation which I joined thirty plus years ago is so client unfriendly.

I wrote extensively on the subject of PSR's in the early days and plucked the following from the archives:-

Wednesday, 15 September 2010

The end of the PSR is Nigh

One of the most enjoyable and satisfying parts of the job used to be writing court reports. When I started they were called Social Enquiry Reports, but they were renamed Pre Sentence Reports some time ago. The astute will not have failed to notice the use of the past tense. The concept is quite straight forward - following a guilty plea or finding of guilt, the sentencers request a probation officer to interview the defendant, assimilate all rel event information and provide in written form background information about the defendant, their current situation, the circumstances of the offence and most importantly a suggestion as to possible sentence and with reasons. The probation officer has a privileged opportunity of speaking directly to the sentencers from an independent viewpoint and as such can be extremely persuasive in being able to influence the eventual outcome. Not surprisingly therefore this has always been seen as a key skill and most officers take enormous pride in producing high quality reports that result in courts following their recommendations. In the past it was felt to be good practice to attend court in person with either a controversial, unusual or brave recommendation in order to be able to re-inforce it on oath if necessary. Sadly, hardly any of this is true nowadays.

Several years ago I was offered the opportunity of moving out of a field office and into a Court Officers post. Many, including myself, felt that this meant being put out to grass, but I needed a break from the front line and I was flattered when management said they wanted 'a safe pair of hands; someone who looked smart and could talk whilst stood on their feet'. It didn't take long to discover just how far the art of PSR writing had deteriorated. On a daily basis I found myself having to try and explain, correct and apologise for colleagues poor quality work. How could this have possibly happened? To a large degree, but not completely, the answer is OASys - the all-singing, all-dancing universal offender assessment tool. Unbelievably nowadays this mammoth, brain-numbing, 90 page computer form is required to be completed before the magic button 'prepare report' is pressed. Yes, modern-day PSR's are computer-generated, so it really shouldn't be that surprising if many of them are unintelligible, riddled with repetition and impossibly 'cranky' sentences. Old timers like myself gave up long ago trying to edit the result into something readable and just throw the whole lot away and start again. More recent officers say they haven't got the time, and to be honest why should they if the system is that crap? What beats me is how did any intelligent human being think that this was a good way to write a report for court? As an aid to sentencing, I think the days of the PSR are numbered. Not surprisingly, the 'authors' never seem to show up at court either. Me? - I do on occasion, just out of sheer devilment.