Justice Affairs Committee 10

Thursday 7th June saw the Committee taking evidence from a further range of people, including John Thornhill Chairman of the Magistrates Association. I was particularly struck by this opening exchange:

Q556 Karl Turner: Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen. Very generally then, I wonder whether the Probation Service has changed over the last five or 10 years. It was initially established to provide a service to the magistrates’ court. Has that changed in any way?

John Thornhill: In terms of whether those services have changed, the changes are that there have been developments and improvements in those services. You refer in the document here to a reduction in custodial sentences over a particular period of time. I think that is partly due to the fact that a wider range of services have been provided for magistrates to impose community orders with attendant programmes. Also, the quality of reports and assistance that is now given in the courts has significantly developed over the years and it is now possible if we are lucky enough to have a probation officer in court-we are in Liverpool-to engage in a dialogue and debate with the probation officer, the defendant and defendant’s representative about what might be appropriate penalties, punishments or disposals that could be used in the courts. So, yes, we believe that the Probation Service has considerably improved in the last 10 years. It has changed its focus. It was social services at one time. It is no longer that. It is a deliverer of sentences and, overall, a very positive deliverer of sentences.

With the greatest respect to Mr Thornhill, I don't think this paints a fair representative picture. He refers to the quality of reports and assistance in court having been 'developed' over the years and being lucky enough to have a 'probation officer' in court. Well I think the trend in reports over the period has been one of steady decline, both in the quality of SDR's, the inexorable move towards inferior FDR's and the removal of Probation Officers and their replacement with less experienced and often unqualified Probation Services Officers. 

Later on he says:-

We talked about fast delivery reports. We welcome that. In my court, where we have probation in attendance, I can get a fast delivery report in one or two hours and deal with the offender. That is in the best interests of justice. But what about the court where the Probation Service is 30 or 40 miles away? What we need to do is look at how we can use the Probation Service effectively to get a fast delivery report, even if it means using modern technology via video links, so that the court can sentence expeditiously and in a proportionate way.

Of course there is a place for FDR's, but surely this was the time for the Chair of the Magistrates Association to flag up concern that NOMS have recently instructed Probation Trusts to make the FDR the standard pre-sentence report. Probation Officers are finding it increasingly difficult to justify to their managers the preparation of a full SDR, for which 7.5 hours is allowed, rather than an FDR, requiring only 2.5 hours maximum. There is growing evidence that officers who attempt to challenge the use of the cheaper and inferior report are being bullied and pressurised by managers. Unless this issue is brought up as a matter of urgency, SDR's will all but disappear and serious offences will be dealt with on the basis of a 'tick-box' FDR.