It has come as some surprise to many that throwing an imitation custard pie can result in a prison sentence, but such can be the outcome of our sentencing system here in the UK. Admittedly the offence did take place in the Mother of Parliaments, before an international audience of millions and the victim was a defenceless 80 year-old billionaire media mogul.
As a consequence, the perpetrator found himself appearing before one of the most senior remunerated JP's in the land at Westminster Magistrates Court - it just doesn't have the same ring as Bow Street does it? Interestingly, it's reported that the District Judge announced that she was minded to award a community sentence before adjourning three days for a Pre-Sentence Report. One can only speculate on the content and quality of this report as it subsequently resulted in a prison term instead.
Now I have previously written about my concerns regarding the quality of PSR's and that many are now being prepared by unqualified Probation Service's Officers. Even more worrying is the edict from the National Offender Management Service that far too many full PSR's are being written, thus posing a costly and unnecessary burden upon the Probation Service. Again, I have written at length that the reason for this is due to the fact that full PSR's have to be written through OASys and as a result preparation time has escalated to 7.5 hours.
This situation led to the widespread introduction of Fast Delivery Reports a few years ago which do not have OASys involvement and can be routinely prepared by PSO's. Well things have now moved on apace because NOMS now insist that all PSR's are written in FDR format, unless there are exceptional reasons to warrant the preparation of a costly full report that requires a three week adjournment. The distinction between FDR and SDR has been removed, thus everything is now termed a PSR even if prepared 'on the back of an envelope' in an hour.
I had not realised until quite recently that all probation budgets have been reduced since last year in order to reflect the fact that far fewer full reports will be prepared from now on. The whole 'dumbing-down' of the PSR as a vital part of our Criminal Justice System is an astonishingly retrograde step that again seems to have gone unnoticed by the recent Justice Affairs Committee report. But then I do begin to wonder whether we've been wasting our time over the years because sentencers don't seem to have noticed the steady decline in PSR quality. I take the deafening silence, especially from the Crown Court, to indicate satisfaction. Or may be as some of us suspected, only the final paragraph ever got read?
Totally agree with you Jim.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sad truth that the FDR has become the 'standard' report that is being submitted to the Courts. I find it increasingly shocking to see these poorly constructed largely descriptive documents being prepared on very complex and often 'dangerous' offences. They remove the professional assessment of the individual and reduce them to a selection of closed boxes. I see numerous reports on domestic violence being completed via the FDR, despite there being no relationships 'section'! and I don't even want to begin on the suitability of such a template to provide the Court with an accurate assessment of risk in relation to sexual offences.
Mind you that being said in the ever cyclical world of Probation we now see ourselves leaving the quantitative realms of targets and hopefully heading towards a more qualitative approach. I even hear whispers that the generate report option in OASys is soon to be removed, hopefully this will allow officers to go back to writing informative reports for the Courts rather than the 'rush jobs' that litter the bench.
'One can only speculate on the content and quality of this report '
ReplyDeleteI would assume that a lack of remorse, inability to admit that he had done wrong, and a comment along the lines of 'I'd do it again given the opportunity' featured heavily in the report.
While such sentiments are fine down the pub after sentencing, nobody told the poor guy the rules of the game or how to play.
One of the strengths left in our justice system is the ability of sentencers to nuance the sentence to reflect the degree of public revulsion. What this man did was disgraceful. It wasn't an act on impulse. It was planned to gain maximum publicity for himself. Not a good case on which to base an argument regarding the quality of PSRs.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 22:41 on 5/8 - I take it the "this man" to whom you refer is Mr Murdoch.
ReplyDeleteVery droll. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Mr Murdoch and his media empire nothing can justify the assailant's action. And it left Mr M holding the high ground. Assuming the assailant had any motive other than his own publicity it must count as a pretty impressive own goal. But I digress.
ReplyDelete