A particularly heavy evenings imbibing seems to have left me so tired and emotional that there was a significant danger of there being no post today. However, a glance at the front page of the Daily Mail in the corner shop has rectified this. 'Judge slams soft sentencing options' screams the headline. Judge Julian Lambert sitting at Bristol Crown Court has taken the opportunity of making his views on sentencing guidelines public as a result of hearing a case of domestic burglary. He says that he was 'forced' into giving a community sentence rather than immediate custody by a combination of the guidelines and the probation service Pre Sentence Report that advocated 80 hours of Unpaid Work.
Now I have previously stated that commenting on cases without full knowledge is often unwise and possibly unlikely to get us very far in terms of a sensible debate. But in anticipation of the furore this type of story tends to stoke up, I think I might make an exception, particularly as I think it raises certain key issues for me. The first is the type of offence. This was an instance where the occupant of the house disturbed the hooded burglar and as a consequence they ran off, but with little of value.
As someone who has written a good number of PSR's in his time, this type of offence is reasonably unusual as burglars normally go to some lengths to make sure properties are not occupied. This is not just so that they run less risk of getting caught, it is because burglary of an occupied dwelling is a significantly aggravating feature. Being disturbed by the occupant aggravates the offence even further and to me puts it straight into the custody category, even if no assault took place. There may have been a victim statement and if there was, it seems most unlikely to me that the victim was anything but shocked and traumatised by coming face to face with an intruder.
The second issue for me is that the author of the PSR spelt out the details of a suggested community sentence of 80 hours Unpaid Work, apparently as a stand alone order with no additional conditions. Although probation management has often suggested that this is acceptable PSR practice, I have always disagreed and refused to comply. I simply do not believe it is our place to be so prescriptive in suggesting sentencing options and it is only likely to result in irritating the sentencer. It was quite sufficient in my view to suggest and argue a case for Unpaid Work, if that was felt appropriate, without being insulting to a Crown Court Judge by having the temerity of specifying the number of hours.
This brings me on to the third issue of who the author was and what type of PSR was provided. Increasingly it is becoming clear that probation services are replacing full Standard Delivery Reports written by qualified Probation Officers with short format Fast Delivery Reports written by unqualified Probation Services Officers. Whilst this just might be deemed appropriate in Magistrates Courts, it is quite unacceptable in my view in the Crown Court. It would be interesting to know what sort of report was supplied in this case. Although I might think it has all the hallmarks of an inadequate FDR, such is the decline of PSR writing in general of late that it could indeed have been a full SDR written by a PO. I'd like to think not though.
Based on the information in the news report, but without the benefit of seeing the antecedant record or details of the offenders personal situation, I think I would have been recognising that custody was almost inevitable, but could possibly have been suspended if coupled with supervision. I remain surprised that no mention seems to have been made about the need for supervision, especially as alcohol appears to have been a problem. In the end the Judge awarded 240 hours Unpaid Work combined with a 6 month curfew, condition not to enter licenced premises for 12 months and supervision for 18 months. All quite understandable but still surprising in my view for burglary of an occupied dwelling. I think I can safely say the author of this report got it completely wrong and if ever there was a case for re-instating 'gate-keeping' for reports, this is it.
This is all down to the 'effective' proposals matrix, with 'effective' once again being more appropriately interpreted as 'cheap'!
ReplyDeleteJim, sorry to gatecrash the thread but I wondered if you'd seen this
ReplyDeletehttp://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/2011/01/and-another-thing-how-would-you.html
And had any thoughts about the comments by Loki?
betteroffout - No I hadn't got around to looking at the post - a young woman who got a 3 month suspended sentence and UPW for throwing a kitten out of a block of flats, killing it.
ReplyDeleteThese cases always arouse strong emotions and the comments from the PO confirm both this and why they need a reality check asap. Another career was suggested by someone.
Cruelty to animals can be an indicator of some much more serious issues and I would have strongly suggested a full PSR hopefully prepared by a less scary colleague.
Jim
"Another career was suggested by someone."
ReplyDelete:-)
It would appear in the NPS that diversity is warmly embraced.
ReplyDeleteExcept when it comes to other peoples' opinions.
I have no idea to what this refers?
ReplyDeleteIt refers to the reaction to Loki's comments.
ReplyDeleteAs a PO I can understand the reaction to some of Loki's comments. I entirely agree with the feeling of outrage and disgust at such behaviour, clearly unacceptable and it does evoke a strong emotional reaction. However in our role we have a responsibility to be fair and neutral. Proposals can and do vary according to individual assessment, and of course that will be influenced to an extent by our own beliefs and experiences. But we have a responsibility to set these (as much as we can) to one side, and where necessary discuss these cases with colleagues/SPOs to ensure a balanced and rational approach is taken. Flying solo and by-passing gate keeping to make a proposal on the back of an emotional response is of concern. If Loki had been the report writer in this case, fully explored the issues and various options available and still come to this conclusion then I would imagine the response would be quite different. But we must remember we are not judge, jury and executioner but rather we are here to provide a professional service to the courts. This cannot involve impulsive emotional reactions or we lose all credibility.
ReplyDeleteThats Just Me - thanks for that. You put it much better than I could.
ReplyDeleteJim
I wonder if this person had no pre-cons? As you point out, "most" people who commit dwelling burglaries go to considerable effort to avoid invading an occupied home. That would contribute to no Supervision, ATR etc being proposed. But, doesn't explain why such a low amount of hours was put forward for the court (and I agree, I suggest to the court they consider hours commensurate with their view of the seriousness of the offence - reports are there to assess & support sentencing) and why a curfew or exclusion wasn't proposed.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Daily Mail is known for under-reporting these thing. In the well-known case of the prolific offender appearing for 600 burglary offences (give or take & mostly TICs) the Mail chose to report that he was simply sentenced to 200 hours UPW. They failed to mention the 3 year CO, supervision and 3 other intensive requirements he was subject to...
Either way, it is frustrating to see these things.
And continually frustrating for me as an "unqualified" PSO to feel I am thought of as being incapable of writing an adequate assessment. Do you come across any FDRs that are well-written?
In theory, all our Crown Court FDRs are gate-kept (except I believe those prepared on the day by CDO's), but of course in practice it rarely happens. I see some appalling pieces of work that have gone before the Court and it's embarrassing.
However, equally, I see some excellent assessments by members of staff asked to go over and above their role. I have now lost count of the number of times PSO colleagues have been forced into writing proposals for IDAP - something we were once told we should not ever be doing. But the damn target for ODR/FDRs is now above 80% - what can the management do, when their jobs are on the line?
(also, hello & apologies for the long absence, I'm trying to catch up on your entries!)
Hello A177 and welcome back - I've missed you.
ReplyDeleteYou ask if I've ever seen a well written FDR? It's a tricky one because it's like being asked to compare apples and pears. FDR's have there place where there are minimal issues and the sentencer just needs to know if the defendant is ok for UPW for example. I am absolutely appalled that they're being used routinely at Crown Court where there are no sentencing limits.
You are absolutely right about IDAP - one of the clear boundaries between PO and PSO used to be concerning domestic violence - but this is being eroded everywhere and PSO's should be aware it will lead to tears eventually when a tragedy occurs and they are 'hung out to dry.'
If truth be known I'm very depressed about the situation and an inability to do anything about it. On the positive side it's refreshing to see the NAPO forums coming back to life.
Thanks for commenting.
Jim