Invisible Probation

It's always interesting to see what other people are blogging about and I notice that recently the Justice of the Peace blog picked up on a case going through York Magistrates Court and the fact that the Bench refused to impose reporting restrictions. I don't find that at all surprising in a shoplifting case, but I do find it astonishing that the probation service is not mentioned once in three newspaper reports by the York Press.

Actually there are a number of unusual aspects to this story as in my experience the local paper gave up routinely attending court some time ago. Obviously they turn up if they get wind of a notorious case or a tip off about a strange or unusual angle, but in this instance it appears that the middle-aged defendant deliberately approached the local press. It seems that such was her desperation and possibly vulnerable emotional state on being released from prison homeless that she poured her heart out to a local journalist 'in a cry for help.' 

"The 51-year-old, who was jailed after pleading with a policeman to arrest her for shoplifting, claimed she had no choice but to steal because it could be up to six weeks before she received any benefits after coming out. “I wouldn’t survive otherwise,” she said. “I know that admitting this to The Press means I am at risk of being arrested and jailed yet again, but I have nothing to lose. I have been to jail perhaps 25 to 35 times. I hate it there, it is absolutely vile, and it’s costing the taxpayer almost £1,000 a week to keep me there, but sometimes when it’s freezing, it’s better than on the streets."

Apparently during the course of her time in prison the woman had been in contact with a local parish priest begging for help and the congregation were in the process of assisting. This, together with the newspaper article and some competent mitigation, seems to have led the court to decide on a six week deferment. When she duly appeared for sentencing, she was given a Conditional Discharge  and sent on her way.

What I find astonishing in all this is the complete absence of any mention of the Probation Service. All courts have access to probation Court Duty Officers and having served as a CDO in recent time, I can say that I could not imagine not being involved in a case like this at some stage. I would have made it my business to start enquiries in a pro-active way and if it had not come to my attention, the usher, solicitor or reporter would all have been keen to make me aware, even before the case was called. It would be blindingly obvious to everyone that this woman had a whole host of problems and needed some help.  
  
Now I know it's unwise to report on any case without having access to all the information and it's just possible that the probation service was involved, but even if they were, sadly I'm beginning to feel they were of little use. I can almost hear someone saying 'there is nothing we can do; we're not a welfare agency; she's low risk of harm; she's not suitable for a programme; etc etc. It makes me very depressed about the direction in which we are going as here we have a woman in her 50's, homeless, probably with some mental health issues and regularly going to prison for shop thefts. How come this is not part of the remit of the modern Probation Service? She needs to be on Probation supervision and in my court I think she would have been, whatever the mealy-mouthed management guidelines had to say about it.