Written evidence from Raymond Ashley JP
(PB 06)
1. Are Probation Services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1.1 My contact with Northumbria Probation Service
(NPS) as a sentencer has been very mixed. Bail hostel facilities
are often limited and unavailable when needed. Young Offender
Team (YOT) has limited resources, and NPS appears to be over worked.
The Probation Service does provide a good service to the courts,
but the set up seems over complicated and "management"
heavy.
2. How effectively are probation trusts operating
in practice? What is the role of the probation service in delivering
"offender management" and how does it operate in practice?
2.1 Providing information to the court to facilitate
decisions about bail or custody is usually good. The provision
of pre-sentence reports varies from report to report, depending
on the writer, with some reports being of poor quality. The delivery
of community sentences and the supervision of prisoners post-release
seem good but "breeches" appear to be on the rise.
2.2 I feel confident to use the proposals in
most reports, but concerned at the lack of will to imprison where
necessary. Too much political pressure influencing the content
of the reports, and a bias in favour of community punishment when
imprisonment is an appropriate punishment.
2.3 For most magistrates, custodial sentences
are a last resort in many cases, except were the offence is so
serious that "only custody" is appropriate.
2.4 Where custody is appropriate, a report should
NOT be required as justice is delayed. In many cases the report
gives grounds for appeal because of its content.
3. Are magistrates and judges able to utilise
fully the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
3.1 No, because the resources are limited due
to under funding for some. Drug rehabilitation has limited success,
but is expensive to deliver and requires review in court (Is this
good use of Court time?).
3.2 I overheard a conversation on the local "Metro"
light railway system where three youths (two male, one female)
were discussing their respective orders. The gist of the conversation
was that the YOT members were easy to persuade to a course of
action, did not "push" issues very hard, did not strictly
enforce issues and only reluctantly "breeched" the order.
The youths did not find the order "punishing" in any
way, just sometimes inconvenient. They were amused at the attempts
to "reform" them.
3.3 In my 21 years on the bench, I can recall
many times where discussion was about confidence in the NPS delivery
of services rather than if the community sentence was appropriate.
There are still doubts about the service delivery. These doubts
are based on "breech" courts, and the mistakes NPS makes
in court.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
4.1 Any appropriate role providing it is well
monitored and not more expensive than provision "in house".
4.2 Example—G4S provide electronic monitoring
which is usually good, but once set up they are loathed to change
anything even if it is within their remit. Breeched young man
for smoking at bottom of yard which was out of range of receiver—court
ordered range to be extended slightly to allow this activity (three
metres).
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
5.1 No. Limited resources. Already over stretched.
6. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
6.1 Only if victims want this. In most cases
they do not want any contact and should not be persuaded to because
it is expedient.
7. Does the probation service handle different
groups of offenders appropriately, eg women, young adults, black
and minority ethnic people, and high and medium risk offenders?
7.1 I have no information and therefore no views
on this matter.
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
8.1 Difficult to answer. When they are good they
are very good, and when they are bad they are terrible.
8.2 Training is an issue that needs to be addressed
in detail by the Probation Service but with lots of input from
other agencies. Use of technology could be improved.
September 2010
| 
