Written evidence from the Judges at Birmingham
Crown Court (PB 50)
Are magistrates and judges able to utilise fully
the requirements that can be attached to community sentences?
How effectively are these requirements being delivered?
In Birmingham judges are in a position to utilise
a wide range of activity and programme requirements—Sex
Offenders, Domestic Violence (IDAP), Alcohol (LIAP) Substance
Abuse (OSAP), Drug Rehabilitation, Think First and others. The
range of programmes and activities theoretically available is
far wider than it was 10 (or even five) years ago. We say "theoretically"
because there is often a long waiting time for offenders to take
their place on any given programme. To be delivered effectively
many of the programmes require significant resources in terms
of probation officer time. Delivery of the programme has to be
by properly trained and experienced officers. The problem often
facing the sentencing judge is a lack of information as to when
the person to be sentenced will be able to undertake the recommended
programme. This is a problem that has been recognised locally
with steps being taken to improve the information provided to
sentencing judges.
More fundamental in our view is the need to fund
and resource interventionist programmes adequately. We do all
that we can to avoid the short custodial sentence ie a sentence
of less than 12 months. For that to be possible we need to have
a full range of alternative disposals available at the time of
sentencing. We recognise also that crimes driven by drug or substance
abuse often can be met best with a sentence designed to tackle
the underlying cause of the offence. Again that requires proper
funding of such sentences.
We are able to monitor the effectiveness of the delivery
of programmes forming part of our sentences by requiring a progress
report (say) six months into the order. Any sentence with a DRR
attached is monitored by a judge (not necessarily the sentencing
judge) via the monthly review process involving the attendance
of the offender at court.
In Birmingham we maintain close liaison with the
probation service, principally via the senior officer based at
the Crown Court. Such liaison is essential for effective use of
community sentence requirements. The presence of a team of probation
officers at the Crown Court is a vital part of that process.
The other form of requirement attached to a community
order will have a "payback" or punitive element. Curfew
requirements with electronic monitoring are simple to use and
give rise to no apparent difficulty in delivery. Any unpaid work
requirement plainly is more resource intensive. There is some
anecdotal evidence of such requirements not being delivered adequately.
This is not due to any deficiency on the part of the probation
service itself. Rather it is attributable to failings on the part
of outside providers.
What role should the private and voluntary sectors
play in the delivery of probation services?
Plainly there is a role for outside bodies—particularly
the voluntary sector—to play in delivering probation services.
Many programmes or activity requirements depend upon voluntary
bodies such as alcohol and drugs advisory groups to provide the
resources to underpin the programmes/requirements. Such bodies
have expertise in particular fields on which the probation service
can and does draw.
Whether there is a significant role for the private
sector is more problematic. In relation to unpaid work, for instance,
a vital part of the sentence must be the understanding that any
failure to do the work properly will lead to breach proceedings.
The anecdotal evidence referred to above is of private contractors
not reporting such failures. The probation service understands
the essential element of public confidence in such sentences.
That understanding may not be at the forefront of the third party
providers' thinking.
Does the probation service have the capacity to
cope with a move away from short custodial sentences?
Public confidence in the criminal justice system
requires that any alternative to a short custodial sentence must
be rigorous. Such rigour requires proper resources. As presently
funded we doubt whether our local probation service could cope
with a large scale shift in the emphasis in sentencing. In reality
there needs to be a significant movement of funds from the prison
service but that is something beyond the remit of this response.
Could probation trusts make more use of restorative
justice?
At the level of case dealt with in the Crown Court,
restorative justice requires significant preparatory work both
with the offender and (probably more important) with the victim.
In principle restorative justice in this context may be a desirable
outcome but the impact on resources—the police as well as
the probation service—has to be taken into account.
Does the probation service handle different groups
of offenders appropriately?
It does. The service itself is diverse in terms of
ethnicity and gender and can deal with any offender on a sound
basis.
High risk offenders are monitored closely. The Probation
Liaison Judge at this court sits on a panel called the Serious
Further Offences Review Panel. Gun crime and gang related offending—which
remains of significance in the West Midlands—is given specific
and close attention.
Is the provision of training adequate?
This issue largely is not within the knowledge of
the judiciary. However, in Birmingham part of the training process
involves trainees coming to court to observe lists of cases being
sentenced and to discuss the sentencing outcomes with the judge.
That is valuable for both sides.
September 2010
| 
