Why Did She do It?

I guess it's not that often that journalists get the chance to report on one of their own and it's hard not to spot a slight note of glee from this report in the Welwyn and Hatfield Times about their former colleague Emma Smiter. She has just been convicted at Basildon Crown Court of Perverting the Course of Justice and Misconduct in Public Office, both of course very serious offences that will inevitably lead to a significant custodial sentence.

One can only speculate as to why a young journalist would give up that line of work to become a Police Community Support Officer instead and then decide it was a brilliant source of information to pass on to a former colleague in a press agency. The stories duly turned up in national dailies such as the Sun and Mirror. Possibly she thought she was merely furthering her journalistic career, or got a buzz out of stealing a march on her former colleagues on the local rag, or just needed the money?

Initially charged with breaches of confidentiality, she subsequently went on to compound her misdemeanors by thwarting an earlier trial by falsifying blogs in an attempt to show that the information was already in the public domain. This person clearly has some attitude and thinking deficits that a probation officer will no doubt have to get to grips with at some point. Which brings me to the main point of this post. I notice that the judge has adjourned her case for a month in order that a probation Pre Sentence Report can be prepared. Now this would not normally be at all noteworthy, but as I have previously posted, it is sadly becoming all too frequent that judges are sentencing either without any report at all in custody cases, or adjourning overnight for a so-called Fast Delivery Report to be prepared by a Probation Services Officer.

From what I have gleaned from press reports of this case - and it is remarkable just how far and wide it has been reported (just try googling her name) - this is just the sort of case where a well researched and written PSR could begin to get to the bottom of this person's behaviour and inevitable problems. This is vital of course because it can influence heavily the sentence that is passed. Amongst things that set alarm bells ringing for me is that I notice she is the mother of a young daughter and felt it appropriate to tell the court that her father is a serving senior police officer in the Hertfordshire force. What on earth was the motive for that? I bet he's really pleased with that bit of information now widely in the public domain.

The point I'm making is just how important it is that the quality of full PSR's is maintained and not downgraded, dumbed down or worse circumvented. For whatever reason, this young 26 year-old woman has made a comprehensive attempt at screwing her life up and it's only the skills of the probation service that can help her sort it out in my view. She is not the usual sort of probation client, but in a way precisely because of that serves to make a stronger case for making absolutely sure that all convicted defendants at Crown Court have the benefit of a full and well prepared Standard Delivery Report by a qualified officer at time of sentence. This is why probation reports were invented in the first place, so why are we moving away from this once routine practice?