The role of the Probation Service - Justice Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 27 July 2011