Written evidence from the Bench and the
Probation Liaison Committee Chairmen in Northumbria (PB 15)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stated below is the consensus view of the bench and
probation liaison committee chairmen who serve the ten benches
within Northumbria. The response is intentionally brief. The magistrates
were made aware of the select Committee's forthcoming review following
routine liaison communications with the Northumbria Probation
Service's Trust (NPT). The magistrates wish to place on record
before the Committee their appreciation of the high standards
of service to Northumbrian magistrates' courts over many years.
For reasons set out below, magistrates in the area have a high
degree of confidence in the expertise and experience of the trust's
staff and the effective service delivery provided by the NPT which
they hope the Select Committee will recognise and will enable
to be sustained.
1. Are probation services currently commissioned
in the most appropriate way?
1.1 From discussions with senior members of the
NPT it is apparent that for some time the service has been under
considerable financial pressure. Providing the courts with high
standards of service and support whilst achieving value for money
has been a consistent and recurring theme of liaison meetings
at all levels in recent years. From the courts' perspective the
NPT coped effectively with the change from a local to a national
service and more recently to a probation trust; with regard to
service delivery these changes have been managed seamlessly. It
is apparent however that there remain concerns within NPT about
the funding system generally; particularly in relation to its
estate where prior to the establishment of a national service
it had a good track record with regard to locally managed and
owned properties.
1.2 The NPT has for a number of years offered
the courts a "mixed economy" of provision. Two of Northumbria's
Approved Premises (formerly Probation and Bail Hostels) are managed
by the Probation Trust and two by a charity, the St Vincent de
Paul Society. In practical terms these have constituted a single
level of service to the courts and all are well regarded for the
support and facilities provided.
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 NPT is involved at all stages of the criminal
justice process and the effective management of offenders. This
includes providing information to the court to facilitate decisions
about bail or custody, the provision of pre-sentence reports,
the delivery of community sentences and the supervision of prisoners
post-release.
2.2 The NPT has a well deserved excellent reputation
with the courts. Liaison arrangements have been consistently strong
over many years and were sustained during the period during which
such arrangements were no longer required as mandatory. This is
because they have always added value to the work of magistrates
and district judges. The NPT has also sustained a reputation for
doing well with regard to external scrutiny and inspections.
2.3 Confidence levels amongst the judiciary remain
high but are not taken for granted with annual feedback being
sought to ensure that service delivery to the courts remains high.
2.4 There is regular contact between HMCS and
the NPT at bench and area level. The NPT provides valued membership
of the Northumbria Criminal Justice Board's local delivery groups
(at local justice area/local authority/police command level) as
well as to the board itself. The service has a well justified
reputation for enthusiastically supporting inter-agency cooperation.
2.5 In recent years the service has established
a particularly strong track record with regard to the enforcement
of breaches community penalties ensuring that defaulters are brought
back before the court speedily to facilitate an appropriate level
of judicial oversight.
2.6 Northumbrian courts are amongst the lowest
users of custodial sentences in England and Wales. There is little
doubt that this is linked directly to the reputation of NPT for
providing community sentences of high quality which are managed
in a robust and professional manner.
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 In a context of finite resources the well
established liaison arrangements between NPT and the courts have
ensured that NPT has generally been in a position to provide an
appropriate range of options to meet the courts' needs.
3.2 Magistrates appreciate that due to financial
constraints the NPT is currently unable to provide the full range
of services to offenders living in the remote rural areas of Northumberland.
3.3 The NPT has always been willing to listen
to and if possible respond to sentencers' concerns. It is understood
that NPT sometimes requires the support of other agencies as well
as the courts. For example with regard to community order requirements
concerning drug and alcohol misuse or the provision of mental
health treatment support from health care providers is also needed.
3.4 Issues about service constraints on provision,
or changes or new developments are communicated in newsletter
to sentencers to keep them informed and to enable them to appreciate
the context in which decisions have been taken.
4. What role should the private and voluntary
sectors play in the delivery of probation services?
4.1 There is a well established and effective
system of offender management in Northumbria. This ensures that
resources are focused appropriately and risk of harm to the public
is addressed. The process requires inter-agency co-operation and
the sharing of information.
4.2 The Northumbria Criminal Justice Board has
an inter-agency team looking to streamline the administrative
processes in the local criminal justice system to promote efficiency,
reduce costs and improve speed of throughput.
4.3 It would be unfortunate if the quality of
such initiatives were to be undermined by the involvement of too
many bodies with possibly disparate interests and views. An unintended
consequence might be to make it more difficult to achieve economies
or to sustain standards. Magistrates would support the proposition
that using local knowledge and expertise the NPT should be in
a position to commission services from the private sector where
appropriate.
5. Does the probation service have the capacity
to cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
5.1 Sentencers would seek re-assurance that NPT
would be given the necessary resources to enable it to deal with
a greater number of offenders in the community than is currently
the case. To facilitate rehabilitation, offenders given a community
sentence rather than a short custodial sentence are likely to
be made subject to more than one order requirement with commensurate
costs.
5.2 In 2008 the rate of imprisonment in Magistrates
Courts cases was only 2.1% whereas the national average was 4%.
This reflects an established pattern. NPT already supervises a
higher risk group of offenders in the community than most other
areas of the country.
5.3 If more community sentencing by the courts
is to be encouraged, care will need to be taken to ensure that
additional community orders are made on offenders who otherwise
would received a custodial sentence and not on those who may have
received fines and discharges.
5.4. It would seem sensible for any targets to
reflect the existing sentencing patterns in individual trust areas.
Northumbrian courts are already infrequent users of short custodial
sentences. To expect a similar level of reduction in the use of
such sentences with courts at the other end of the sentencing
spectrum would not be realistic and could provoke an adverse reaction
from sentencers and others.
6. Could probation trusts make more use of
restorative justice?
6.1 It is understood that NPT works with victims
of sexual and violent offences where the offender has been sentenced
to at least 12 months in custody. Apparently the main barrier
to extending this work is the cost which would also inhibit an
expansion of this work into other areas; with more funding more
use could be made of these options.
6.2 In recent years Northumbrian magistrates'
courts have participated in international research with the Australian
National University and the University of Pennsylvania in relation
to voluntary pre-sentence restorative justice work. The initiative
produced disappointing results. When dealing with summary offences,
which by definition are low on the scale of seriousness, and which
in the vast majority of cases were not going to result in a custodial
sentence, there appeared to be insufficient incentives to motivate
offenders to participate. Also, in most cases, victims had "moved
on" and were disinterested. Success in the US seemed to reflect
a comparatively high use of custodial sentences and therefore
the tangible benefit to the offender of avoiding prison or receiving
a shorter prison term.
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 The NPS(T) has a well established track record
in this area and in particular in relation to offender management
and multi-agency public protection arrangements which from time
to time has involved work with HMCS staff and the courts (for
example in respect of "Prolific Priority Offenders").
Also, recently NPT has reviewed its approach with regard to dealing
with women offenders in the Northumbria area and been very supportive
to the recently implemented "Specialist Drugs Court"
in Newcastle upon Tyne.
8. Is the provision of training adequate?
8.1 From the courts' perspective the standards
of training provided to NPT staff manifests in a high quality
of service to local courts which is reflected in the confidence
shown in the service as well as the reports provided and community
sentences overseen.
September 2010
| 
